Talk:Pasha Bulker

Up for sale on eBay
Here's an Australian Associated Press article on the appearance of a Pasha Bulker advert on eBay. Worth mentioning? -- saberwyn 12:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no point, especially at the auction is gone. --AussieLegend 08:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * it may be gone, but not forgotten by google http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:MeNlWPBED0oJ:cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll%3FViewItem%26item%3D110140244962+jonno504&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=au&client=firefox-a

(PAuLw1985 12:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

23 June 2007 - Growing concerns
I've just added some details based on a couple of news reports. One was in the 23 June Newcastle Herald. I've tried adding a citation but while there are photos of everything else on line the crease in the hull doesn't seem to be shown anywhere. I don't have a copy of the newspaper edition to cite so if anyone can find the information, either on-line or from the actual newspaper it would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend 08:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

28 June 2007 - Greenpeace protest
Should something regarding the protest Greenpeace undertook recently against coal, be included? The protest included projecting images and text onto the Pasha Bulkers body.


 * Look again, it already has been. Nomadtales 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification for this section to be in an encyclopedia article. Greenpeace are basically an extremist, anti-capitalist organisation. Quite frankly who cares what extremists like them actually think. Grizzlybear82 02:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV says that if they do something notable it should be covered using neutral wording. The Soviet Red Army of WW2 was also an 'extremist, anti-capitalist organisation' so do you propose deleting all articles on the Eastern Front of WW2? --Nick Dowling 02:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tourist attraction
Cn anyone find any articles regarding the ship becoming a Newcastle tourist attraction? I think the article could do with a bit of info about this. Nomadtales 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

i havnt found any articles about it, but ANYONE whos been there know it has on a massive scale, took me 10 mins to get to the beach's car park, people just everywhere walking into my shots, its crazy (PAuLw1985 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

It has become somewhat of an icon of Newcastle, for example Musos Corner used it in their advertisement and T-Shirts and stubby holders featuring the boat are being sold. --Waynekruse 11:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oil in bunkers
Does anyone know why the salvors haven't pumped the oil off the vessel? Albatross2147 22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

www.cargolaw.com
A significant amount of info can also be found here along with almost any other ship related event.

http://www.cargolaw.com/2007nightmare_pasha.bulk.html

rv edits by 203.129.60.236 to last edits by 139.168.67.101 - 4 July 2007
The planning phase section refers to the planning phase before the actual attempts were made. In addition, the reference used by 203.129.60.236 does not confirm the assertion that the vessel "will" be towed. The reference clearly says "may". --AussieLegend 05:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Leaving Newcastle
http://www.bigpond.com/news/topstories/content/20070726/1989112.asp and radio reports(in Perth) have the Pasha Bulker as having left Newcastle to day. Gnangarra 07:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kyu Maru
The article says the Kyu Maru was a tug that towed the PB to asia. The Kyo Maru is actually one of the Japanese Whaling vessels

http://oceans.greenpeace.org/nl/foto-audio-video/fotos/japanese-whaling-fleet-catcher


 * Actually, if you do a bit of research you'll find that there are several Kyu Marus and the one that took the Pasha Bulker under tow looks different to the one on the Greenpeace site so it may not be the same one. --AussieLegend 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Greenpeace and flag of flag of convenience
I have restored the material on Pasha Bulker being the target of a Greenpeace protest as a) this protest was notable - it recieved extensive media coverage and is a good example of how the ship attracted public attention and b) the only reason given for removing it was 'left wing' crap' and 'extremist left wing rubbish'. Whatever you think about Greenpeace (and personally I don't have much time for them) the protest was notable and the wording seems fairly neutral, though it could doubtlessly be improved. I've also restored the statement that the ship sails under a flag of convenience as this is clearly correct - she was built in Japan, is owned by a Japanese company, operated by what seems to be a European company and yet is registered in Panama. --Nick Dowling 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just feel that like so many articles on Wikipedia it would seem to exhibit a very left-wing slant. I can honestly say that I dont remember seeing anything about the so-called protest in the media. I wont change it again because i really cant be bothered getting into an edit war. Grizzlybear82 02:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is cited with an ABC news report and was also covered by at least the Sydney Morning Herald and ABC TV news. --Nick Dowling 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was in the UK at the time; apart from that you would have to consider the Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC to have a left-wing bias. Grizzlybear82 02:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nomadtales 02:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't consider that to be the case at all - especially not the SMH. Anyway, as they're two of the major news sources in Australia and are generally considered reliable, any serious news they report has a good chance of being notable in one form or another. Notability might be worth a read. --Nick Dowling 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I also think it is irrelevant. WP should be NPOV. Citing an incident doesn't give the article a "very left-wing slant". But news sources should be reliable and well-known and the SMH and ABC are definately this. Also at least in the greater context of citing news articles for WP, I prefer the SMH and the ABC's over others because their news articles don't disapear into a pay-per-read scenario after 6 months or so. Nomadtales 02:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reporting events that actually happened is not necessarily being left-wing. It is being unbiased. Whether you consider the SMH and ABC to have a left-wing slant is really irrelevant. The simple fact is that the protest occurred and was reported on TV news as well as in the print and online media. A google search reveals a lot of articles. That said, this article is about the ship and not specifically the beaching on Nobbys. While relevant at the time, in the future it will become a minor incident in the history of the ship and will probably be removed from the article. I feel it's almost there already.


 * Regarding sailing under a flag of covenience, while true it really has no relevance unless qualified with more information. Lots of ships sail under flags of convenience and it's just bloat as it stands because there's nothing really notable about it. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that it may be notable in relevance to the beaching. Unfortunately it's not appropriate to include that information in the article because I don't have any citations. --AussieLegend 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Name change
According to recent edits the name of the ship has been changed. However, Lauritzen Bulkers Long List, dated 10 May 2008 still shows the name of the ship as Pasha Bulker. The only references that I've been able to find supporting the name change are two articles; one in the Sydney Morning Herald, dated 6 April 2008 and the other, dated 15 April 2008 in Transport & Logisitics News. A brief reference was also made in an aricle on abc.net.au, dated 7 April 2008. The name change needs to be cited properly and the page should probably be moved to MV Drake. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just checked again and the Lauritzen Bulkers Long List still shows Pasha Bulker. I've also found a photo on Flickr of the MV Drake in Dry Dock. This image was posted in December 2007. It's unlikely that there are two similar MV Drakes and the claims about the name change are still uncited. For these reasons I'm going to remove information about the name change until somebody can come up with a valid citation from a reliable source supporting the claim. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is the current name? The title says Xanthea. The text says Anthea. Ptilinopus (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Anthea is the correct name. Newystats (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Rescue of ship's crew
The article discusses the rescue of the ship's crew. With a view to developing this sub-topic, can anyone help find reliable sources that should be included in the article that may be used to develop the reasons for this rescue? Matters that would could be discussed in the article include the reason why it was critically important to rescue the crew under such adverse weather conditions, with attendant risks, given that there was no chance of the vessel sinking or capsizing and that it had bottomed-out on the reef. Was it a matter of the possibility of the vessel catching fire, for example? Or, was it the irrepressible want of rescuers to do a rescue rather than wait for the weather to pass? Hopefully, delving into the reasons for the rescue will develop a significant element of the Pasha Bulker story. Benyoch (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's standard practice to remove crew from stranded vessels as soon as is safely possible. One of the reasons for this is that while it may appear to the uninitiated that a vessel does not appear in danger of sinking or capsizing, that's not necessarily the case. The MV Sygna, which ran ashore 8km away, was a case in point. It appeared stable at first but then broke its back. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Aussie... I take it you are suggesting that there was a concern the vessel was in immanent danger of either capsizing or sinking, to the extent that the crew would be at greater risk than would be faced in the rescue. Can you suggest any reliable sources to support your suggestion? Benyoch (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I said was it's standard practice to remove crew from stranded vessels as soon as is safely possible, regardless of the apparent state of the vessel. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So my original question stands ... Why was it apparently so critically important to rescue the crew under such adverse weather conditions, with attendant risks of doing so in an extremely hazardous environment? Benyoch (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't remember any sources saying that it was critical that the crew was removed when they were, that the conditions were adverse enough or that there was any risk beyond what one would normally expect in that sort of situation. Do you have any sources that support your assertions to that effect? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My recollection of media reports at the time (televison mainly) that the rescue effort was undertaken at considerable risk to rescuers and rescuees alike, implying that the rescue proceeded because of necessity and done so as safely as possible despite the risks. Perhaps it was a media beat-up, I am not sure. At question is the necessity under risk, hence my query and speculation here.Benyoch (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on MV Drake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070703163745/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,23599,22001734-2,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22001734-2,00.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)