Talk:ZIM (shipping company)

message: From a version of Dubai Ports World controversy:
:Surprisingly, Israel's largest shipping firm, Zim Integrated Shipping Services, came out in support of the deal. This is despite the U.A.E.'s backing of an Arab boycott of Israeli shipping. The company sails under the flags of other countries to avoid the boycott.
Which flags do they fly under?
Who say that the "do it to avoid" the Arab League Boycott of Israel? --Uncle Ed 14:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is evidently untrue that ZIM left the WTC the week before the attacks. 
The decision to move to Virginia had been made months before and there were still ZIM employees working in the WTC on 9-11. This is explained in two Web log articles that seem to be the best source for this: 
 
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2008/09/slander-that-just-wont-die-where-does.html
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2007/12/sorry-not-convinced-yet-this-post-is.html
Evidently the source of the hoax is Christopher Bolleyn, a well known Holocaust denier and racist associate of David Duke 
http://www.911review.com/denial/holocaust.html - [[Mewnews (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which piece of info sourced by Knight Ridder is allegedly wrong. I don't have time to read long web pages and find the allegation, so it would help if you'd share it. Carol Moore 18:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zim and 9-11 attacks 

message: There seems to be some disagreement over whether the placement of this section on the Zim Integrated Shipping Services page is appropriate. After many attempts by a number of anonymous users to completely remove the section, I had restored the section with the justification that these protests are not strictly in response to Israel's 2014 offensive in Gaza, but rather part of an ongoing and years-long effort. The most recent example of this is a similar effort taken in 2010 in response to Israel's assault on the Mavi Marmara flotilla.
In addition to this, the protesting of Zim's shipping services has made international news - as outlined in the very section in question - thus it would make the most sense to keep this as its own section on the Zim Shipping Wikipedia page, as these efforts continue.
Regarding the word count and proportionality, the fact that a section outlining protests directed at particular company has grown in light of new details should not be an argument for its removal. It is still a minor section relative to the rest of the article.
Iproofreadwiki (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockade 

message: I just wanted to draw the attention of all editors to the notice I put at the top of this page. This article falls under the arbitration committee enforcement rules for all articles related to the Arab-Israel conflict. One of the most important rules is that there is a strict prohibition on editing warring. Specifically, editors are prohibited from making more than one "revert" (changing back what an editor did) per 24-hour period. There has been edit warring and it must stop. The controversial material in question must be discussed in accordance with Wikipedia rules pertaining to verifiability and neutrality. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  16:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: There is a request for a citation for "expressions of support from ILWU members". Here is a video of the ILWU member and labor leader Clarence Thomas speaking at the Oakland protest. YouTube: PNN-TV: Longshoremen Speaks for Gaza at Blockade the Boat Action in Oakland Wanted to check that was suitable as a citation before adding it. [btw. I only wish to contribute usefully to this wikipedia and this page and have learned a lot from your comments, thanks!]
Ausrussell (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, and I appreciate the cooperation of all editors in ceasing the edit warring and discussing it all here. I think that the Youtube video you mention in all likelihood would not be acceptable, based upon a widely followed essay, WP:NOYT, that describes what is and is not acceptable as a reliable source. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  00:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with User:Figureofnine. There are rare and limited instance in which a YouTube video would be a RS, and this is not one of them, I'm afraid. Having personally been present at/participated in one of these pickets (and we should be using the word "picket" as "blockade" is a marketing term and may mislead the reader) I can attest to the veracity of the notion that some individual ILWU members did offer statements of support. However, I have yet to find any RS sources that provide neutral affirmation. DocumentError (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I utilized that and sfgate.com as a source. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  20:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text: The Reuters article is obviously a reliable source and its text should be incorporated with proper weight, in accordance with the RfC consensus. Indybay I think does not meet the requirements of WP:V. There is some unsourced text in the article that needs to be removed. Also I believe the RfC may have expired and if so it needs to be officially closed by an administrator. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I've done some editing to add the new material, add reliable sources and also to integrate with the history section, as is the clear consensus in the RfC. However, the RfC hasn't been officially closed so obviously that will be binding. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  22:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion