Talk:Vancouver Aquarium

"referred to as 'Vanaqua' by visitors?"

I've lived in Vancouver all my life and have never heard anyone refer to it as anything other than "the aquarium." Please either cite this or change it to "ambitious city planners refer to it as Vanaqua, believing the name to sound more appealing so as to cash in on more tourist dollars." Vanaqua... How utterly ridiculous. Jackmont Feb 5, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.34 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That is just a branding attempt by the aquarium. I've never heard anyone say Vanaqua - it's always The Aquarium.Bob98133 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and I don't even know if the city planners and aquarium PR people call it that. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newlogocolour.gif

Image:Newlogocolour.gif 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

needs references

I have gone through the beginning of this article, but really it sounds as if it were written by the PR department of the aquarium, full of excellent, largest, most important, and other unsupported weasel words. It really needs refernces and some balance. In just the first part, I made these changes:

1. Removed “one of the largest” – not true, many are larger – addressed in history section
2. Removed – “most important” – to whom, who says? Weasel word
3. Removed “well respected” – by whom – weasel words
4. Removed “aquarium is recognized” – by whom, weaseling
5. “first facility to incorporate professional naturalists” – added fact tag

Bob98133 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping maintain the neutrality of this article! As for the last point on your list, regarding the Vancouver Aquarium being the first to incorporate professional naturalists, I'm going to reword that to reflect that the Aquarium was the first to employ full-time naturalists who's sole job was to educate visitors in the galleries, while the London Fish House Zoo mentioned in the intro held open house educational events on certain days. AntarcticPenguin (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What is a "Weasel Word"? I have never heard of it. AX3L-7H3-DRGN (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Info from Aquarium inaccurate, biased

I have been looking over this article and it seems that information from the official Vancouver Aqurium website should be taken lightly. They tend to gloss over information and present their view of the facts. I don't think that web site is a reliable source of info.

For example, their website states that they are the first aquarium to have naturalists in the galleries. I added a reference that the first aquarium ever, built in part by the person who made up the word aquarium, had regular meetings of naturalists to discuss the exhibits. Their web site states that the sea otters Tinu and Elfin were orphaned as pups and implies tha the Aquarium rescued them. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this. They were found abandoned in Alaska and rescued by a local organization, but scientifically that says nothing about their parents, only that they didn't happen to be there at the time. These instances are sloppy writing to support an essentially commercial enterprise and should not be used as accurate info. The aquarium does publish some peer reviewed papers, so those would certainly be acceptible references, but their web site is just fluff to increase revenues. Bob98133 (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on your message above - I have made an edit to the 'naturalists' piece so that it should (hopefully) now reflect all view points more equally!

On another note, Tanu (spelled with an a) and Elfin were rescued as orphans by a marine animal rescue society in Alaska and were later transfered to the Aquarium after it was determined that they would not survive if released back to the wild. Marine mammal rescue societies are trained to determine if an animal is actually orphaned or not before intervening, so although it's possible that a mistake was made, it is extremely unlikely. I know that the literature to support this fact exists (at the very least, there would be some documentation at both the Aquarium and the Alaskan rescue centre, as well as with the Canadian DFO and possibly the US or Alaskan Depratment of Fish and Game), but finding it could be a chore.

And one final note - the Vancouver Aquarium is not a commercial enterprise. It certainly is not an unbiased source of information, but it is a not-for-profit society and thus concerned with meeting its mission statement/mandate, not profit. Again, this doesn't mean that everything they say is automatically perfectly unbiased, but their website is generally fairly good, especially for information regarding number of animals, programs, etc.

And thank you for working to make sure that this article is unbiased! AntarcticPenguin (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

why research in the conservation section?

There is no mention of research in this section, so why should it be included in subhead? It could be a separate section if there was content for it. Bob98133 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I see the word is there, but there is still no mention of why collecting information about whale movements qualifies as research. There are other facilities in BC that have done this longer and more thoroughly than the Vancouver Aquarium, such as Orcalab.Bob98133 (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand how collecting information about where whales live, where they travel, and what other whales they're travelling with qualifies as research, I don't know how to explain it to you. Moreover, whether Wikipedia editors are personally convinced of whether a research program is valuable or not has nothing to do with the project we're working on here, which is to fairly represent facts and opinions as reported by others. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on Animal Deaths

I have serious concerns NPOV concerns about the Animal Deaths section. It reads like an animal liberation article trying to make the aquarium sound like a death trap. It does not read like a neutral encyclopedia article. Part of the problem is that the section puts an emphasis on the deaths rather than the lives of the animals when in many cases the animals were more notable for their lives than their deaths as portrayed in reliable sources. If all of these animals were more notable for their deaths, then the section could, with cleanup for tone and factual accuracy, be true to the sources, but I don't think that's the case here. I don't have time to clean this up this morning, but it needs to be done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree this does stress the deaths, but immediately above it is a long list of the notable animals currently at the aquarium. Not indicating their source or disposition fails to take into account that most of the animals at the aquarium were wild caught and that many died while the aquarium was learning how to take care of them. It is notable if the aquarium decides to acquire a dolphin from a facility that purchases dolphins from the drive fishery. Anyhow, since most of this stuff is referenced, maybe we can find a balance for this section or some way to incorporate it in the article. This article always has read like an ad for the aquarium so a little balance would be welcome. Bob98133 (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the references, a good majority of the information contained in this section is either incorrect, misleading, or does not explain all the details that are relevant. It either needs to be removed, or be totally re-written to conform with Wikipedia policies. ThePointblank (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bob - I agree 100% that the aquarium has encountered lots of controversy in its history (much, much less so today now that it no longer keeps orcas), and this should be covered. Looking at this more closely, I also agree with ThePointBlank that the new Animal Deaths section contains some seriously incorrect and misleading information. For example, look at what the source10 picks for the pool of fame for the paragraph on Bjossa's calves says: "In her 21 years in Vancouver she gave birth three times, but had no success nursing her calves. All three died." Here's what the Wikipedia paragraph says: "In 1988, the orca Bjossa’s first baby died from starvation at the age of 22 days. In 1991, her second baby K’yosha died at the age of 97 days after repeatedly ramming the tank wall fracturing her jaw. In 1995, Bjossa’s third baby died after ten minutes. The baby’s dead body remained in the tank for several days. [19]" If this is true, we 'd need more footnotes on it because the one we have doesn't support it.

I'm not super-familiar with the aqaurium's history, however from what I know perhaps a good way to move forward would be to add a section on the history of orcas at the aquarium and a section on notable animals from the past. These sections could include successes, disasters, and criticisms.

For now, I'm going to remove the Animal Deaths section and copy it to a subpage here:Talk:Vancouver Aquarium/Animal deaths. In addition to the problems of unsubstantiated sourcing and notability mentioned above, a lot of it simply repeats information given previously in the article, such as the deaths of the aquarium's orcas. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Animal Deaths section (in addition to unreferenced causes of death) is that there is also no historical context for the deaths. In the 70's the approach to animals was quite different than the current approach. How do you balance animal deaths against historic practices and other variables such as animal age, and understood mortality rates? It's really hard to maintain balance when writing a list of deaths that spans four decades. If you read the history of orcas you can see that the first Orca in captivity was shot with a harpoon by the Aquarium. They were going to kill it and stuff it and put it on exhibit, but it didn't die, so they kept it alive. At the time it was pretty standard for people to kill any "blackfish" because that's just what you did because they were dangerous. So stuffing one was a good use. That was the first orca in captivity and you can argue that perceptions of the animal started to change starting with that first captivity. You can also argue the opposite, but that's the point, it's an argument and it's tricky to write that up in a balanced form.Scaredstupid (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Change to "Aquarium Facility" Section

I've made a fairly dramatic change to the "Aquarium Facility" section. Essentially, I've seperated each gallery in to a seperate subsection and slightly expanded the information contained within several of the new subsections.

If anyone else is able to further expand the information in these, that would be very helpful.

Also, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add some of the technical and behind-the-scenes information, if it's available. For example, how is the water pumped, heated, and cooled? What about offices for the many staff members the aquarium must have - where are they? I'm sure some of this information is out there somewhere, but right now most of the article - including my edits - focuses on the galleries and display animals. AntarcticPenguin (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a bad idea to add the info you suggest to this article. Water treatment, staffing, office locations, etc. have their own articles in which this may be appropriate, but it is fairly irrelevant here. Bob98133 (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that information about the technical aspects of the aquarium's operations would be appropriate in this article, since a seperate article like Water Systems at the Vancouver Aquarium seems a tad odd for an article title... And the info could provide another look at the scope of the aquarium, and potentially improve the article's quality!

But for now this is just an idea; something to think about. I'm not entirely convinced myself that it is a good idea, and I'm certainly sure how we would format that if it does get added...AntarcticPenguin (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding in-depth information about the internal systems of the Aquarium would seem to be a bit more technical than really necessary in a general encyclopedia article, actually; besides, it would need to be sourced, and I'm not sure where that information would have been published. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Some information given in the example would seem encyclipedic, such as the volume of water used, or types of filtration. YYC T Dawg (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename article to "Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre"

Upon living in Vancouver and working at this facility for a number of years, the aquarium is officially designated as the "Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre" (as seen here, here, and referenced here). I feel this renaming would improve the article by keeping the title updated and formal. Thoughts? 6675548 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)a

Disagree: The logo is Vancouver Aquarium, and the Website says Vancouver Aquarium, and the copyright of the Website is Vancouver Aquarium. This is obviously their "public face". I have added "officially the ...", but this really should be cited be something a bit more official than a Web page that disagrees with the rest of the Web site, or articles by third parties (for this kind of stuff, the aquarium is the authority, not newspapers or other third parties). Don Lammers (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Update needed

I was just here today, the section Wild Coast is wrong, there are TWO Pacific White-sided Dolphins, TWO sea otters, and TWO harbour porpoises. Jack is the newest harbour porpoise.

I have no idea gow to update the page! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.6.31 (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed numbers, which undoubtedly change over time anyway and should not be part of the article. Don Lammers (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional updates required

The expansion of the Aquarium as mentioned under History has already been completed, according to [1], and the recent protests also need coverage [2]. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Only one phase of the expansion has been been completed. The majority of the work will involve significant changes to habitats[3]; the first phase merely created a new entrance and included upgrades to life-support systems. Tuugaalik (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Cetacean controversy"

I have removed that section as it does not reflect the Aquarium's history. If you compare this article to those of other aquariums in North America, you will find no mention of protests, controversy or other moves by political parties to effect change if no changes actually took place. The section was also biased as it only presented half of the story, omitted the result (no by-law was passed, no changes enacted) and also only presented one side of the debate. If any of this makes it into the article, it should receive its own section, provide better sources and be inclusive/objective. Tuugaalik (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tuugaalik, I made the changes you suggested as well as I could. I am not sure what else to include, perhaps you could elaborate which sources you would like to see included for a better balance? Thanks, --Tobias (Talk) 01:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tobias, I am afraid since you apparently did nothing but essentially add the same content to a new section, it did not address my concerns at all, and I have hence removed it once again. I have serious NPOV concerns with regards to that section. If you look at articles for other aquariums in North America which were equally faced with controversy from animals rights activists, you will find that no such sections are included in the main articles. In the case of the Vancouver Aquarium, a motion was passed that did not lead to any actions; it was merely a political move that had no consequences at all. Experts have weighed in on both sides, which is why I suggested that if there was an exception to be made for this particular article, the content would have to reflect all viewpoints on the issue equally and present the arguments from both sides in a neutral tone, especially since the anti-cetacean captivity sentiment appeared to be coming from a minority and was opposed by multiple former mayors, a well-known expert on whale and dolphin behavioural psychology, other experts in the field etc. Tuugaalik (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, no, I did not just copy the section, I addressed some your concerns (for instance here). You mention that you find that the paragraph lacks viewpoints from proponents of Vancouver Aquarium's current practices. As I asked you above, please provide credible sources and I'll be happy to include them in my next edit.

Though you mention that experts have weighted in on both sides and multiple former mayors took part in the debate, it seems like you still argue against the notability of the controversy for inclusion of the article. This I find strange, especially considering the national and international media coverage as well as the number of experts and politicians that took part in the debate. I feel like if anything then the form of inclusion in the article can be controversial, not the fact that the article should mention the debate at all.

Throughout our discussion there have been versions of the article where the controversy was covered both in an elaborate manner and in a short version in the history section, or in a separate section. Instead of working on the text and its place in the article, you removed it three times now. At the risk of repeating myself, I invite you to improve the text instead of removing it entirely. --Tobias (Talk) 05:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

3O Response: I can't see any compelling reason why this material shouldn't be included. It seems sufficiently referenced, albeit not well-referenced. It is pertinent to an article on an establishment that notable people have criticised it. Whether other aquarium articles do, or do not, have criticism sections is irrelevant per WP:OSE. If we can find equivalent sources for controversies at other aquaria then we should certainly add that to those articles. That is a shortcoming in those articles, not a reason to pass up the opportunity to make this article more comprehensive. The only valid reason I can see for not including it is that it may breach WP:NPOV. But then it is up to those who object to the inclusion to either include material from the other side of the debate, or at the very least establish that what is here now isn't the consensus view of the events. Personally I think the last version was presented in a very succinct, dispassionate and encylopaedic way, but I don't pretend to know the full story. In my opinion the material needs to be included to make the article complete. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC) .

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vancouver Aquarium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927212544/http://www.vancourier.com/issues06/115106/news/115106nn3.html to http://www.vancourier.com/issues06/115106/news/115106nn3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the aquarium still have dolphins?

The facility said it would no longer house dolphins

Vancouver Aquarium will no longer keep whales, dolphins in captivity, Jan. 18, 2018, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-aquarium-will-no-longer-keep-whales-dolphins-in-captivity-1.4492316

But see this recent article: Vancouver Aquarium - Tourism Vancouver https://www.tourismvancouver.com/listings/vancouver-aquarium/17902/ Sep 21, 2018 - With over 50000 amazing aquatic creatures at the Vancouver Aquarium, what will ... Enjoy daily dolphin, shark and sea otter shows, as well as the free-roaming ...

So, what is the current status? Peter K Burian (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: From what I understand, as of mid-2019 the Aquarium had one remaining cetacean (a 30-year-old Pacific white-sided dolphin named Helen) and was intending to relocate her to somewhere else. [4][5][6] The aquarium's five other cetaceans died in 2016 and 2017. As of a couple of months ago (April 2020), Helen was still at the Vancouver Aquarium which was looking to transfer her to SeaWorld in Texas.[7][8] Mathew5000 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sale to Herschend Family Entertainment

I've added the first details about today's announced sale to Herschend Family Entertainment. There should probably be an expanded explanation in the body of the article. Some useful links:

https://www.vanaqua.org/application/files/9316/1850/3548/VancouverAquariumFutureAssured_15April2021.pdf

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-aquarium-sold-1.5988949

Proposed split of Ocean Wise content

With the proposed sale of the aquarium to Herschend Family Entertainment, I feel like this would be an appropriate time to split the Conservation and research programs section into a separate page titled "Ocean Wise" to match the non-profit structure of those programs. I'll leave this discussion up until at least May 10, 2021. Please share your thoughts below and ping me in your reply. Daylen (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Daylen: In principle, I think that makes a lot of sense. However, I don't get the sense that Ocean Wise on its own would pass GNG to be able to stand as an article. Intralexical (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Intralexical: Thanks for the reply. I agree that meeting the general notability guideline would be an issue. I have separated the Ocean Wise content into a separate section of the article instead. Daylen (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)