Talk:MV Seaman Guard Ohio

Notable?

At this point, this merely seems to be a blip on the news and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Without further opinions otherwise, I am inclined to take this to AfD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The ship itself is almost certainly notable; the article needs a good scrubbing however. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Original research / Coatracking

The final section MV_Seaman_Guard_Ohio#Regulation_of_Private_Maritime_Security_industry previously had a number of sources supporting the analysis. However, when I looked at all of them that were publicly available on the web, not one actually mentioned either the ship this article is supposed to be about or the company that owns it. They had clearly been cobbled together to make a point that would not be applicable to this article under WP:OR and WP:COATRACK. There is still one cited footnote, but it is to an article behind a paywall so I cannot verify whether it does or does not mention the subject of this article (given the date of publication it seems unlikely.)

Does someone have access to check whether or not it can be used in this article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about the article

Hello, my previous identification was as 81.240.180.58 but I have now created an account as NATO-Legal. I got involved in a edit/revert dispute and got a 48-hour block that is understandable. I will observe the 48-hours content BLOCK by not contributing anything on the article but will limit my uploads to discussions with other users as explained here :

• User_talk:81.240.180.58#User_account_created_for_IP_81.240.180.58_as_user_name_.22NATO-Legal.22

I do strongly believe that the DELETIONS of my contributions without any form of discussion (which I repeatedly proposed to hold on this article's talk page) is a unilateral manner of proceeding and does not do justice to the time and effort put into researching, compiling and uploading the text all of which was done in good faith. I read that Wikipedia is about consensus and fair-play. As a consequence, I made the case on my talk page explaining my side of the story in detail and am copying it here for review/discussion/opinions. Thanks.

NATO-Legal (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

CONTENT RELATED : That said, I do wish to highlight that I find it hard to comprehend why (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp, MASEM (t) and Drmies (talk) feel that my contributions are "not neutral", "questionable", "contentious and libelous", etc.,.

I have been told that the reason my UNBLOCK REQUEST was rejected by Drmies (talk) aka David Biddulph was because "In other words, I see no reason to unblock you, since you refuse to acknowledge the basic facts underlying the block."

How can that be ? I am only compiling existing sources of news/media information (taking abundant care to reference and cite sources incrementally). I am dutifully keeping the editorial sense of the news articles that I have cited (which are either NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA, or INDUSTRY SPECIFIC MAGAZINES or RESEARCH PAPERS).

Please explain because I do not understand why my edit is considered 'non neutral'. Also, please cite which of my INFO SOURCE(S) do you consider "questionable"? All that I did was to compile existing information (without adding any of my personal opinion) from prominent and authenticated media sources that are available on the internet. So, why am I being told that there is something wrong ? Ok, I maybe wrong, but then tell me where ... because I am not doing any POV or OR text submissions. The text content is fully referenced from news articles and not BLOGS or DISCUSSION FORUMS. Even the words used in my compilation of text were derived from the original articles in each case.

EXAMPLE-1 : If you fully read the TIME article "Post-War Profiteering" by Mark Thompson he uses, among several other critical & negative qualifications, the word "shame" when describing the conferences on Iraq organised by AdvanFort manager Samir Farajallah and his other company "New-Fields Exhibitions". I also said "portrays a dismal picture of conferences" because that is exactly what the sense of the article. Mark Thompson is infact more severe in his judgement of operations by Samir Farajallah. He also writes that Samir Farajallah is originally from the United Arab Emirates which I dutifully repeated in saying "According to the article, Samir Farajallah is originally from the United Arab Emirates.

EXAMPLE-2 : It is a FACT that Samir Farajallah was indicted and pleaded guilty to illegal arms purchases in the USA made on behalf of AdvanFort. I included all references to that case in the article. I quote the info : "AdvanFort pleaded guilty in a US court of illegally purchasing weaponry. U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division), in Case 1:13CR53 AdvanFort Company pled guilty to “Aiding and Abetting the Making of a False Statement During the Acquisition of Firearms,”

So, what is the problem with these two examples ? Can you clarify because I fail to grasp were I am "not neutral". I have gone through the Wikipedia rules on neutrality Neutral point of view and I believe that the text I contributed complies adequately especially in the sub-sections titled Due and undue weight. I have also read Neutral point of view and Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.

I don't think that anyone is seriously suggesting that the NEGATIVE articles that are available in the global news media pertaining to AdvanFort be transformed. If yes, how to do that ? I don't get it and that would be silly. All that I can do is RECOMPILE the news articles but in keeping with the sense of the news article or original source of authenticated info.

Therefore, in a very non-confrontational and amicable manner I wish to understand the hurdle since there appears to be a SUBSTANCE related problem in your view. Please tell me exactly (taking the above cited two instances as an example) instead of giving me a generic reply that my contribution is NPOV.

I have not much experience in uploading content to Wikipedia so please tell me what are the rules and how to ensure non-neutrality (in this specific case where I have only sourced articles written by prominent newspapers) ? How do you suggest to proceed ?

Some of my ideas are : (1) while keeping the technical info on the ship on the current 'SHIP' page, should a new page be created for the 'COMPANY' involved and thereafter I copy the relevant info into that page so as to separate it from the 'SHIP' page ? (2) Or, should I create a page as an 'INCIDENT' that happened in India ? (3) I can put up the text & sources on the article's TALK page and then some more experienced users can reformulate if necessary and include into the article. This will be a good collaborative & consensual effort.

What is the best way forward on this case which is a ongoing current news event/affair ?

I am a novice-level contributor and therefore please help me with advise instead of hammering me with cryptic reasons to reject my good faith contributions because there are no ill intentions involved. Thanks.

81.240.180.58 (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC) aka NATO-Legal (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A block is a block. you are not allowed to participate anywhere other than your talk page to request an unblock. Your request was denied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

DELETION OF REFERENCES SOURCES PRIOR TO DELETION OF CONTENT ON PRETEXT OF MISSING SOURCES

On a minor side note, I wish to highlight that user "Darkness Shines" & "TheRedPenOfDoom" have already redacted/deleted SOURCES info as being irrelevant [1] (without thoroughly checking the referenced sources in the MV Seaman Guard Ohio article). Here is the corresponding reference [2]. For additional fact checking please see [3] [4]. Because, in my submissions the info source is referenced at a single point but the text is sometimes distributed in various sections of the article in function of the sub-section. How to link multiple texts to a single URL source that is referenced ? How to deal with such deliberate deletions of verified and authenticated content ? I don't know how to do this on wikipedia. Therefore, I urge someone more experienced to please verify the text against the URL sources that are already submitted so that the text is not redacted because of the lack of a citation tag in the immediate vicinity. After more deletions of sources have been done by user "TheRedPenOfDoom", he then goes on to claim on the article's talk page (after deleting the sources) that the text is OR ! I sometimes wonder IF anyone actually controls the deletions or just goes by trusting the one liners that are given as reasons for the deletions and opening of disputes.

LATEST NEWS : For those interested in following the latest developments, here are a few news articles :

I would like to complete the info with the latest developments which will give a fuller picture of the case on hand :

* "Armed ship in India had prior brushes with law" [5]

* "Members of detained US ship being charge-sheeted, security forces 'very vigilant': Shipping Minister" [6],

* "Seaman Guard probe reveals worrying weakness in maritime security" [7] and

* "Tamil Nadu police defend detention of US ship, crew" [8].

81.240.180.58 (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC) aka NATO-Legal (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to read and understand our policies about how sourcing and content works. Particularly WP:OR , its subsection WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. "Sources" no matter how reliable, that do not specifically talk about the subject of this article, the ship, cannot be used to make commentary about the subject of this article, the ship. The only thing allowed in this article about the ship is content about the ship and not content about laws and precedence etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

AdvanFort

Sticking my head in here: the company should be covered at its own article (and without too much there on the owner(s)). Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AdvanFort (2) exists. I believe the editor who created it has admitted to a conflict of interest. In any event it has in the past been declined for lack of sources. It seems to me that for those who regard the company as having received enough press coverage to demonstrate notability, the best way forward is either to work with that editor to make that article both neutral and well referenced, or to create a new article on the company instead - again, that is neutral and well referenced. Then the issue of coatracking in this article will fall away. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, my concern about COATRACKING is not about content about the company. it is about setting up content in this article that introduces the history of the law of the sea. MV_Seaman_Guard_Ohio#Regulation_of_Private_Maritime_Security_industry That is an attempt to place Ohio's entrance into Indian waters into a particular legal and historical framework based on sources discussing "the history of the law of the sea" and NOT on sources discussing "the history of the law of the sea in regards to MV Seaman Guard Ohio" and which would be just as much of a COATRACK in an article about AdvanFort. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions to clear-up article :

(1) while keeping the technical info on the ship on the current 'ship' (MV Seaman Guard Ohio) page, should a new page be created for the 'company' (AdvanFort) involved so as to separate it from the 'ship' page ?

(2) How about the creation of a page which concentrates on this 'incident' that happened in India (for example "2013 Interception of MV Seaman Guard Ohio in Bay of Bengal") ?

81.240.147.136 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

1) only if the company has received significant coverage of itself outside of the ship and this incident. and in that case the content about "the ship" is not notable on its own, only in the context of the company.

2) Wikipedia is not the news and so an article about the "incident" would require enough time to have passed with ongoing coverage of "incident" outside of the breaking news context. ie it happens to set international precedent, it is frequently cited as an example of X, many countries pass new laws about ships/militias because of this, the phrase "Ohio in India" comes into the language with a meaning related to the "incident" etc. and we do not have a crystal ball to determine if the "incident" is actually of any such import -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

NOTABILITY

Regarding the notability tag. After cross-checking with rules as defined on WP:GNG

For info, the search term "MV Seaman Guard Ohio" at present has 182,000 results on Google Search and 8,190 results on Google News.

The events surrounding "MV Seaman Guard Ohio" have received global coverage and through all major news sources : BBC, VOA, Fox News, Sky News, ABC, France24,... and also press wires like Reuters, AFP, etc.,

As for a search on "AdvanFort", the numbers are as follows : 99,500 results for Google Search and 6,720 results for Google News.

The case surrounding the ship/company/event can be monitored over a few days to see how things pan out and if it is going to fade away completely or stay-on in the news.

I'd also like to get opinions on this from persons not already involved

81.240.147.136 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

show me specific reliable sources that have covered the Ohio outside of the recent incident in the news and I will gladly remove the tag. Until then the number of googlehits means nothing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom: I've consistently maintained that the text can be divided/distributed over 3 subjects (1) the ship "MV Seaman Guard Ohio" (2) the company "AdvanFort and (3) the incident "MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident".

I am glad that my opinion has prevailed and that the article has now been transformed from being ship-centric to incident-centric (given that the company-centric page which was my first choice is frozen and unavailable). After-all, who on earth really cares about the ship. It is insignificant. However, the incident has received wide coverage in local media and is therefore significant enough to merit a mention somewhere on a wikipedia page up until the company page is unfrozen.

The issue of the incident has potential for becoming the starting point for a move towards adoption of legally enforceable regulations of PMC (Private Military Companies) and PMSC (Private Maritime Security Companies).

81.240.147.136 (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

AdvanFort's past issues resurface in the media

• Armed ship in India had prior brushes with law ("The Hindu" newspaper [9])
• Not first brush with law for ship owner ("The New Indian Express newspaper [10]
• Shadowy Arab billionaire behind armed US ship ("The New Indian Express newspaper [11]
• Storm clouds gather over detained US ship ("The Telegraph" [12]

81.240.147.136 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the names of the owners of MV Seaman Guard Ohio though the company AdvanFort have been referred publicly in the media, can the wikipedia article also cite these names which are presently in the public domain ?

I am unclear if/how info on the persons managing the firm which in turn owns the ship can be cited within the article. I am new here to know what is possible and in which context. So, I wish to tread cautiously and not rock the boat ;-)

81.240.147.136 (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability and CoatTrack

@TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom : Please refer to the arguments made at User_talk:Yngvadottir#Request_for_feed-back_on_MV_Seaman_Guard_Ohio_incident by Yngvadottir (talk) who obviously is a more experienced user than myself when it comes to procedures/customs/rules followed on wikipedia. Based upon Yngvadottir's suggestions, I have redacted the 2 redundant tags which were adding unnecessary clutter on the article's page.81.240.147.136 (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the CoatTail : May I point out that the interception of this ship by Indian Coast Guard has received significant media attention in India for the following reasons : (1) public opinion which demanded, in the aftermath of the 2011 Mumbai Bomb Blasts that India's maritime borders be strictly controlled by the Coast Guard. (2) increasing number of hit-and-run or other types of incidents involving foreign ships in Indian EEZ, (3) the deaths of 2 fishermen by armed marine guards onboard a merchant oil-tanker in 2011 which raised in turn calls for regulation of armed guards onboard merchant vessels plying in Indian EEZ, (4) very strict laws pertaining to ownership and import of arms and ammunition in Indian (5) increased uneasiness in political and military circles about 'surveillance vessels' aka spy-ships of foreign countries which approach Indian waters (6) assertion of sovereignty by India over maritime boundaries & SLOC in view of latest naval posture, (7) questions on why/how a private maritime company received legal authorisation to conduct policing/patrolling activities in a country's EEZ or CZ (is normally the domain of competence of navies and coast-guards) ?

In light of all these concerns which have once again come to the fore after the interception of the MV Seaman Guard Ohio by the Indian Coast Guard, it is only normal that an article either about the ship and/or the incident reflect these issues.

If over the next weeks/months we see unilateral passage of laws/rules/regulations by India in the aftermath of this incident, OR we may see collective international action to regulate the PMSC (Private Maritime Security Companies) and PMCs (Private Military Companies); then we can trace them back to this ship and the incident. But till then the only note-worthy result of this incident is that it has become an embarrassment for the current government which is already reeling under charges of doing little to protect Indian borders against incursions by State-actors (read China & Pakistan) and non-State actors (read terrorists & illegal poaching by foreign fishing boats).

81.240.147.136 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

you have pointed that out already. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I am just putting some back-ground info here and am willing to respond to any further requests for sources and all. However, I have no idea of if yes or no this info is pertinent or not in the context of judging the coat-tail, notability and deletion reviews.

In so far as I am concerned, I am ok with the general consensus and the opinion of persons who know all the wikipedia rules.

I am only interested in contributing acceptable content to the article (preferably under guidance because I don't yet know all the wikipedia rules).

81.240.147.136 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Unauthenticated Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracks

GCAPTAIN, a maritime oriented website, has published Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracks of the MV Seaman Guard Ohio for the period between 09 Oct 2013 to 12 Oct 2013 claiming that the data was sourced from Windward, a Maritime Analytics Services Company.

Considering that the GCAPTAIN website is on a wikipedia blacklist and that the data/information is not authenticated I have not included it on the article. 109.128.150.134 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Impact of AfD

Given that the AfD closed as "Keep the article about the ship", the content of the article must now focus on the ship. the excessive detail about the incident have been removed and condensed into a paragraph. If I have missed any of the actually important content, the existing paragraphs may be reduced to better focus on the actual important content and other major factors can be added. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree to such a major deletion of fully referenced/sourced text content. You actually would have seen from the AfD comments page that you yourself opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident that a strong majority of persons wanted to keep the incident related info/text on the page that was already published therein. Therefore, your action is inappropriate if not devious. 109.128.150.134 (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

the case was made at the AfD and is obvious WP:COATRACK in an article about the SHIP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the AfD closed simply as keep. -- 101.119.15.109 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

based on the content of the discussion at the AfD, it was "keep" as an article about the ship, with many of the !votes being "keep the article about the ship, but clean up and pare down the content that is not about the ship" and there was no one who stated "we need a very long section about the incident in the article about the boat" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this incident deserves its own article then, per Wikipedia:EVENT? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It does not meet WP:PERSISTENCE as far as I can tell. Its just an ongoing incident which at this time still falls under WP:NOTNEWS it may or may not turn out to be some type of turning point international relations/views towards private anti-piracy actions, but at this point in time, its actual impact is purely conjecture -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that there is a difference of opinion on what the article should cover. The AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident has many users who did mention that the content related to the 'incident' should be retained (without necessarily saying if it had to be on a separate page). Therefore, till this is resolved through discussions or otherwise through a dispute settlement mechanism, I suggest to TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom that the current article should not be redacted in the major manner. The contrary will be a gross provocation and contrary to the comments left by those who voted to KEEP the article in it's current form.Arccotangent (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)