Talk:Springer (orca)

message: Past discussions on COI w.r.t. this article are archived at the links above.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations
Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest issues

message: Hi everyone,
I did three hours of work on the article over the weekend that was entirely reverted on Monday. I'm not at all happy about that, as you can imagine, and I also think that the current version of the article is not the best baseline to move forward on. Here are some recent milestones:
1. November 26, 2009 - The version that existed before user:Babywildfilms started editing. This is essentially the version that was linked to from the "This day in history" section on the Wikipedia Main page.
2. December 10, 2009 - The version after Babywildfilms finished making additions. 
3. December 15, 2009 - After some cleanup from me, and a COI tag, but substantially the same version as on December 10
4. December 23, 2009 - After some edits and references by Mrjoshuawells, still substantially the same version as on December 10. 
5. December 26, 2009 - After three hours of work by me in which I went through the article paragraph-by-paragraph, tightening prose, removing press-release-type statements, fixing style issues, and painstakingly copying whatever I cut to the Talk page. After all this I felt the article still needed a COI tag, but was planning to keep editing until the COI tag was no longer necessary.
6. December 28, 2009 - Reversion back to the December 23 version.
7. December 30, 2009 - The December 23 version, plus some good edits made today by Mrjoshuawells.
I propose that we do the following:
* Restore the  November 26 version of the article
* Add uncontentious material to it from the December 26 version, and don't add a COI tag. 
* Copy any contentious sections to Talk:Springer (orca)/Sandbox and work on the sandbox together until we have a consensus version that we can copy into the article without a COI tag. I agree that the November 26 version should be expanded to cover more of the back-story from the spring of 2002. The questions of what sources to use for that, how much weight to give to different points of view, and how to write it in an encyclopedic style will take some time to sort out. 
What do you all think? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay because i am lazy give me the rundown on what the issue is and what COI is taking place??. ZooPro 08:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had a look and will let you know of my opinion shortly. ZooPro 08:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaking the current version, I've noticed the prose even in the November 26 version is what I have been tweaking and removing redundancies. I hate it when paras move so that the whole text goes red and it is hard to compare versions directly. Rather than wholesale revert, maybe doing it section by section (sigh.....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseline version of the article to work on 

message: Hi everyone, 
I've put a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans for community input on this article, and I'll also be leaving similar requests at Talk:Killer Whale, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
Here are some issues that I think need to be addressed:
1. Whether to revert to a previous version of the article to use as a baseline: See the above section for a proposal.
2.TV news programs as sources, e.g. "Orca Coalition Sees Hope For Ecosystem," KOMO 4 News (ABC Seattle), June 12, 2002". Does this meet WP:V and WP:RS? 
:In my opinion, yes if there is a reasonable way to see the program in question (e.g. http://www.orcaconservancy.org/ has some archived clips), but not otherwise. I'm not sure about the copyright status of those video clips on the Orca Conservancy site either. Lots of high-quality published print sources exist as an alternative.
3. For what kinds of information is ""THE SPRINGER FILE," Orca Conservancy" a reliable source? 
:My opinion: Not much. It reads as an advocacy piece by an advocacy organization, and a lot of it isn't about Springer. Much of it looks like it might be a copyright violation. And it uses this article on Wikipedia as a source, uh-oh ;) 
4. A style issue throughout the new content is that it frequently mentions what TV stations and programs reported something. There is an emphasis on who-was-on-TV that I've never seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. 
:I would much rather have "person x said y" followed by a footnote to the source than "person x said y on KING 5 News (NBC Seattle)" followed by a footnote to the source.
Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: Would this children's book rate mention in the article? I have no firm opinion either way. - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, totally. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would children's book rate mention? 

message: After looking more at the "Springer file" the Orca Conservancy website, I believe that linking to this website would be a violation of Wikipedia policy regarding Biographies of living persons. I have removed the URL from all 8 hyperlinks to this website. I'm trying to keep as open a mind as possible about the information that relies on Orca Conservancy as a source, but if we can't find reliable secondary sourcing for this information then it will have to go as well. I have left a notice at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding the Orca Conservancy website. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orca Conservancy website and [[WP:Biographies of living persons]] 

message: I'm planning to start rewriting the parts of this article that deal with the debate about what to do with Springer, and about fundraising. I don't know yet how deep of a rewrite is needed, however I should explain why at this point I feel that a rewrite is needed:
* The amount of weight given to Orca Conservancy and Free Willy/Keiko Foundation does not seem right. The Francis and Hewlett book that Mrjoshuawells and I agree is a high-quality sources devotes approximately half of a 280-page book to the Springer story. According to its index, the pages that pertain to Springer mention Orca Conservancy exactly once, Michael Harris zero times, and the Free Willy/Keiko Foundation zero times (Orca Conservancy and Michael Harris are mentioned a few times in the pages that pertain to Luna). By comparison, Ken Balcomb has five index entries, OrcaLab has eight index entries,  Paul Spong has four, and Lance Barrett-Lennard has something like eighteen, and they all include index entries that span multiple pages.
* I cannot find any secondary source that talks about the Prescott Marine Mammal fund with respect to Springer. It isn't in the index of the Francis and Hewlett book. It isn't in the Google News archive for January to June 2002 (searching for "Prescott marine mammal"). This doesn't mean that the story about getting Prescott funds didn't happen. What it means is that the news sources indexed by Google News did not report on it much, at all. 
The sources that I plan to use for a rewrite are the Francis and Hewlett book and Google News results for "Springer orca" without quotes. If I can see a video clip of a TV program then I think it's OK to use it as well, but if no clip is available then I will consider the material that references it to not be reliably sourced. If it's notable, it will be in other sources as well: this was an extremely well-covered news story.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Due weight and the back-story 

message: I just discovered that someone has removed all sourcing to the Blackfish Sounder, a Vancouver Aquarium publication, that were in a previous version of the article.  I consider this to be vandalism. Detail from other references, such as "date retrieved" information, has also been removed for no apparent reason. Having to fix things like this bit-by-bit instead of having consensus to revert to a previous version is an enormous waste of time. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi everyone, here is a notice that I am planning to revert the article to the state it was in last November and fill in things from there. The edits that have been made since then are a lot worse than I thought they were when I first proposed reverting. By the way, I tracked down who removed the Blackfish Sounder references, and have left a vandalism warning on the editor's talk page. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm about half done. I've reverted to the November 26 version and have started to re-add content bit-by-bit from the January 23 version. It really needed to be done this way. In addition to the Blackfish Sounder references that had been removed and other references that had been watered-down, someone had also removed at least one reference to Orca Network's website and replaced it with a reference to Orca Conservancy's website. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 10:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Looks a lot better, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone removed Blackfish Sounder references 

message: That's a lot of money.  Would have bough a whole lot of antibiotics, vaccines, mosquito nets, etc, in Africa.
But little picaninnies aren't as cuddly and photogenic as a whale, are they?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.176.129 (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hundreds of thousands of dollars" for the "rescue" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Springer (killer whale). 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/20130710084904/http://web.kitsapsun.com/news/2002/july/07132springer.html to http://web.kitsapsun.com/news/2002/july/07132springer.html
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) 10:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chimo (killer whale) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 22:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Granny (killer whale) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 16:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress