Talk:Daniel P. Dukes

Reliable Source and NPOV issues

The following sources have issues:

• dolphinproject.com This source is an activist organization, the specific article is listed as a Blog.
• Blackfish documentary is not a reliable source for the same reason above
• The Medical examiners information is a Primary source, and does not say "gnawed on the man's penis until it fell off"
• Orlando Weekly is barely a Reliable source, as there is no indication of the oversite that is given to the editors.

With the POV issue just looking at the sources we can see this article is not written from a Neutral POV. Also making claims such as "gnawed on the man's penis until it fell off" while this is not accurate according to the coroners report is also sensationalized. " Unwittingly, Dukes will forever be remembered as Tilikum’s second victim and SeaWorld’s first major incident" Memoria this memorializes the event in a way that is not neutral. Marine mammal trainer Ric O'Barry argued that Dukes was probably not near Tilikum's tank with any form of malicious intent, but instead that the nature-loving man was "fascinated" by the whale and wanted to visit it. He further argued, "I think the whale probably pulled [Dukes] down, held him underwater. I don't think they know how often we breathe. The problem is that the whales have nothing better to do, O'Barry explains. "They're bored. We literally bore them to death. It's like you living in the bathroom for your life." This whole section is an opinion from a man who was not there. There is no way he could know that Dukes was not there with malicious intent, or that he was pulled down and held underwater, also attributing human thoughts to an animal "I don't think they know how often we breathe," Stating that the first time significant coverage of his death extensively was in the documentary Blackfish is also an opinion. I know the article does actually say these are arguments from Ric O'Barry, the weight given to his arguments is undue and probably not relevant since he was not there.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that you could say these same things about quite a few Wikipedia articles; featuring opinions from "activist organizations" or from a documentary (which has been fact-checked and features numerous cited valid news sources) is not necessarily an affront to neutrality, although the article should have balanced content perhaps by more inclusion from SeaWorld's point of view, since their side of the story is only mentioned in passing. This could easily be done without actually deleting the article. This is a notable case as one of four orca-related deaths occurring in captivity, something which is rare and historically notable not merely as an activist talking point, but also in relation to animal behaviour. PetSematary182 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)