Talk:Freewinds/Archive 1

??
Wow - Danny you were quick off the mark -- I went for dinner and hadn't finished at all. I knew there were a few boo boos but didn't want to lose what I had done. So I do want to expand this and will keep a NPOV, however, there is factual data that is valid for informational purposes only. Let me know here if there is a problem. Thanks CB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypso blue (talk • contribs) 2004-06-19T01:53:03

Asbestos?
What is the point of the lethal asbestos line? My house contains deadly asbestos, as does millions of others built before the 1970's. It's only a problem if it gets airborne. Ydorb 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Check the link. Read the affidavit och watch the interview about the Freewinds . If you take down the panels and let big piles of asbestos lie around it gets pretty dangerous. And they did that. I'm walking around the ship and I go into the engine room and I see panels missing from, like, the control room, a panel missing. And I see a big chunk of blue asbestos hanging down-what I identify as blue asbestos (Entheta 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Someone should probably rewrite it to say something about how it was renovated outside the US, and was not subject to US labor regulations, therefore exposing workers to dangerous levels of asbestos exposure. Ydorb 19:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=287791 EvilHom3r (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Series Template
Removing this Series Template. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview 01:50, 10 January 2006 (PST)


 * Dianetics -> Scientology ->Auditing -> Growth -> New texts -> New OT levels, new leaders, etc.. It's a growth of tech. It didn't just "happen" one night, Ronabop 11:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section removed
I've removed the "Criticism" section, interesting though it is, as I don't think it's compatible with Reliable sources or Verifiability. The source is apparently an affidavit hosted on a personal website. We don't know if the copy of the affidavit is bona fide (where and how was it filed?) and a personal website is, of course, not a reliable source. If someone can provide the relevant details we can restore the section, but until then I think it has to stay out. -- ChrisO 19:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Article notable?
I included this article in a list of Scientology articles which were not supported by secondary sources. In my opinion the fact that the CoS has a ship, or a fleet of ships, is notable. However, the ship Freewinds itself seems to be just another ship. Does it really need its own article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * She is notable as the cruse ship Bohème (ship), as are the 75 other ships in Category:Ships built in Finland. We do not need any of this scientology stuff to make her notable. I am removing the tag. -- Petri Krohn 06:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. If it is WP policy to have an article on each ship in the ocean, as it seems to be, then Freewinds should not be left out. Steve Dufour 16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Waste water
Sean Paton's report on waste water dumping by the Freewinds has previously been removed because it was self-published. The citation to the coverage in The Bonaire Reporter should resolve that. 67.168.160.59 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Freewinds hides information about presence of asbestos
Here would be the formatted citation, for those that want to utilize the information mentioned at NeoGaf and GlossLip
 * Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the presence of asbestos generally considered an "environmental issue"? I think the section title could use a change in wording. Z00r (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's environmental in the sense that both issues concern pollutants. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology's Party Boat Docked Due to Asbestos

 * Interesting that this got covered by Gawker.com, probably means other high-profile sources have noticed this news as well. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting that this got covered by Gawker.com, probably means other high-profile sources have noticed this news as well. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientology Yacht Sealed and Docked in Curacao

 * And here is coverage in a CNN I-Report. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And here is coverage in a CNN I-Report. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you already realize this, but this is no more reliable than a blog or message board posting.P4k (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientology Asbestos Ship Quarantined, Thousands May Have Suffered Exposure

 * Another interesting source of info. Cirt (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cancer on the Lido Deck? Scientology Responds

 * Now this development is quite interesting. Cirt (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now this development is quite interesting. Cirt (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientologists Exposed to Blue Asbestos—for 21 Years -- Uh oh, news has hit lawyersandsettlements.com !

 * I had a feeling at some point that this development would hit some legal-focused news/media. Will be interesting to see what happens next.  Cirt (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling at some point that this development would hit some legal-focused news/media. Will be interesting to see what happens next.  Cirt (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Curacao Dry dock Company: Scientology's Cruise Ship Sealed Due To Asbestos Danger

 * More info from a new source. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More info from a new source. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * M2 presswire is a press release distribution service. It's not a reliable source, it shouldn't be cited.P4k (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean Team Enters Scientology's S.S. Asbestos

 * Apparently there is a cruise scheduled for May 7, 2008 - anyone know more about that? Cirt (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently there is a cruise scheduled for May 7, 2008 - anyone know more about that? Cirt (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Asbestos scare seals off Scientology cruiseship

 * Probably the most significant coverage so far, in terms of who's publishing it - the world's leading (and oldest) shipping journal. That should ensure that the entire shipping industry is aware of the Freewinds' problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the most significant coverage so far, in terms of who's publishing it - the world's leading (and oldest) shipping journal. That should ensure that the entire shipping industry is aware of the Freewinds' problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Asbestos controversy aboard Scientology ship Freewinds
Big article, lots of infos http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/05/16/asbestos-controversy-aboard-scientology-ship-freewinds/

damn, its just a mirror of wikinews. Z00r (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper Content
I'm no fan of Scientology, in fact I'm pretty sure it's a cult, and a strange one at that, perhaps dangerous. HOWEVER... Is it appropriate for an article about a ship to include a Price Chart of classes/programs that may or may not be offered aboard that ship? Seems like a completely different subject. Do we have (would it be allowed) to have a chart of all the cabin rates and program costs for any other cruise liner? Probably not.

Also, the material is OVER 6 YEARS OLD, out of date. It's irrelevant that it is "sourced", it's NOT current and of questionable context with the article. Proxy User (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Freewinds is/was a major centre of Scientology and this article is about that too. AndroidCat (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, without question, and that's covered in the article. However, outdated prices for classes that may or may not still be held on the Freewind is not the center of the article or even relevant. It's really just a dig at Scientology for charging to participate in their cult. But that's not really appropriate, it has no relevancy to the article to include outdated price guides. Proxy User (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, not really. Wouldn't you consider it relevant to indicate the broad price range for cruises on this ship? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of these courses are also ONLY offered on the ship. DigitalC (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Princes for cruises or onboard services aren't included on any other ship article on Wikipedia. From that point of view the price chart was useless. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just a ship article. Please see the list of projects at the top. AndroidCat (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is about the ship. The Scientology Cult owns it. The article covers that in detail. Outdated price charts for courses that may or may not be offered are irrelevant. The most that can accurately be said is that courses are (Maybe? The chart was so OLD, there's no telling if it's still accurate, is there?) given on the ship. Honestly, what is the POINT of OUTDATED price charts? There is none, other than a POV-driven dig that Scientology is a big money business, and that's NOT the point of the article. Everyone here with half a brain KNOWS what the deal is with Scientology, but that's not the subject of this article. Proxy User (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know that the price charts are out of date? Do you have cites for the current prices, or is this original research on your part? (It's not like anyone can call up a travel agent and find out the current prices.) AndroidCat (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: AndroidCat, I reliase that this article is about more than just a ship - my comment was mainly in reply to ChrisO's comment as indicating the price range of any given cruise ship is to my understanding not the point of ship articles on Wikipedia (I admit my phrasing in this respect was very vague and I apologise for that). Whether or not that would be relevant from other points of view I do not know as that is not my speciality.
 * In general I would agree with Proxy User - overall I do not see how the inclusion of the price chart (outdated or not) falls within Wikipedia's mandate as an encyclopedia. Even if the price range is something that should ne ioncluded on Wikipedia, it would perhaps be better quited for inclusion on the article(s) on the various courses in question, rather than this article. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Freewinds sole purpose is as a major center of activity for the Church of Scientology, a floating mecca. Those courses are not offered to the public, nor can the public just book a cruise, and can't really be compared with normal cruise liner activities. The Freewinds is no more a cruise ship than the Fort Harrison building is actually a hotel. AndroidCat (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article makes it clear that it is a Scientology Cult ship, and that Scientology Cult activities take place on it. That's not the point. The question is: What is the relevancy of an outdated price list of courses that may or may not be given on the ship today? None. It is a weak dig at the Scientology Cult money machine. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Proxy User (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, scientology isnt exactly secret about how much their courses cost. I was thinking about removing it since it seems like advertising. Z00r (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I notice that User:Su-Jada attempted a POV whitewash edit by removing the material about Blue Asbestos on the Freewinds. Is this a violation of the ArbCom ruling on scientology-related articles?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed comment
Per WP:TALK. (See also similar action by  at Talk:Scientology). Cirt (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Still docked?
The Freewinds is now sailing nowhere, after Caribbean officials discovered earlier this year that it was contaminated with asbestos and ordered it docked until it can be rehabilitated. This is more current info than the other sources listed in the archives, which are from May 2008. Cirt (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

photo
This boat was anchored in Cartagena, Columbia on 1/20/2009 when our ship was there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.150.173 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I photographed the ship in Barbados on 6/9/2009. There were crew walking around on the decks, but there did not appear to be any passengers. LRamon (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My photo is of the other side of the ship, and there is no Scientology symbol. LRamon (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated to show Freewinds is actively cruising the eastern Caribbean and in Saint Kitts. The point is that it is actually "in operation" not just marked that way in some database. --Garrens (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Class withdrawn
The Freewinds has been withdrawn from the DNV class society. --84.16.208.75 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gender
Why is the Freewinds being identified as female in this article? I understand that it's common to do so in an informal setting, but this is an encyclopedia. Seems PoV to me. 174.54.249.127 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Here and here are two places in Wikipedia's style guide where it is stated, "Ships may be referred to either using feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or gender-neutral pronouns ("it", "its")." Citroënist (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's common practice to refer to oceangoing vessels in the feminine. It has nothing to do with an "informal setting". You'll find the feminine used in encyclopedias and in official documentation. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note on edit
I made an edit to this article unaware of the sanctions. The edit I added pointed out that Hubbard died in January 1986, nine months before the vessel was purchased. I added this to provide context regarding the "LRH Office" and to support the statement that the office's inclusion is symbolic, as someone reading this article may not be aware that Hubbard is dead, or at lest was deceased by the time the vessel was purchased and its appointments including the LRH Office added. I don't think my edit violates any aspect of the sanctions as it's a fair comment easily verifiable. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Freewinds. 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/20080229075733/http://www.xenufrance.net/fst-to-irs-1023.pdf to http://www.xenufrance.net/fst-to-irs-1023.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825194747/http://www.carolineletkeman.org/refund/docs/inv-1999-03-11-majestic-cruise-lines.html to http://www.carolineletkeman.org/refund/docs/inv-1999-03-11-majestic-cruise-lines.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501090155/http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/04/scientology-freewinds-asbestos-tom-cruise.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/04/scientology-freewinds-asbestos-tom-cruise.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604163053/http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/05/freewinds-asbestos-scientology-tom-cruise.php to http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/05/freewinds-asbestos-scientology-tom-cruise.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123224831/http://www.xenutv.com/interviews/freewinds-1.htm to http://www.xenutv.com/interviews/freewinds-1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604163053/http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/05/freewinds-asbestos-scientology-tom-cruise.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/05/freewinds-asbestos-scientology-tom-cruise.php

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) 19:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)