Talk:Cruise Lines International Association

Untitled

I came across the ICCL page and noticed it was outdated, all I was doing was updating the information. If it was already up on wikipedia before (but with incorrect information) what is wrong about updating the info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridacruising (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 August 2008

If I remember right (I don't have access to that version), but it was because the article very much seemed to be advertising. This one looks better, though I think it still needs some references so the information can be verified from reliable sources. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

CLIA response to Covid 19 pandemic

Good Afternoon,

I've tried several times to improve this article but have had my edits reverted and several threats to have my account blocked by the individual responsible for the reversions. I'd like help with this and would bring the page history to attention, alongside this discussion piece supporting removal or major edit to the sentence beginning, "Their refusal to cooperate...":

CLIA, although perhaps the largest cruise industry body, is not the exclusive representation of the cruise industry. They aren't the only membership body and they don't hold exclusive right over any laws, regulations, or even the membership of all cruise ship operating companies. This is particularly significant in the context of this Wikipedia article and the ProPublica article to which the claim is referenced.

I've attempted to request citation of the industry's representation from the party reverting, asking for a credible resource for the 95% number and how they arrived at this "fact". I've also requested another citation describing how even a 5% non-membership discrepancy can be swallowed up and which means that the rights and assertations of those groups in the minority are completely disregarded.

I might point out the cyclical nature of the information presented in the CLIA article which I've been trying to edit, the reference on cruise capacity seen here and which is found in the very Wikipedia page discussing cruise ships actually uses CLIA as a reference for building those numbers. Scroll the previous reference to 'cruisemarketwatch' and read their data table resources, CLIA is a main contributor to the data the reverting party is using to describe CLIA as a resource, albeit through a proxy party.

Where CLIA's member initiative is broken down into marketing segments vs the Wikipedia page reference on cruising.org you'll see that there are plenty of cruise lines included which feature majorly or exclusively river cruise. It would be poor practice for anyone to arbitrarily decide what ships and ship operators do or don't qualify as cruise ships and their respective industry body "refusing" or failing to cooperate, when the referenced material includes cruise lines such as AmaWaterways, which operates river cruise vessels exclusively, as does Avalon, Riviera River Cruises, and Uniworld. Likewise, lines such as Crystal or Scenic which operate more river cruise ships than ocean faring vessels.

Further, cruise lines such as Viking, which operates as both ocean and river cruise, or even shipbuilder Scylla, operate vastly more ships by number than most cruise lines across the globe. Viking's river fleet alone features 76 ships and operates within the United States on the Mississippi. Sorry to reference the Wiki page but it's the cleanest resource at the moment .

The article in contention actually only mentions Cruise Lines International Association twice, once to describe how well it had performed "When the CDC finally issued a 30-day no-sail order on March 14, it excluded the majority of cruise operators since their trade group, Cruise Lines International Association, voluntarily agreed the previous day to stop launching any new ships from U.S. ports during that time. The order praised the trade group’s actions, “and the commitment it demonstrates to protecting the health of both cruise ship passengers and the public at large.” and once to describe how it had failed to return contact for the composition of the article. The article mentions the cruise industry yes, however it is rather arbitrary for an unaffiliated editor to assume the context of the author and to unilaterally decide that the connotation should include CLIA as a party which "refused". In fact, the word "refused" or term "refusal to cooperate" is not in the text. Instead, failings and the need for further cooperation are stated. It is categorically untrue that the current article and reversions maintain any interpretation or suggestions that CLIA has acted in the way described by Wikipedia.

Instead, I would refer to the CDC's actual No Sail Order from 13 March 2020 . Note that the vessels mentioned include US and Japan calls to port, that the size of such passenger vessels affected at the outset of pandemic was 250 and not 100, and, if you'll visit page 5, under the heading "Coordination Efforts with the Cruise Ship Industry", you'll see that although CLIA is mentioned by name, the following is also stated clearly, "although the CLIA members and the additional cruise lines implementing a voluntary suspension of operations represents a large majority of the cruise industry, not all cruise lines or ships have announced a voluntary suspension of operations or that they will follow the important example set by CLIA members."

It is important to note that the CDC itself here does not include CLIA as the sole or exclusive representative of the cruise industry, simply a "leading industry trade group" . It would be dangerous to the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia to presume that the author of the ProPublica did not read and understand the CDC Framework.

Further still, the article from ProPublica alludes to some sort of special-operations veterans led effort to plan extractions and does not share its own resource for a parsed quotation. Whereas the CDC's updated Framework from 09 April 2020 page 5 instead shows that there were failings (not "refusals") and that the "problem that is international and interstate in nature has not been controlled sufficiently by the cruise ship industry [not specifically "CLIA"] or individual State or local health authorities." . At no time is it stated or implied that the cruise industry "refused" any direction or otherwise failed to cooperate, let alone is "CLIA" mentioned as guilty of the same as is stated in the Wikipedia article I've attempted to edit more appropriately but to no avail.

There were also several other errors in the article, including the list of members and their representative areas of operation. I've corrected one without the new version suffering repeat and unnecessary reversion.

It may also be brought to the attention of the editor community that an exceptionally well documented page dedicated to the topic of COVID/Coronavirus and pandemic on cruise ships already exists and that any additional mention which specifically targets a trade body is both unnecessary/superfluous and indicates a departure from neutrality in the way no trade body, organization, association, or other group should be held responsible for the actions of any individual member or collection of members.

My understanding of the Wikipedia process suggests that the burden of proof for reversion or return of deleted content to the article falls on the party attempting to revert WP:BURDEN. At no time did the reverting party provide any new evidence or cogent argument for the reversion. I was instead subject to personal harassment and the implied authority of the editor to block my account .

I might also challenge the verifiable correctness of the "Membership" section of the Wikipedia CLIA article. Despite claim by the reverting party, there is no evidence or reference from a resource which isn't supplied by CLIA - there is no reference at all for this section. The information in this section, including the number of "members" is incorrect according to CLIA's own website.

Please advise, thank you for your time and consideration. Travel Shy (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done: It is unclear what you want to be done, please use "change X to Y" format, and it looks like this may need consensus from the community, I have closed this edit request. Regards, Heart ^(talk) 04:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

References