Talk:Hawaii Superferry

Facts

Reviewed References and edited some lines to bring statements in-line with references, also correcting some references to proper wikipedia format. Also Searched for and found other references where they were needed.--Daishi808 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is written in a conversational style, it needs to be re-worked. What were the protesters protesting exactly? I have no way of knowing. -206.71.201.43 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The "facts" section of this article are including half-truths and are quite misleading. --Daishi808 09:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Boycott the superferry" in links section. Come on folks thats not even faking a NPOV. --Daishi808 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be differing opinions of whether or not the "Boycott Superferry" external link belongs or not. Several anonymous users have attempted to remove it without discussion or edit summaries. Without discussion or some general consensus, I feel compelled to rvt those edits. Please chime in here. In my opinion, (based on several friends who live on Maui and Kaua'i), the debate is still raw and the subject needs to be balanced with multiple pov.

Also, WP has a policy discouraging trivia sections, so if any of you have time, lets work to bring this info into the body of the article. --MercolaOverMerck♫ (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I say that it is not wrong to but the "Boycott Superferry" but its not right also. The Reason is this page is mainly on the Ferry itself. Really the Boycott is on a matter of opinion. -- Zapper258 20:58, 22 January 2008 (HST)

Lock Until Situation is resolved

I believe the article should be locked from unregistered and newly registered users until the controversy dies down --Daishi808 09:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless we start to see edit warring, etc. go on, I see no reason why we should lock the article. There remains a lot of information that could still be included that would be prevented if the article were locked. Zoomwsu 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This article should be split, with one page containing facts on the ferry and it's history, and a small section that mentions there is controversy, which links to another article which contains arguments for and against the superferrys operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.160.192 (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

With the article not being very large to begin with, that information could be included in the main article for the time being. It can be offloaded later if it gets too bulky. KeithH 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Organization

With everyone trying to edit this article, I think there needs to be clear organization here. I took a stab at creating headings to organize things. The material in the Facts section probably should be folded into the revised article. Also, the way it looks right now it looks heavy on post-launch and really thin on the early history (formation and the early history of the controversy). Probably need more info from the newspapers, etc. Also, the conversational tone has got to go. KeithH 08:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the article

I just finished reading a news report of a "Hawaian Superferry" and not knowing what it was about I came to wikipedia. It would be a shame if activists, by their actions, will have this article frozen or even removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.29.42 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC-8)

More Images and a Map

I'm requesting that someone gather a better, perhaps larger image of the ferry and a map or it's route for this page... --Mercola over Merck (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

hahahahah classic wiki piece

there's a section called facts! what does that make the rest of the article? opinions? half-truths?

but anyhow thanks people of hawaii, this article has some info even though it is mostly lame. how come the ferry will kill whales but cruise ships push them out of the way? and why do the people on kauai have to stick their noses in? isn't the ferry only from maui to oahu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.169.171 (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if you read most of the refs and external links here your questions will be answered. --MercolaOverMerck♫ (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary of controversy missing

What I really miss in this article so far is a summary of the controversy... the forest for the trees.... mendicott.com (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true. my goal in the next couple of days is to work on folding the trivia into the body and formulate some new sections and break up the "Inaugural voyage and suspension of service" into a more readable style with the following sections:

• Vessel
• History
• Controversy
• Series of events
• Inaugural voyage
• Protests
• Suspension of service
• Current Status

Anything objections, additions, or general thoughts? --MercolaOverMerck♫ (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Due to these edits by a WP:SPA that removed all of the criticism, I have added a NPOV tag. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

References added along with additions, corrections and substantial grammatical corrections including protestor detail, supreme court ruling, service acceleration, etc., etc. It took several edits. This article has been heavily biased in a variety of directions and, until now, never properly referenced. (Telebyte) 00:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous diffs show that most of the material you removed was properly sourced. Your initial cleanup consisted of removing all of the criticism. I see you are beginning to move some of it back into the article now, but I will monitor the changes closely, and if I find you have left anything significant out, I will add it back in from a previous version with sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• You removed high-speed ferry from the lead.[1] Since this both an accurate description and the locus of much of the dispute concerning the ferry's operation among slower-moving marine life like humpback whales, your deletion appears to be a violation of NPOV. Can you explain why you removed this from the lead section? Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• You removed a brief summary of the dispute from the lead section, which goes against WP:LEAD.[2] Can you explain why you did this? Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• In the "Vessel" section, you removed a claim about the ship design minimizing "impact to marine mammals",[3] a key aspect of the dispute. Can you explain why you removed this? Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• In the "History" section, you removed important information about how "fares for a family of five" would be "roughly comparable to equivalent airfare, car rental, parking, and fuel charges",[4] and in its place, you added an off-topic reference to Eddie_Aikau. Can you explain this? Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• In the "Inaugural voyage" section, you removed "suspension of service" from the heading and changed the text from "environmentalists were at the harbor observing operations but there were no significant protests" to "few environmental protesters observing peacefully at Kahului harbor". Looking at the source for reference,[5] shows that it says, "On Maui a couple dozen environmentalists and onlookers, including state Deputy Attorney General Bill Wynhoff, observed the passengers and cars leaving the vessel. But there was no traffic congestion -- albeit it was a Sunday morning -- and signs of protest were few." So, the original text that you changed was accurate, while you introduced bias into the article with your subsequent change - a bias not reflected in the source. The source does not say "few environmental protesters observing peacefully", which makes it sound like there were many environmental protestors observing violently. Can you explain this change? Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• In the same section, you use primary sources - YouTube videos - to describe the protesters as violent, which in a previous version said "verbally threatened". Either way, we have to have WP:RS secondary sources for this. We cannot rely on YouTube for this material. The YouTube videos appear to be recordings of newscasts, and since this is open to interpretation, I recommend finding additional sources for verification. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. The YouTube sources were original - not mine. I agree they are not the best, or even objective, and will work to source better - Garden Island News or something. I agree that putting High Speed back is good - however the section had failed to mention the important fact that the ferry is drive on / drive off which is the source of the controversy regarding invasives, which was entirely left out until I added that back. (see below.)

Overall the article was mostly about the controversy, not the ferry and its role in Hawaii's critical and fragile transportation matrix - for example, there was no information that the ferry is in operation today, there is a new CEO, service to Kauai is being considered again, developments since the sad loss of Aloha, etc. There is still no discussion of its role carrying produce, FedEx and construction equipment, etc.

The Eddie Aikau section is important because it is the only available documentation that Hawaii had a roll-on /roll-off ferry before. Newspaper articles from 1966 are not online and as I had read Eddie Would Go which is also online in Google Books, it is the best available reference. It also relates to how useful that ferry was.

I used the word protestors in Maui because many were not environmentalists, they were paddlers or surfers concerned about either their paddling lanes or inside-harbor surf break.

In the suspension of service section, I corrected the speed of the vessel for whale concerns to 40 mph not 30 mph in earlier versions. I deleted the speculative sentence that cruise ships nudge whales out of the way without harm - anyone who has seen the many pictures of whales draped over 900 foot cruise ship bows knows this is not true. With Aloha --Telebyte (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mahalo - I think all of these items have been taken care of. --Telebyte (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are still outstanding issues. For example:

1. You added "protestors violently confronted passengers including Kaua'i residents and vandalized cars." This is sourced to a YouTube video of a newscast and letters to the editor from Kauai Garden Island News. A KHNL news link you provide uses the word "violent" but not in the context of this particular incident. So as it stands, this current section is not directly supported.
2. The material you added about Eddie Aikau is what we on Wikipedia call "original research". See WP:NOR. It's also not supported by the current reference which makes no reference to Aikau. Aikau really has nothing to do with this article, but the material you removed does and is supported by the reference.[6] So this needs to be reverted to the previous version, which read: "They envisioned fares for a family of five to be roughly comparable to equivalent airfare, car rental, parking, and fuel charges." Unless you can find a good reliable source that discusses Aikau and the current Hawaii Superferry, we can't mention it. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the mention of Eddie Aikau is WP:OR ... but I do agree that mentioning him by name in the article is not relevant to the subject here. I do agree with keeping a reference to past service in the history section, as long as it only states the fact that the routes once existed - then use Book, it's ISBN number, and the relevant page as the source - no need to link to eddiewouldgo.com. In fact, linking to that page could be viewed as promoting a retail link - so best to not link to it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Using Eddie Aikau in this article with the current sources is the very definition of WP:NOR. If you disagree, then show me a reliable source that discusses Eddie Aikau and the Hawaii Superferry. The very linking of the two ideas appears to be a form of subtle propaganda. Aikau is one of Hawaii's most beloved locals, and the fact that his parents took him as a child on an inter-island ferry from Maui to Oahu has nothing to do with this article. If i had to guess, it appears that someone is trying to add legitimacy to the Superferry and deflate its controversy by synthesizing the mention of a trip Aikau took as a child to the Hawaii Superferry, making it seem like Hawaii's greatest local boy was in favor of it! It's an insidious form of POV and should be deleted immediately. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read beyond my first sentence. While I disagree with how you define it, I partially agree with your position. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I read your comments in their entirety, and I still see the inclusion of Eddie Aikau as it currently appears, as pure OR. If you disagree, then find a reliable source that discusses Aikau and the Superferry. Coleman's book, which I currently have in my hand, states that Eddie Aikau was ~12 years-old when his parents took him on the Maui Queen ferry. What does this have to do the Hawaii Superferry? Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning Eddie Aikau is irrelevant to this story, and should be removed. Mentioning that past service existed on the inter-island routes is relevant. It is a relevant fact, not WP:OR. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion, I've never once claimed that historical service was OR. Now, that we are actually on that topic, I would be happy to discuss it. The content in question: "Private steamships and ferries were the sole way of traveling between the islands between the 1800s until the 1950s and returned twice since statehood, once in 1966 between Oahu, Maui and Big Island, and Seaflite which operated hydrofoils between the major islands in the mid-1970s." Looking at the article, the first statement is currently unsourced while the second statement is sourced to an article about Seaflite. Is this original research? As it currently appears, yes, but it is likely that sources can be found to support a "history of Hawaiian transportiation". I would reccomend finding sources that support this information in the context of the Superferry. Otherwise, I recommend that you split out the content and develop an article about the subject. If you want to put the Hawaii Superferry in historical context, you need to find sources that do just that. Otherwise, linking the "concept of the Superferry" with the history of "private steamships and ferries" from 1800-1950 reads as OR. It's best to start with a separate article on the subject, and either link to it with a seealso section hatnote or find sources that discuss the history in the context of the Superferry. There's a number of ways you can do this, but yes, it currently reads as OR. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've solved part of the problem by removing the synthesis and separating out the sourced content from the unsourced. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I had brought it up in my initial post as well, it's the exact same position I took in my initial post on both Eddie Aikau and on the history section.

In my opinion, the current wording resolves the problem; but I recognize that you still view it as OR. It's obvious that we will not agree on this issue, as I do not view it as OR. In my opinion, the route involved is directly relevant to the subject of the article. Mentioning the fact that other services have periodically existed on the route in the past would likewise be a relevant fact within the History section - especially as it's only a brief mention of the fact and not expanded upon in any way.

We can wait for Telebyte to return to add his comments, wait for additional persons to view this discussion, or use the WP:RFC process for additional input on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speculate as to my beliefs or what I think or am going to think. We don't need to wait for anyone or use an RFC to ask for sources, verification, and NPOV. It's really quite simple. If the material is lacking sources, add them. This article is about the Hawaii Superferry. If you think content about the history of ferry transportation in Hawaii is relevant to this particular article, then find the sources to support their inclusion. That's it, really. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No speculation involved. By your own words, you viewed that material as OR. I do not; although looking at it again, the current wording is awkward and still contains extraneous data. It would probably be best to prune it further to only a passing mention that there has been service periodically on the route by other vessels in the past.

But I'll leave needed edits and adding sources to others. The only reason I even saw the discussion here was because I've had this article on my watch list for some time due to past vandalism on the article. As that's not currently ongoing, my interest here is minimal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been meaning to do a history of interisland transportation (Inter Island Steam Navigation - an unreferenced link already in Wikipedia from Hawaiian Airlines its scion, Wilder Lines - yep same as the street in Honolulu, etc.) There is only one book that covers this, and I have some photocopies of old Advertiser Articles from the 1950s and 1960s. Edition 500 printed by UH Press: Schooner from Windward 1983 by Mifflin Thomas. It's long past copyright & the author is dead so I can probably include some pix. Incredible photos, maps, and tariffs from as far back as 1860. IMHO, this is why the Eddie Aikau reference in the History section is important: ferries and steamships were the fabric of interisland transportation from the Polynesians until the 1950s - but since we grew aluminum wings we forgot it all. Unless you talk to an old timer like Admiral Alvey Wright (now 99 - used to be head of DOT here, still sharp as a tack) it's getting lost fast. --Telebyte (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can, start with Transportation in Hawaii, working your way through each section, splitting out into new articles or linking sections summary style as you go. Take a look at the category to see what's currently missing, or take a broad look from the top-down to see how other editors have handled this topic. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just learned of the NPOV disputes on this article from the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter, so will try to get up to speed and weigh in if I have something pertinent to add. Arjuna (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Because of it’s size, speed and course over open ocean, one of the major problems with the Hawaii Superferry is the nausea induced by the rocking of the vessel on the water or seasickness. Each seat contains motion sickness bags commonly found on airplanes if passengers need to vomit. The crew is also equipped with machines to clean soiled carpet and upholstery during voyages.

Travel time and competition

What was the ferry's scheduled travel time, and how did that compare to air travel? What competing methods for transporting cars were there, and what was the cost differential? -- Beland (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Militarization

Militarization. It is pointed out that the Superferry's CEO, John F. Lehman, is a former U.S. Navy secretary whose expertise is in the acquisition of private endeavors with military applications,[17] and that the Superferry is designed to be able to transport military equipment and vehicles, including Stryker combat vehicles

Are you freakin' kidding me? That's an argument? Solicitr (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I suspect there are good secondary sources that put this in a more appropriate and neutral context, the current wording and sourcing is not acceptable, so I recommend removing the first statement from the article and placing it on the talk page with a request for better sourcing and composition. "South Kona Youth" is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. However, the quote for the second part of the sentence is somewhat reflected by the The Honolulu Advertiser source. The article should be severely pruned to reflect only the most notable aspects of what the reliable sources report, no more. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete website

The website in the Infobox -- -- appears no longer to be in service. It just leads to one of those standard "parked" pages, full of links to scammy-looking sites, and has a message at the top that the domain name "may be for sale."

I'm kind of a newbie to editing Wikipedia, and so I apologize if a general policy is written down somewhere that I didn't find, but what's the best-practices way to deal with a situation like this? Seems to me we don't want to direct people to a site that's no longer of use (and could potentially be malicious). Should the website line in the Infobox just be deleted? Should the URL be deleted, but a message put in its place about the site no longer being active? Should the URL be replaced with a link to the Wayback Machine, if an appropriate one exists?

Any tips would be appreciated. Thanks. bjkeefe (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)