Talk:MV Tampa

message: The name given most often for the Norwegian ship is MV Tampa.
Google has "about 878" hits for "MS Tampa".  The first seven are mirrors of this page, and other ones are about beauty contests in Tampa, Florida.  On the other hand it has "about 2,710" for "MV Tampa", falling to 1500 for "MV Tampa"+refugees.
MV Tampa redirects here, but it just looks wrong to me with MS Tampa at the top of the page.
Does anyone have any objections to me moving it?    --xoddam 02:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article from MS Tampa to MV Tampa 

message: Is this really the term we are looking for? I know it is trying to highlight the chasm between support and opposition to the government's actions, but using it here makes it sound like the community is polarised with roughly equal numbers supporting each view.  
Perhaps something better would be to explain while the policy (apparently) recieved widespread support from the community, the government had been condemned by refugee groups etc.
The use of "Bitterly divided" paits a false impression of public opinion in this case.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.65.203 (talk • contribs) 
:No, I think it describes quite adequately the situation. Many people, myself included, were horrified with the way these people were treated. Don't try to rewrite history or justify your position by claiming everyone agreed with the actions of our government. Because we don't. I'd say that qualifies for being "bitterly divided". Imroy 18:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the OP is correct. Imroy, you and others may have been different in your view, but it would be you that is being revisionist if you believe the public (at large) was "bitterly divided" over this issue, because it wasn't.  Taking "bitterly divided" out didn't make it seem like "everyone supported one view" because that clearly isn't true - Leaving it in made it seem like the public was split in opinion. It would be like saying "Australians are bitterly divided between voting for major parties and minor parties". I mean it is patently obvious that some Greens or One Nation supporters are/were fairly passionate, but to say the electorate is divided over the minor/major party issue would be ludicrous, as it was to use the term in this situation. 70.189.213.149 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bitterly Divided" 

message: This became refered to as 'Tampagate' in the Australian media. I'm new at Wikipedia and can't be bothered finding out how to do this at this time but could someone make it so that a search for Tampagate will bring up this page?
Dark Side of the Spoon
:I can do it, but am less certain if I should do it. The Australian media has a habit of appending "gate" as a suffix to anything controversial that relates to government. I'm not old enough to remember what happened at a certain hotel and office building on the other side of the world with a name like that, but it always seems irrelevent to Australia. The Tampa article does not currently contain the "word" Tampagate, so it seems to me to be inappropriate to add a redirect for it at this stage. --Scott Davis Talk 23:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that despite the contrary wishes of the general public across the planet, the Australian media does in fact continue to use “tampagate�? to refer to this issue. Rather than debate merit of the name, would it not make more sense to acknowledge the obvious and link “tampagate�? to this page? Cletus J. "Bubba" Huckabee Jr. 15:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please add relevent info on the ship if you know where to find it. Tampa crisis might be a suitable name if you wish to split the article. --Scott Davis Talk 10:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, no offence Imroy, but if you haven't heard this incident and its consequences refered to as Tampagate then you must have had your head under a rock! The google results don't really suprise me, as the phrase would very rarely have been used in print, but was commonly used on TV and radio and by members of the opposition. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 02:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I never said that I had never heard of the MV Tampa or the incident(s) just prior to the 2001 Federal elections. I do not have my head under a rock. I was just commenting that I'd never heard or read the term "tampagate" before, perhaps because I steer clear of the commercial news services. Pretty much ABC news (including Triple J) and SBS news for me. I could imagine channels 9 or 7 wanting to give it some simple label. See List of scandals with "-gate" suffix for more of thise silliness. Imroy 03:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I also dislike the name and think it is derivative and stupid. Indeed it would have been the commercial channels that used this term, but that is no reason not to include it, if only for it to redirect to this page. I don't see what the big deal is. I would do it if I could be bothered finding out how lol. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 10:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tampagate? 

message: I agree with Stan. Given that nearly all of the article relates to the incident in August 2001 and that the fate of the asylum seekers is discussed at length, along with the political ramifications, I think the article should be renamed to 'The Tampa Affair' or something of that ilk. 
210.9.230.81 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: I find it odd that the Children Overboard affair has been relegated to nothing more than a "See Also", when in reality it played a huge part in the government's PR efforts to manifest support in the Australian (and indeed international) public with their efforts to refuse entry to the asylum seekers. Unless there's a good reason for this absence, I will add it in.Achromatic (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one part of your perception of oddness (and it might be shared by others) arises from the difference between what most of us generally associate with this ship's name (the refugee controversy and the 2001 election), and what the article is actually about - its subject is the ship the MV Tampa. There have been some other comments on this talk page about whether there should be an article about the "Tampa crisis" or somesuch, to separate these things out. Anyway, leaving that aside, I think we should not add significant material about the Children Overboard affair, because that affair related to SIEV-4 (primarily) and not to the vessel from which the Tampa rescued people. They are two separate incidents that have become one in many of our minds because of the broader politics of the issue (as you correctly identify). I think these are adequately dealt with in Children Overboard Affair, as well as (extremely briefly) in Australian federal election, 2001, and (also briefly) in John Howard. I think if one wants to expand on the topic, I would lean toward doing it in one of those locations. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children Overboard 

message: Who Potholed the entire Mythbusters section for no real reason?
I have removed the large mass of links, keeping only relevent ones. 86.9.214.80 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potholes 

message: THis article is largely about the "tampa affair" rather than the ship itself. Thus I suggest one of two things - either a rename of the article "Tampa Affair/Controversy" (or similar) and change wording as appropriate, or split the article into one on the "affair" and one on the "ship". The latter would depend on the notability of the ship had there not been the 2001 controversy. If we chose the latter, there would be of course some overlap in each to explain context. What say ye?--Merbabu (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely.  the article, as it stands isn't about the ship, MV Tampa.  It's about the Tampa Affair.  I actually looked up the article to get the dimensions of the ship, which aren't there! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Given the apparent support throughout this page, and no stated opposition, I made the move. See [[Tampa affair]. --Merbabu (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tamper with Tampa?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on MV Tampa. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204085357/http://www.wilhelmsen.com/services/shipping/fleet/Pages/MVTampa.aspx to http://www.wilhelmsen.com/services/shipping/fleet/Pages/MVTampa.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920161759/http://blogs.news.com.au/news/news/index.php/news/comments/in_the_tampa_confusion_we_lost_our_moral_bearings/ to http://blogs.news.com.au/news/news/index.php/news/comments/in_the_tampa_confusion_we_lost_our_moral_bearings/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050624075827/http://www.nauruwire.org/nauru.htm to http://www.nauruwire.org/nauru.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified