Jump to content

Talk:MV Oceanic Viking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Icebreaker or not?

[edit]

This ship has a "reinforce hull" that is "resistant to ice" but is it actually an icebreaker? ShipFan (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper Australian

[edit]

My understanding of the rule of neutrality is that edit must be sourced and that source must be from media or academia. Wikipedian's personal preference about Faux news or Guardian News paper should not be relevant. You are free to find sourced verified statement in support of MV Oceanic Viking. Vapour (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I object to is copying and pasting Dennis Shanahan's personal opinion of the results of the surveillance into this article. It's only his opinion (as a right wing political writer - and not any kind of expert in diplomacy) and is not needed here. If it belongs anywhere it would be on an article about the Rudd Government's policies, and then clearly identified as Shanahan's POV. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to understand the policy of this site. Even a statement from Cambridge professor in International diplomacy will not warrant an inclusion if his/her statement was not published in media or academia. On the other hand, inclusion of an opinion/ranting of a hillbillies is a valid edit if it is source from media or academia. You are free to add information that the statement is from Shanahan (whoever he is. Is he an Ann Coutler of OZ). If you can find a source which describe him as a conservative or right winger, then you can describe him as such. However please leave your dislike of Shanahan or right wing opinion out of it and please do not touch an edit which is sourced from a verified source. Only permissible partisan edit in wikipedia is for you to "add" opposing POV from verified source. Vapour (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shanahan is a domestic political correspondent with right-wing leanings. There is no need to include his POV from an opinion article (it is published on the opinion section of the Australian's website) as if it was a fact like you are doing and his views on the effectiveness of this operation probably aren't worth including given that he's not an expert in this matter and doesn't cite any sources (eg, interviews with Japanese people) himself. The current text violates WP:NPOV as it is from a biased source - I would also be objecting if you'd posted equivalent POV from a left-wing writer praising the operation. By the way, don't assume bad faith or that I don't undertand Wikipedia's policies: I'm an administrator and one of the assistant coordinators at the Military History Wikiproject, so I do have a fair degree of familiarity with the key policies such as appropriate sourcing. I'm certainly not always right, but I do know what I'm talking about.
How does this text look: 'In December 2007, the Australian government tasked the Oceanic Viking to monitor Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean.[8] In this surveillance role the ship's guns were removed and stored below deck. [note that I've fixed the tense in grammar here] This operation cost close to A$2 million and was criticised by some writers, including Dennis Shanahan, as not being effective in countering Japanese whaling.' Nick Dowling (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. " You specifically stated that intended effect of your summation is to correct/censor/spin/neuter S's biased opinion. Such edit will not do. For example, I could write "Conservative commentator S argued in the Australian that the whole costly endevour is a politcal showmanship of Rudd government, which pointlessly inflamed Japanese public opinion by its "empty gesture"." We should be aiming to describe his political bias rather than censoring it. Vapour (talk)

What do you think of the text I'm proposing? Nick Dowling (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is correct, policy wise. S did criticise the endeavour. Only problem is that you seems to have replaced the previous quote with an intent of censoring S's opinion. At this point, what we should be doing is to accurately write the content of his criticism.
"A conservative commentator, S, argued in the Australian, that Rudd government's endeavour was costly 2 million dollar farce ("empty gesture") which fails to achieve the stated purpose of collecting evidences of any illegal activities while, at the same time, needlessly inflamed Japanese public opinion." Vapour (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that. Aside for the grammar being bad, it violates WP:UNDUE as it gives Shanahan's opinion great weight. Given that you admit not knowing who Shanahan is, why do you want to preserve his POV? - he really isn't a notable commentator on this kind of issue. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." The Australian is a major national newspaper, isn't it? The above rule you mentioned is designed to curtail likes of Holocaust denial, Flat Earth or Creationism. This claim that a singed editorial piece of a national newspaper being a fringe opinion come from your POV that conservative/right are biased. You are free to balance the force of wikipedia universe by adding materials from the "liberal media establishment". If you are unable to do so, then it is your view which are fringe among reliable sources. And feel flee to collect my Engrish. Vapour (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I read up on this S guy. "The Australian is the biggest-selling national newspaper in the country" and "Dennis Shanahan is The Australian's Political Editor. He has been in journalism for 30 years, mostly as a political reporter, including 15 years in the Canberra Parliamentary Press Gallery." As of your question regarding why do I want to preserve his POV, that is because you infringed on someone's perfectly kosher edit based on your politics. You mentioning your admin status made it worse. Vapour (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have lodged a complaint about the above comments at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Vapour Nick Dowling (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation is just excessive, Vapour — you should use your own words for 90 percent and quote the other ten, not vice versa. Also, use refs, not a plain link (for consistency). Also, please make sure you review our three revert rule. Thx. El_C 11:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully that summary is always better than quote and I have already done so in revised proposed edit. Nick Dowling is insisting that Shanahan's opinion even in summary should be censored. Please bear in mind that the only reason MV Oceanic Viking has been newsworthy is to do with the fact that it has been used in the international whaling dispute between Japan and Australia. So what purpose does it serve to censor an opinion of political commentator regarding MV Oceanic Viking's endevour. According to Nick Dowling, Shanahan's is not appropriate commentator for this issue. Then who is? I still do not understand the argument that an opinion sourced from a reliable source is not inclusion worthy because it is an opinion. And both the original quote and my revised summary is two or one sentence length. How could this be undue weight. Shanahan appears to be a respectable journalist writing in a respectable newspaper. He is not the likes of Flat Earther or Holocaust Denier. And from the begining I have repeatedly been pointing out to Nick Dowling that he should add alternative view point from a reliable source if he object to Shanahan's POV. Vapour (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please re-read the above wording I suggested and you responded was "correct, policy wise". In particular, I'm suggesting that it read "This operation cost close to A$2 million and was criticised by some writers, including Dennis Shanahan, [emphasis added] as not being effective in countering Japanese whaling", which is exactly what Shanahan said. His column should then be linked back to. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OV Gone.

[edit]

If anyone can be bothered researching the exact specifics - The Oceanic Viking has left The Australian Customs service and has been replaced by Ocean Defender. Apparently OV has gone back to Singapore to be converted back into a cable layer.Mandurahmike (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MV Oceanic Viking. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MV Oceanic Viking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MV_Oceanic_Viking&oldid=1213141003"