Talk:Springer (orca)/Archive 2

Dear Clayoquot... I am NOT a regular editor or contributor to Wikipedia, but I am confused about this "Conflict of Interest" tag on my contributions to this entry on the orca Springer, or A73. It appears that you have presumed to take it upon yourself to make extensive cuts from this article on Springer, as you did on Luna, and I don't understand why -- and simply don't agree with much of your reasoning behind making these changes.

First of all, I clearly do not have a conflict of interest. I was not involved in any way in either the Luna or Springer effort/crisis, but like a lot of people in the Pacific Northwest had a great interest in the matter and kept an extensive file of television and print media coverage. Upon reading the original entry on Springer, I found it grossly incomplete, particularly as it regarded the critical participation of non-government organizations like OrcaLab and Orca Conservancy -- both of which incidentally I am not a member or donor. I simply felt compelled to complete the entry and to edit inaccurate information. And all of my contributed material is verifiable and in almost every case accompanied by citations of corresponding media sources.

As regards your comments about the article "reading like a press release for a fundraiser," I can't disagree more... unless you believe that the media record on this event also reads that way. The fact is that it did take nothing short of heroic efforts on the part of private citizens to force the federal authorities to intervene on behalf of these whales. And it didn't just happen suddenly one day -- remember, this was during the Bush Administration and the government was both broke and disinterested in getting involved in rescuing one baby orca in Seattle. And anyone truly interested in how Springer made it home IS very interested in the "backstory," all of these early debates and proposals, the public's concerted response to the attempts by the marine parks to acquire the orca, the sourcing of funds to pay for the rescue and translocation, the role of the First Nations, everything that I attempt to include in my submissions here. For those who want just a few broad strokes and the feel-good story, there are plenty of children's books written about Springer. Wikipedia should be a place where they actually source real, verifiable, cited information. If there are places where I can better cite material, by all means let me know. Otherwise, please don't make random, sweeping changes to this entry. We in the Pacific Northwest are best-positioned to know the full breadth of the successful Springer project and what it meant and means to the conservation of marine mammals worldwide. mrjoshuawells@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjoshuawells (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mrjoshuawells. Welcome to Wikipedia. It's good that you've raised your concerns here. We are all volunteers here so sometimes it takes more than a day for someone to respond; I've been out of town and nowhere near a computer for the past couple of days. Please note that as a matter of Wikipedia convention, we generally do not delete comments from Talk pages. I have created an archive for older comments that you removed from this page.


 * First, your assertion that "It appears that you have presumed to take it upon yourself to make extensive cuts from this article on Springer, as you did on Luna" is unfounded with respect to the Luna article. Wikipedia has a visible history of edits made to every article, and it is clear from the history of the Luna article that I have made no cuts there ever, and the only edits any registered user has made since you started editing it have been to add tags expressing concern about Conflict of interest issues.


 * With respect to why I tagged these articles with Conflict of interest templates, here are some facts: On December 10, an editor by the name of, whose user page consists of a biography of Michael Harris who is the president of Orca Conservancy, added text that mentions Orca Conservancy 20 times and mentions Michael Harris 3 times, to the Springer article. So this is not a case in which an editor who has contributed substantially to the article is simply believed to be closely associated with Michael Harris and/or Orca Conservancy; this is a case in which the editor in question claims to be closely associated with Michael Harris. Adding a COI template to an article in those circumstances is routine. Then on December 21st, IP address added text to the Luna (Orca) article that mentions Orca Conservancy 19 times and Michael Harris 9 times, and has a similar writing style to user:Babywildfilms.


 * Even if we assume that none of the recent additions have been made by people close to Michael Harris and Orca Conservancy, the amount of weight devoted to this organization looks like COI, and that is a problem. That problem is what we have to fix. I don't have time tonight to talk further, but over the next week or so let's discuss what you're looking for and see if we can come to consensus. If we can't come to consensus on this page then there is a dispute resolution process to follow. The goal is to review and discuss the article content so that issues of neutral point of view (NPOV) and other aspects of quality are agreed-upon, so that we can remove the COI tag from the article. Nobody wants the COI tag to be on top of this article forever, but we need to keep it there until NPOV issues are addressed. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Clayoquot... Thank you so much for clarifying the COI flag, and yes, I'm beginning to better understand how Wikipedia works (and doesn't work!) and fully agree with your concerns raised. I'm anxious to address them adequately and come to consensus.  I certainly didn't mean to sound short in my original response/query to you.


 * First, some clarification... I was asked by someone who works for Baby Wild Films to re-work their entries for both the Springer and Luna article, for the very purposes that caused the flag for potential COI -- although frankly I wasn't aware that BWF's principal creative was Michael Harris of Orca Conservancy (the original text made no mention of BWF) and thought that perhaps BWF had a connection to another organization involved in these orca efforts. Honestly, I should've asked a few questions or did a bit more sleuthing beforehand.


 * At any rate, I went about the editing process more as a fact-checker, contributing additional material as I saw fit. I drew largely on existing media archives on the efforts and discovered that in fact, Michael Harris and Orca Conservancy were omnipresent in all the coverage. As were people like Fred Felleman and Kelley Balcomb-Bartok of Orca Conservancy, Dr. Paul Spong of OrcaLab, Lance Barrett-Lennard of Vancouver Aquarium and others.  And as a Pacific Northwest (US) person who followed these efforts closely, primarily through regional media, these were the voices I was most exposed to almost daily, and I'm certain the same can be said for the original contributor.  Here in this region, we also were tuned in to the ongoing tug-of-wars and heated debates associated with both projects, and how integral those battles were to the overall story.  In fact, there wouldn't have been a story had these battles not been won by those advocates and fundraisers calling for federal intervention to save these orcas. This backstory, if you will, may sound a bit processy and wonky to some readers, but it is central and I think essential to any informational resource relating to the successful rescue and re-integration of Springer, and the failed effort to do the same for Luna. I also think it's quite interesting... but that's my subjective opinion!


 * The fact remains that the media record of these orca events is brimming with mentions of OrcaLab and Orca Conservancy, particularly in the early phases, and so when reviewing the coverage and publications and editing the original submission, I decided to leave most of the mentions of these groups and individuals in. However, I now realize that in the very least I was being a bit provincial, and what stands now for both entries may in fact have at least the appearance of COI. I'd like to work with you to address some of these concerns, reach a consensus and then remove the flag.


 * If it's OK with you, I'll take a stab at re-working both submissions and then re-post them. Hopefully you can find a few minutes to see if I've done an adequate job.  I anticipate I'll probably be compelled to leave some of the mentions of these individuals and organizations in the articles, all appropriately cited, but I'll dial back some of it.  Let's see if we can make this work.


 * Again, I really appreciate your comments and assistance in walking me through the Wiki world. I'm convinced that it's people like you that are critical to preserving its integrity and I'm fortunate that you took notice of this. Mrjoshuawells (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua. That is great news! Thanks for the explanation of how you came to this article. It all makes a lot more sense to me now, and it's great that you want to keep working on getting this all sorted out collaboratively. I'm from Vancouver, B.C. and watched the Springer story from the Canadian side of things, so having a perspective from a U.S.-based editor like yourself ought to result in a more rounded article. Will write more later. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I love seeing editors coming together to actually work in harmony. Unfortunately, it's something that happens too seldom (in my experience, anyway) in Wikipedia.  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * =) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)