Talk:SeaRiver Maritime

Untitled
I notice that the person who nomninated this for "attack-speedy deletion" did not specify his/her reasons as to why.

I presume that nominator may have had some objection to the words "privately held" or "front company", which some people tend to misread as pejorative terms. However, these terms are not innately POV, and in this case they do accurately and concisely describe the legal status and corporate organization of this company (see Wiki: privately held and front company.)

If the nominator feels that the description can be improved, he should edit the article rather than labeling it for speedy deletion.

The criticism comment is probably on slightly shakier ground, and I would be more receptive to a suggestion that this be reworded. However, the summary of criticism is indeed an accurate reflection of the accusations leveled at SeaRiver/Exxon by many activists, and reflects similar language in the ExxonMobil criticism section,  which has been in place for many months and remains in place by consensus after much debate on the ExxonMobil discussion page.

Elambeth 22:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

SeaRiver Maritime is more accurately described as a wholly-owned subsidiary rather than a front company. Subsidiaries are often used to isolate risky operations behind a corporate veil to shield liability, which is quite obviously what is happening here. Most oil companies do this with their shipping operations, and it's not a secret. In comparing front company and subsidiary, subsidiary is the better descriptor of the purpose of SeaRiver Maritime's existence. --JrStonehenge 13:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a bit misleading since the Exxon Valdez was also operated by a subsidiary, Exxon Shipping. Exxon simply changed the name after the incident, which probably has more to do with public perception than legal liability. Mcarey26 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Paraphrasing Necessary
This diff should be paraphrased. In if doubt, Wikipedia does not like large block quotes that have no special significance. That verges on copyright violation.--Lucas559 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)