Thread:Gsbr/@comment-4655954-20150531041202/@comment-2253059-20150601030743

I already warned you that if you didn't back up what you said, your posts would be deleted. Most people wouldn't even give you a fair warning. You chose to ignore that and continue with the blanket statements.

I'm not going to bother posting on that thread because it just proves how petty you are. I will just continue to repost the message you cannot refute.

“No, they actually do not. You are misunderstanding the use of two distinctly different words. The word “fall” being a part of the word "Drop"'s definition does not translate to equivalency. Fall is still a generic reference to an action that does not denote an specific context. Drop is more specific and more apt to the context involving Zara.”

You can call them “distinctly different” all you want, the fact that you included “fell” your definition of “dropped” tells a different story. When you are describing the meaning of a word and you include another word that’s the same part of speech as the aforementioned word, you are supposed to use a related word. Using a related word helps people understand the word you’re describing better; a “distinctly different” word would throw them off. “Fell” and “dropped” are both verbs and you used “fell” to explain what “dropped” means. This demonstrates that the two, while not exactly the same, have similar meanings. They both can refer to something moving downwards.

In fact, “dropped” is not as specific as you claim it is. It does not always refer to something falling from something’s grip. Here are some Google sentences for you: “He dropped a lot of acid in the 60s.” “He dropped to his knees in the mud.” “He dropped his voice as she came into the room.” “The charges against him were dropped last year.” In any of these sentences, has something fallen out of a person’s hands? No. Are any of these sentences incorrectly using the word “dropped”? No. In short, “dropped” does not denote a specific context either.

“Again you are imposing your interpretation and insisting that it is how every single reader will see it. Even if that is the case - that fact that there is a better and more accurate word to depict the event means it is more in the vain or quality and accuracy to use that word rather than one that is not.”

The fact that you’re unable to provide any alternative interpretations implies that is how every reader will see it. And the fact that you keep trying to shift gears on this topic implies you know you’re wrong, but you’re too egotistical to admit it. As established above, “dropped” isn’t as accurate as you claim it is. You’re also imposing your own interpretation of a word. It’s the context of the article that makes your interpretation of “dropped” the only rational one, just like the context makes my interpretation of “fell” the rational one.

“They exist for added clarity.”

Why do we even need this clarity?

“Why do you constantly make blanket statements? I have dropped things in the past - accidentally. When asked - "What Happened?" my typical reply is - "I dropped it" The person whom I am replying to does not then immediately assume I dropped the item on purpose. Adverbs are nice but their existence does not imply that they are always needed and that certain words become accusations of conscious intent if they are not present. You insistence that this is so is entirely incorrect.”

Oh, that’s rich. Your opening response is full of blanket statements. “You are misunderstanding the use of two distinctly different words” – You do not explain how the words are distinctly different. “The word “fall” being a part of the word "Drop"'s definition does not translate to equivalency” – You do not explain how that does not translate to equivalency. “Fall is still a generic reference to an action that does not denote an specific context” – You do not explain how “fall” is what you claim it is. “Drop is more specific and more apt to the context involving Zara” – You do not explain how “drop” is what you claim it is. You’d better look up the definition of “blanket statement” before you accuse anyone else of making them. You’d also better look up what an “anecdotal fallacy” is, because you just committed one. Yeah, you could claim the sentence preceding this one is a blanket statement, doesn’t change the fact that drawing from personal experience to prove a point (as you just did) is a fallacy.

“No, actually I am not. Words have meanings and applications. I understand those applications and those meanings and have a firm grasp on how to properly use the English language in its written form.”

Check it out, another blanket statement. Instead of proving you’re not looking at the word too literally, you stroke your own ego.

“The Irony in this statement is that it is actually you who is not understanding context. You are struggling with discrepancy between your personal interpretation of a sentence using your choice of a generic word, ‘fall’, and your interpretation of another sentence using the word ‘drop’ and you incorrect interpretation of the implications of the word ‘Drop’.”

What’s truly ironic is you don’t understand that “drop” isn’t as specific as you think it is. When the word “drop” is used in a sentence, it does not automatically mean something fell from someone’s hands. It’s the context of the sentence that establishes which meaning of “drop” is being used. You believe “dropped” is referring to something falling from someone’s hands through your own personal interpretation of a sentence using that word. You attacking me for the same thing you’re doing – that’s irony.

“You believe that without a clear and concise adverb to qualify the meaning of the word "Drop" in a sentence that drop then, by default, implies conscious intent to drop something. This belief of yours is wrong, simple as that.”

Yep, here we go again with a blanket statement. In this passage, you don’t elaborate on why my belief is wrong. Just to be clear, I also believe the context of a sentence and / or passage can establish an action was not done intentionally, even without an adverb.

“No, we don't. That is not a norm. You are confusing your personal perception with reality and trying to impose it on the general population. Your assumption that ‘we all interpret things like this’ and ‘we all interpret things like that’ is entirely unfounded and baseless. This belief of yours has no actual solidity in the actual established and documented mechanics of the English Language. I know you like to refer back to that article you found – but that article is not an authority on the subject, and even when we take into consideration what is discussed in that link that you provided in your previous post the fact remains that your link was addressing cognitive behavior and it was not discussing proper grammar or any other actual tenant of the English language in of its self.”

Right, the guy who used his own personal experiences to prove his argument is claiming I’m confusing my personal perception with reality. You can attack that article all you want for not being “an authority on the subject,” that doesn’t change the fact that it provides concrete evidence of English speakers placing blame on others for an action. And then you even mention my link “was addressing cognitive behavior and it was not discussing proper grammar or any other actual tenant of the English language in of its self.” Guess what? That’s also what I’m addressing. I never said it’s grammatically incorrect to write about an action that was performed unintentionally and not specify that it was done unintentionally. I’m arguing that the cognitive behavior of English-speakers involves often assuming an action was done intentionally if there’s nothing to tell them otherwise.

“Again you use a site that is not an authority on the English language, but is also not even discussing the mechanics of written English. There are actual sites that will teach how the spoken and written word functions in the English language. Mine linking and quoting is a fallacious attempt at trying to make point.”

You don’t even understand my point. This issue isn’t about proper grammar, this is about perception. This is about how people, particularly English-speakers, perceive verbs. The site I used provides concrete evidence of how the majority of English-speakers, not just me, assume an action was done deliberately without an adverb and / or context to tell them otherwise. The writer wrote most of his passages with just nouns and verbs, but added an adverb when describing the actions that were done accidentally.

“Another attempt at false equivocacy. Without context the content in your link is just a very bare bone description of events, no value of blame can be placed. If someone runs in and says “I shot someone” it is not immediately clear what the intent was or how it came about. And yes, most people, will first ask questions, such as - When? Where? How? and Why? Because immediately most people know that without any further context there is no way to know if it was deliberate or not. It is possible to accidently shoot someone it happens in real life all the time.”

Again, you’re missing my point; I’m not saying a value of blame can be placed on someone who performed an action if only “a very bare bone description of events” is provided, I’m saying people will usually assume the person performed the action deliberately if all they get is only “a very bare bone description of events.” The problem with your example is you made it up. You can’t prove your scenario would play out the way you claim it would because it’s not being acted by real people; it’s being acted out by figments of your imagination. They’re doing what you think they would do, not what they would actually do. Here’s how an accidental shooting played out in real life:

http://fox13now.com/2015/04/12/video-released-of-deadly-shooting-in-tulsa-police-say-deputy-accidentally-used-firearm/

Notice how the officer didn’t just say “I shot him.” He felt the need to add “I’m sorry” right after stating he shot the suspect. He felt the need to specify himself that it was accidental. That’s because while simply saying he shot the suspect didn’t prove his action was intentional, he didn’t want any of his fellow officers to even assume the shooting was deliberate. I never said you couldn’t accidentally shoot someone.

“Even if the adverb had not been present - the word shoot, in of its self, does not mean it was deliberate or anything else other than its actual definition. Adverbs are useful to give clarity, but without them there is no default position as you seem to believe. Without them - NO, the reader does not normally just assume that there’s a default position such as – ‘Oh, this individual must have did this on purpose’- The reader will first look for context to make sense of what they are reading - if they cannot find it then no real meaning can be assigned to the events until clarification is given.”

For the third time in a row, this is about assumptions, not what a word actually means. Tell me, if the readers aren’t assuming most of the actions described in that link were done deliberately, why did the author only use an adverb twice? Why did he specify two actions were done accidentally, but leave an aura of “mystery” surrounding the rest? The correct answer is the readers assumed the actions were intentional if there was nothing else to tell them otherwise; I’m curious to see if you can come up with any alternative solutions.

“No, your personal experience in reading - in which you assign default values of blame to verbs is not universal. And again, addressing your previous link from your previous post, cognitive associations provoked by phrasing does not dictate whether the phrasing is correct or not. The rules do not bend simply to placate those discrepancies. Without the adverbs, contrary to your belief, readers would simply not be able to assign any blame for the actions depicted until clarity was given - because the default position is, actually, neutrality.”

As with the rest of your posts on this matter, you fail to understand I’m not arguing proper grammar, I’m arguing how sentences are perceived. I even said “It wouldn't have been incorrect if the adverb wasn't used” in reference to the unintentional actions described and you ignored it. Grammatically speaking, the default position of the verb “shot” is neutrality, but the default human assumption of the verb is it was intentional. Think it’s just my personal assumption? Go to Cinemorgue Wiki and you will not find one entry where it says a person was “deliberately shot.” You’ll find plenty of instances of people being “accidentally shot,” but never “deliberately shot.” When a person is deliberately shot, it’s said they’re just “shot.” And that’s because people assume it’s intentional when they read about just someone shooting somebody else.

“There is no context here. I'm noticing a pattern in which you continuously confuse your assumptions with facts. We don't know what happened - the sentence in question is based off of a heavily edited and vague short TV Spot. "Common sense" and whatever you may think is the most obvious sequence of events is subjective to you and your interpretation of events represent your personal perception of what is being seen. However, because what is being scene is a broken up preview of an incomplete scene - your assumptions of what happened and thus the context that you think is there is entirely without merit until the actual scene is made public - via seeing the movie.”

Unfortunately for you, there is a context, and your logic surrounding the word “dropped” shows you are at least subconsciously aware of the context. Otherwise, you wouldn’t find “dropped” as specific as you claim it is because it can mean different things without a specific context. We do know what is happening – so what if we’re watching “a broken up preview of an incomplete scene”? We know for a fact Zara is grabbed by a pteranodon. We see it happen. We know for a fact Zara falls into the mosasaurus’ tank. We also see it happen. We know for a fact that the latter event occurred after the former event – the pteranodon brought her into the air and she’s now descending into the tank. We know for a fact that they’re connected for the same reason. You know this for a fact. You believe the pteranodon “dropped” her into the mosasaurus’ enclosure; acknowledging the two events are connected and they played out in the order seen in the trailer. Your interpretation and personal perception of the scene is exactly the same as mine and I don’t think you even realize it.

“Again we go back to the neutrality of words when they are not given a specific context. Drop is neutral here. Is doesn't mean that the pteranodon dropped Zara accidentally or intentionally- it's neutral and here it simply depicts what happened - that it dropped Zara. Why? How? When? What? etc is not known. You again, because of an assumption, believe that it is impossible that the pteranodon dropped Zara on purpose. However, your assumption that it is common sense that the pteranodon would not drop its prey on purpose is myopic in its understanding of how flying predators operate. Many birds of prey, who are carnivorous, will snatch up prey and the purposely drop it in an effort to kill it. It is possible that is the case here. But because there is no context - there is not default conclusion.”

I’m not contesting that “dropped” is supposed to be neutral in the article. As far as proper English grammar goes, I know it is neutral; it’s how people perceive it that matters to me. I never said it was impossible the pteranodon dropped Zara on purpose. I said didn’t make sense for it to purposely drop her, but I acknowledged it was a possibility. Check out my first message: “And it makes little sense for the pteranodon to drop its prey (meaning it has to catch it again), although it's not clear yet if it accidentally dropped Zara either.” It does make little sense; aside from the fact that the pteranodon was not a bird of prey, it ate fish. It would not need to purposely kill its prey by dropping it because fish practically are dead as soon as they’re taken out of the water. They can’t survive outside of it.

“I am aware that there is a point that you are trying to make. However, your point relies heavily on a false premise that I have refuted. You are seeing context where none currently exists. That said even if there was context the word ‘dropped’ would still be the more concise and correct verb to use - at this point we would be discussing the quality of writing.”

As long as you continue to insist “dropped” is “the more concise and correct verb to use,” you will inadvertently prove there is a context in the article. If you didn’t know a pteranodon was holding onto Zara right before she wound up in the mosasaurus’ pool, “dropped” wouldn’t have obtained a specific meaning in your eyes. Those events are part of the context of the article.

“The context that you think is there, that would then lend a concise depiction of what in this context Zara falling means, is not there. She was snatched and then fell into the enclosure leaves a murky gap between two events. She was snatched, ok? Then she fell into the enclosure - since you are not using "dropped" here and instead are using the generic verb "fall" there is nothing concrete linking that action to pteranodon. Any sequence of events, independent of her being dropped by the pteranodon, could have lead to her falling into the enclosure. Regardless of what is already obvious – the point is to not make the reader sit back and go through their mental rolodex and remember what they might have seen in the trailer so that they connect the dots – quality writing will simply put the image in their head.”

There is something concrete linking the falling action to the pteranodon: the fact that the pteranodon is a flying reptile. A flying reptile is going to bring whatever it snatches into the air, hence how Zara descended to the mosasaurus’ pool after the pteranodon brought her into the air. The fact that you couldn’t name any specific sequence of events that could have caused her to fall where she did proves your analysis wrong.

“Now, obviously we can’t be all that descriptive because, again, right now this passage is reliant on a heavily edited and incomplete scene – but with what we do currently know we can use certain words that best depict what is seen in the trailers.

It needs to be noted that when reading a page on any given wikia about a certain subject that references used to substantiate the information therein is not being seen by the reader - the reader is only seeing your words. If you are trying to draw an accurate picture of an event you need to use the words that best bring to mind the images that are most like the actual imagery being used as a reference. The word ‘fall’ is a far cry from the best way to depict those events when there is a more distinguished word that concisely depicts not only something falling but something falling from recently being enclosed in a grip.”

Thing is, what I’m saying does match up with the trailers. We see Zara be grabbed by the pteranodon. We see her fall into the mosasaurus’ tank. We do not actually see the pteranodon drop Zara. You are only assuming it dropped her. Which is an accurate assumption, but the fact remains that we don’t see the reptile releasing its grip on her.

“Obvious as that may be - without using accurate depictions of that event, via the words you choose, you instead draw a vague picture and then force the reader to have to search for a more accurate depiction to better understand what they are reading. Even if that merely means clicking on a reference marked embedded into the wiki page, forcing a reader to do that defeats the purpose of the Wikia. The reader should be able to gather all the information relevant to the subject of that given page on the specific page – without having to leave it.”

The irony here is you are creating a vague picture by wanting “enclosure” over “pool” in Zara’s article. “Enclosure” does not specify which animal’s area Zara landed in. To someone not familiar with the names of the reptiles in the film, “mosasaurus” could be any of them. They would have to click on the link to the mosasaurus’ page to know it’s the one eating the shark in the trailer which, in your own words, defeats the purpose of the Wikia. “Pool” specifies Zara landed in water, helping readers realize she wound up in the enclosure of the shark-eating reptile, without knowing the mosasaurus by name.

“Without using the word ‘dropped’ you wrote that Zara went from being snatched to suddenly being in the state of falling. It's sloppy writing and regardless of what is obvious to you or anyone else it is still a vague depiction of events and technically can be interpreted in any way. The reader’s imagination can run wild because you have not secured their reading mind with concise constraints that direct them through the events with accuracy.”

As with before, you are still unable to provide other ways my depiction of the scene can be interpreted. Your word alone does not cut it as proof and your inability to say exactly how readers could misinterpret what I wrote demolishes your own argument.

“I am well aware of the meaning of both active and passive voice – You, however, are not. The active voice simply means the subject in the sentence is performing the action. The passive voice means that the subject is receiving the action.”

You know their meanings because you Googled them. I will admit what I said about their definitions is wrong, but my examples were correct, something that cannot be said about you.

“Hanging your hat on this point does nothing for your argument. Perhaps you need to actually rehash your understanding of Active and Passive voice - check the link”

Right, the link that told you all about these terms. How do I know that? Aside from the fact you’re your link is the first result to appear when you Google them, you couldn’t get the grammatical voice of a sentence right on your own. Case in point:

“‘Zara fell into the pool’ Is passive voice.”

No it is not. It is active voice. Zara is the subject of the sentence and she is the one performing the action; she is the one falling. As you said it yourself, “active voice simply means the subject in the sentence is performing the action.”

“But the larger issue here is that I believe you misunderstand the implications of Passive and Active voice. You believe that these mechanisms of English enforce your idea that words somehow inherently assign intent to them unless an adverb is present. Active voice, Context, adverbs are all concepts that act separately and independently of each other. You can use active voice without assigning intent and without the use of an adverb to add more clarity to an event. An active voice simply means that the subject in the sentence is performing the action – it does not place any value on the intent.”

They reinforce the assumptions readers have regarding verbs; the English language typically requires us to establish who performed the action mentioned in the sentence. We’ve developed a need to know who or what did the deed. You can argue proper, grammatically correct, textbook definition English all you want with me, that’s not what I’m arguing here. I’m arguing how these rules impact how we read English.

“Wrong. Entirely incorrect. The active voice is not ‘grammatically incorrect’ simply because Active Voice and Passive Voice are not grammatical concepts they are style of writing. Here, again, is the link I provided for you above that explains for you what Active and Passive voice is, because it’s obvious at this point that you don’t actually understand either one of them. - https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/CCS_activevoice.html Scroll down and you will see that there are times where the passive voice is the more preferred style of writing.”

Strawman. I didn’t say active voice is grammatically correct (and you’re not even quoting me correctly). I said the passive voice example “sounds” more correct. Doesn’t mean it actually is more correct. Incidentally, the examples in your link support the argument I was making about how the English language typically demands to know who performed an action. The scenarios cited by the link gave a specific reason to why the person who performed the action wasn’t named; the person would receive negative attention, the person is not known, and the person’s action is made more authoritative by not identifying him or her. Under regular circumstances, the person who performed the action would be known.

“No. Wrong again. A passive voice is not a grammatical concept. You don’t understand the topic of which you are speaking about. A passive sentence is a grammatically correct sentence. ‘Choosing to have an action happen to the subject or not’ is not a matter grammatical fidelity it is entirely up to the writer and what the writer wants the sentence to convey. If the desire is to be vague and not distinct then obviously and active voice would defeat that purpose. Both voices are simply styles of writing.”

Strawman again. I didn’t say a passive sentence is a grammatically incorrect sentence, I said the example written in passive voice “doesn’t sound like a complete sentence in English.” Just because it doesn’t sound like a complete sentence doesn’t mean it isn’t one. By the way, it’s not a good idea to be accusing others of not understanding active voice and passive voice when you couldn’t get the voice of your own sentence right.

“Again you establish that you have no real understanding of any mechanics of the English language. So No, you are wrong – it does not ‘seem’ like something is missing. Furthermore- A complete sentence is comprised of a subject and a verb and a complete idea. So your distortion of this rule – “standard sentence in English has a subject, object, and a verb” – is utterly false.”

Again, you misrepresent what I wrote. Just because it seems like something is missing doesn’t mean anything actually is missing. Standard and complete do not mean the same thing. A passive voice sentence is a complete sentence and I have not argued against that. The underlying point I am making is we usually include the agent in our sentences, which influences our perception of verbs.

“So, I’m going to be preemptive and address a point you make below –

‘Zara is then dropped into the enclosure’ – is a complete sentence. It has a subject – Zara, a verb – Dropped, and a complete idea – the fact that she was dropped into an enclosure.

It is in passive voice – But I have thoroughly explained to you at this point that the active and passive voice are not grammatical concepts. Using one instead of the other depends entirely of the nature of the sentence, neither one has any inherent grammatical value.”

Yes, it is a complete sentence. But you would never use it in your precious Wikia. Why? As you stated yourself, “the reader should be able to gather all the information relevant to the subject of that given page on the specific page.” Your passive voice sentence omits important information – who dropped Zara into the enclosure. Hence why you should usually include the agent in a sentence.

“Yes, that is a passive voice since the action is happening to her. It’s still a correct sentence. Using a passive voice is not grammatically incorrect. There is no way to describe what happened to Zara specifically without using a passive voice. That is simply the nature of any sentence dedicated to describing what happened to Zara. Because in any case, regardless of how you write it, it won’t be Zara that is performing the action it will be the action that is happening to Zara.”

You’re still misrepresenting my argument. I’m not saying the passive voice actually is grammatically incorrect. This is more about the importance of agency in a sentence. Yes, a sentence lacking an agent is grammatically correct too. But you wouldn’t use it, at least not on Zara’s article, for the reason I stated above.

“The active voice has nothing to do with grammar. You are distorting and confusing concepts, styles, and grammar without knowing the distinctions that separate them.”

The irony is you came to that conclusion by distorting and confusing what I’m arguing. This is about perceptions, not proper grammar.

“Wrong. A complete sentence is comprised of a Subject, a verb, and a complete idea. The passive voice sentence – ‘Zara was dropped’ is a complete and grammatically correct sentence, despite also being written in a passive voice.”

Again, you get standards in the English language and proper English grammar confused. You would never allow the sentence “Zara is dropped” on your Wikia because it leaves out vital information the reader won’t know about.

“The point you are making is overwhelmingly incorrect and it is quite unfortunate that you went to such a drawn out length to only establish that you don’t know what you are talking about.”

It is correct and your own words about the purpose of a Wikia support what I’ve said. The Wikia is supposed to leave no important details out on its pages, which means the sentences require agents. We’re supposed to know what ate Gennaro, what chased Lex and Tim, what killed Hamada, and what grabbed Zara.

“No, that is incorrect. A passive voiced sentence is a grammatically correct sentence. Look it up. Like actually do some research and stop guessing.”

That is not what I said. Just because something is deemed incorrect does not mean it actually is incorrect. Actually read what I’ve written.

“That has nothing to do with grammar. Nothing what so ever. One, you are relying on a site that is not an authority on the subject and two the site is not discussing accurate use of the written language. There are many nuances of English that baffle native speakers – however those nuances do not lose their factuality simply because many speakers of the language are ignorant of them.

On average, the vast majority of native English speakers do not use the English language correctly. They rely on ingrained colloquial and short cuts to convey ideas quicker or they are deeply rooted in home taught discrepancies and incorrect grammar.

Written English is not dictated by that however. And quality writing relies on the accurate use of long established tenants of the English language.”

This is has not been about proper grammar for me. From the start, this has been about perception of the English language. I have a suspicion you’re going to accuse me of changing my argument and I don’t care if you claim that because it’s not correct. Refer to this part of my first post if you don’t believe me: “I know ‘dropped’ can be used to refer to people accidentally letting things slip out of their hands, but without that adverb, it sounds like it was done on purpose.” Keyword: sounds. Not actually was done on purpose, sounds like it was done on purpose. Different meaning. You have a bad habit of missing these words.

“It wouldn’t matter what you assume nor is what you assume a universal imperative. Regardless, the fact remains that the word “dropped” is the more concise and accurate depiction of the event.”

You say it doesn’t matter because you can’t refute it. Maybe you do know my argument has been about perception and you turned it into grammar to give you the edge. Well it doesn’t matter in the long run; what people see is important. Case in point, Donald Gennaro’s article mentions he “unsuccessfully attempts to remain still” before being eaten. Removing the “unsuccessfully” part wouldn’t make the passage incorrect, but its use explains to readers why he was eaten despite trying to remain still like Grant and Malcolm.

“Again – revisit the link I provided you in regards to the use of Passive and Active voice and read the following – https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/CCS_activevoice.html

At the heart of every good sentence is a strong, precise verb

That is literally in the first sentence and that is from a site that is actually discussing the mechanics of the English language. In other words, unlike your links, that site I have directed you to is a reputable and credible source.”

It’s a pity that “dropped” isn’t the “strong, precise verb” you think it is. It does not always refer to something falling out of someone’s hands; see my examples at the beginning of this post. It’s only made precise by the context you deny the existence of. Also, it’s ironic you’d direct me to the first sentence of that link, because the very next sentence says this:

“Try to use the active voice whenever possible.”

This ties into the point I had been making before – active voice is the preferred form.

“I have read your links already, as you have seen above, and refuted them. You need read my link.”

You did not. You can’t refute an argument you’ve been misreading.

“The quality issue here is you are using a word that does not accurately depict what she fell into. It technically isn’t a pool and therefore should not be called that.”

But it is a pool. It’s a small area of still water.

“Zara didn’t just fall into water or into a pool. She fell into an enclosure for the mosasaurus. It’s not just a pool. So why call it that when there is an actual name of the location that is an accurate depiction of what it is?”

Calling it a pool sets it apart from all the other enclosures and lets the reader know Zara fell into an aquatic enclosure, and is thus face-to-face with the aquatic reptile frequently seen in the previews. You said it yourself, “the reader should be able to gather all the information relevant to the subject of that given page on the specific page – without having to leave it.” Not knowing what a mosasaurus is forces them to leave Zara’s page. Stating Zara fell into a pool clues readers in.

“The word pool does, context or not, not immediately bring to mind the image of an enclosure for a giant aquatic beast. So why use it when the word “pool” is so lacking is its descriptive power in this context.”

Because the article includes the name of the “giant aquatic beast” and we know it’s the giant aquatic beast’s pool. The way the article is written notifies readers this isn’t an ordinary pool because it belongs to one of the reptiles of Jurassic World.

“That isn’t what I was referring to when I said ‘There is no need to spoon feed’. The notion that, and this was your logic, that the word ‘pool’ should be used instead of ‘enclosure’ because some readers might not understand that a mosasaurus enclosure means it’s filled with water is a strange solution when you could keep the word “enclosure”, which again is more accurate, and simply add- ‘Zara was dropped into the water of the mosasaurus enclosure’.”

No, my notion is readers should know what the mosasaurus is without clicking on its article. Mentioning Zara fell into water accomplishes that task. Your example works fine as well.