Talk:RV Farley Mowat

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 August 5. The result of the discussion was keep.

The complete article seems to be copied from the second source. Plus it has POW policy violations.--87.123.216.114 22:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'm going to recommend this for deletion. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol

Kind of ironic that that this vessel is from the Norwegians Nil Einne 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat more on topic, does anyone know if it was purchased from the Norwegian government? If so did they know who they were selling it to? It seems strange to me that someone would sell a vessel to a group they consider pirates and/or terrorists, then again the Americans et al appear to do this kind of thing all the time Nil Einne 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't Zodiacs in the pictures, they are Sea Doo personal water craft (PWC). Zodiac is a brand name. 152.121.17.6 01:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Spotted - Corrected Fosnez 13:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

For standardisation with other Wikipedia ship articles and according to the

naming policy set down by WikiProject Ships, we should really call this article RV Farley Mowat. I will move it soon if no one disagrees. Nomadtales 22:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds fine to me. She should probably appear on the list under

R/V as well. bikeable (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Deleted paragraph

I deleted this

Update on June 21, 2007. CBC radio (Canada) reported a few days ago that "the" or "a" Mohawk nation, with only "one of three" "longhouses" affirming (two longhouses did not attend), has granted Mohawk flags to two of the ships, which will set sail in July and October of 2007, respectively, to prevent Japan from killing whales. Reading between the lines of the CBC report, I think these particular Mohawks are in Quebec but I'm not sure about that, and I haven't been able to find anything more via the web as of June 21, 2007. Nor do I know if two longhouses actually dissented or were merely absent without stating an opinion. Nor do I know for sure, but I assume, that "longhouses" are sub-groups within the Mohawk nation. It is not clear whether international law will allow these ships to sail with Mohawk flags, but the Captain of the Farley Mowat says they will set sail and find out rather quickly as soon as they hit international waters. He seemed ready for a fight in the CBC radio interview.

This paragraph is written in first person, and if it is reinstated needs to be written in an encylopedic, in particular

WP:NPOV manner Also it needs to cite sources Billlion 17:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Who did the ramming?

Sea Shepherd say that the Des Groseillers did the ramming. Some Canadian politicians say that the Farley Mowat did the ramming. The latter claim has been added to this article (or the Sea Shepherd article) several times, but the video on the Sea Shepherd website seems to contradict this. It seems clear that we cannot report either side's version as fact. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ship spotted on TV show Haven

Yea I dont normally do this but I saw it and there wasn't anything stating that it was in the show so I added it. If it is done incorrectly feel free to fix it. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.3.74 (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was reverted almost immediately, I changed it back.. but I disabled my skype as that is the only thing I can think of as the problem68.205.3.74 (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Farley Mowat is abandoned

Green Ship LLC run out of money and had to abandon the project of repairing the ship. It now sits at dock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeART (talk • contribs) 01:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention

Why is this named the RV Farley Mowat? The ship was originally a research vessel - hence the RV designation - but I think calling it a "research vessel" during its tenure as the Sea Shepherd vessel Farley Mowat is a stretch at best (and a potential POV violation). Anyone know how it was registered during that time? (Certainly if the actual registration was as an RV there should be no objection to the naming convention.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No subsequent comments, and most sources have referred to the ship as MV; so I have moved the page as an uncontroversial move.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your opinion, SSCS had it registered as "RV". This is not unusual, it also has vessels registered as "MY" when they are clearly not motor yachts. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051110055300/http://www.ticotimes.net:80/archive/05_10_02_4.htm to http://www.ticotimes.net/archive/05_10_02_4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 01:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Requested move 20 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RV Farley Mowat → MV Farley Mowat – All current sources refer to the vessel as MV Farley Mowat, including court documents in relation to vessel seizure, and despite original classification as RV. Move had been proposed (see talk page above) and since no disagreement was referenced, page was moved as uncontroversial. Move was reverted almost immediately, so raising this here for formal discussion. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As has been explained at related articles, and above at #Naming convention, "MV" requires a licensed captain. SSCS has a tradition of registering its vessels as motor yachts or research vessels because they do not require a licensed captain, and this was the case for this vessel. So, regardless of what sources may mistakenly use, the vessel is "RV". --AussieLegend (✉) 22:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the Federal Court of Canada "mistakenly" used MV as opposed to RV when it issued its decision seizing the ship and putting it up for sale. According to the sources attached to this article, one of the two people arrested when the ship was seized was the captain (not Paul Watson), so whether or not Sea Shepherd was in the habit of registering its vessels as RV rather than MV to avoid the requirement for a master's certificate is immaterial. (And very odd; I find it hard to believe that an RV would not require a captain. Can you provide a reference for this? It is not mentioned in the above discussion.) It's not even clear that the vessel was legitimately registered anywhere when it was seized.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Shepherd has changed the registration of most of its vessels multiple times. At times a ship have been registered as "MV", while it later has been registered as "MY". The registration is available at the Miramar Ship Index (account required), as well as the New Zealand Maritime Index (both referenced in the article). From the second, you can see registration was changed at least 5 times. However, these references tend to omit the ship prefix. You need to check the offline resources for these. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not an issue I know much about myself. However I feel I should point out that, although we generally use common names on Wikipedia, ship names is one area where I think we do go for the technically correct name. For example, see MS St. Louis (not SS St. Louis) and Mary Celeste (not Marie Celeste). PatGallacher (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on RV Farley Mowat. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on RV Farley Mowat. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MY Farley Mowat which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]