Talk:MV Saoirse

Remove the entire participants section?

Since the ship isn't going, it doesn't make any sense at all to have a list of non-existent passengers.

So, I think we need to dump that section. But I'll wait for at least a 2nd opinion before I do so.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I already deleted this section days ago for violation of WP:CRYSTAL, along with nomination of the participants article for deletion, and the way that events unfolded proved that I was right all along. Unfortunately another user reverted my changes without explanation or discussion. I agree completely that this material should be removed, along with other similar attempts at non-encyclopedic future-telling. Marokwitz (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Given your biased edit history, you would of course argue for deletion, Marokwitz. Bob - I'll be amending the section over the next couple of days based on WP:RS updates. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bastun, I might agree with you here. I'm not convinced that it's CRYSTAL ball when we're speaking of people who have already signed up to be on the ship. HOWEVER, I have added the RS which says the ship is not going anywhere (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0630/1224299796875.html). So, now it's just false information and certainly not encyclopedic to list the people who at one point in time had signed up to participate in a boat trip that did not happen. I'm deleting the section. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a ton of reasons to remove the section.

1) As Markowitz said, it was a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to list them at all as passengers. And, as we see, your crystal ball was false. They weren't passenger at all.

2) It doesn't seem it was notable in the first place. The organizers putting these people on their own website doesn't make it notable. Where are the secondary sources that list these passengers?

3) It's doubly not notable now that the ship isn't going anywhere. It simply is not encyclopedic to keep a list of people who once upon a time planned to go on a ship, but did not actually do so.

4) As the article stands now, it borders on WP:OR. There are no RS which say that these people had planned to go on the ship but cannot because it's been canceled. You're putting 1+1 together to make 2.

I'm deleting the section again. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing referenced material. You are approaching breach of WP:3RR. You apparently removed this material without reading it, as an additional WP:RS had been added, from a debate in Seanad Éireann. You don't seem sure whether or not WP:CRYSTAL applies - but it doesn't. As written, it is entirely factual. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

UTC)

Your referenced material is outdated, false, and based on WP:Crystal. You're in the minority here. Markowitz deleted information which didn't belong. You reverted his change. I deleted information which didn't belong. You reverted my change. I deleted information which still doesn't belong. You reverted my change again. Who's approaching 3RR?

I won't delete it today. But I reserve the right to do so tomorrow. Hopefully we'll get some more voices in the Freedom Flotilla II passenger page.

Instead of acting alone, please try to reach consensus here.

Can you answer any of my 4 points above?

And can you explain why you feel that lists and biographies from a biased primary source should be considered reliable?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Irish parliament is what now? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The current situation is absurd. "Irish Ship to Gaza" and "Freedom flotilla" websites are obviously not reliable secondary sources, and are clearly affiliated with the flotilla organizers. Such sites should not be used as a source for unattributed facts just like we don't use other partisan sources such as the IDF spokesperson. You are edit warring to include this outdated and false material with zero regard for Wikipedia policies or consensus. You even went as far as to remove tags notifying readers that there are quality issues being discussed in this talk page, and to personally attack me on this page. And no, a senator describing his own opinions in the parliament is not considered WP:RS. Maybe you should read the policy again. Marokwitz (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A senator stating something that is then reported in the official parliamentary record is pretty much as reliable and verifiable a source as you can get. Multiple additional sources now added, in any case, from various news sites. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting interpretation. Statements by politicians that are then reported in the official parliamentary record are reliable sources? So you are saying that an Israeli parliament member stating some facts about the flotilla, which is noted in the official parliamentary record, is a reliable source? Marokwitz (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

They can be reported as statements, obviously, not necessarily as facts. Can adjust the opening sentence of the section to reflect that if you insist, but all listed participants now have at least two references, at least one of which isn't a primary source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bastun, you've been outvoted. This is an article about a boat. And it's not notable that these people had once upon a time planned to take a trip of this boat, but didn't actually do so. To infer that is WP:OR I'm deleting the section. Please provide some solid arguments and reliable secondary sources showing that it's notable that these particular individuals had planned to go on this ship, but could not do so, before putting the section back. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"Irish Ship to Gaza" and "Freedom flotilla" websites are obviously not reliable secondary sources, and are clearly affiliated with the flotilla organizers. Such sites should not be used as a source for unattributed facts just like we don't use other partisan sources such as the IDF spokesperson. - this is so correct. If the ship is not even going and they never even boarded? We do need to reevaluate the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually began writing this comment as a defense of the article in it's current state, but as I was writing it, I changed my mind. Since it is no longer joining the flotilla, the _only_ thing that remains notable is that it was apparently sabotaged. That is indeed interesting, notable, and historically relevant. Everything else is simply a rehash of the main flotilla article.

And, it's simply bizarre that the _only_ ship in the flotilla that has it's own article is the boat that is no longer part of the flotilla. *sigh*

So, I would suggest adding a bit more to the main article about this boat dropping out, and put up this page for deletion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Since this ship is no longer joining the flotilla, the _only_ thing that remains notable is that it was apparently sabotaged. That is indeed interesting, notable, and historically relevant. Everything else is simply a rehash of the main flotilla article.

And, it's simply bizarre that the _only_ ship in the flotilla that has it's own article, is the boat that is no longer part of the flotilla. *sigh*

So, I have added bit more to the main flotilla article about this boat dropping out, and have put this page up for deletion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

NOTE - I originally called for a deletion. I'm retracting that after reading more about the deletion policy. What make sense here is that this article simply gets merged back with the main flotilla article, since it provides no additional value on it's own. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Now there's a surprise. Then the next step would be to delete it from there on account of, say, unacceptable references, such as the permanent record of the Irish parliament. And if a few more ships are sabotaged, or confined to port as in Greece, and none make it through - or even only one, cos one isn't a flotilla - then we could AFD the whole article, too, because it never really happened. WP:NOTCENSORED, Bob. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bastun, please assume good faith. Now, I've made my reasoning clear. There doesn't seem to be anything of note on this page which is not already on the main flotilla page. Can you name anything of value on this page that isn't on the flotilla page? And don't worry, this page will simply redirect people to the other page, where they can get all of the same info.

So, other than fears that this entire story will be wiped (which isn't happening), do you have any reasons to oppose the merge? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have any further objections? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the merge tag disappeared from the other article at some point. And this article is too large to be merged into that one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

On July 5th, an IP address without reason, possibly accidentally, deleted all of the header tags from the article. I just restored them.

As for this article being too large to be merged into that the main article. 75% of the content on this page is background material taken from the main article. That leaves only 25% of the article which is about the boat. As for the sabotage of the MV Saoirse that's already covered in equal detail on the main page. So, can you please be specific and tell me what content is not already in the main article? If this article is nothing more than a duplicate of the flotilla article, there is absolutely no reason to keep it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the material belonging to the main article should be removed or considerably shortened. Regarding the merge request: According to Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles), When possible, a vehicle that is only notable for participation in a single event that was not specifically modified for the purpose of the event should be covered in the article about the event, not in a separate article. However, at this point in time, it is unlikely that consensus is reached to delete the article, so I'm not planning to spend energy to promote deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why this article should stand alone from the main article on the Freedom Flotilla II, my view being reinforced as the article once again includes the background material taken from the main article, and the main article already covers the issue of the alleged sabotaged (which can be expanded to take any missing relevent text from this article). I therefore agree (as do all those who have commented above, apart from the creator of the article) that this article be merged with the main article. Davshul (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong view on this at this point, but find the conversation interesting.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All of the relevant content is already on the Flotilla page. The flotilla looks like it is ending before it got started. And none of the other ships in the non-flotilla have their own pages. Is anyone still objecting to this page being merged back into the main article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems we have consensus from everyone other than the page's creator. Performing merge. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

'Unreliable source' tag

The first reference, in the first sentence, is referenced to the 'Irish Ship to Gaza' website, which has been tagged as an unreliable source. As nothing is being claimed apart from who is operating the ship, which isn't in dispute, and it's further referenced with other sites, I'm going to remove that tag. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)