Wikipedia

Talk:MSV Fennica

(Redirected from Talk:MS Fennica)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Tupsumato in topic Criticism and counter-criticism
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on MSV Fennica. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MSV Fennica. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MSV Fennica. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Criticism and counter-criticism

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

I have asked help from other WP:SHIPS editors to sort out the "Critism and counter-criticism" in three multipurpose icebreaker articles (MSV Fennica, MSV Nordica and MSV Botnica). Let's try to concentrate all discussion about the topic on this talk page. Tupsumato (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

For background information, all three articles have included a chapter about the criticism for the design, abilities and business model of these multipurpose icebreakers. Previously the chapters covered mainly the negative aspects; recent edits have aimed to make the chapters more balanced with counter-arguments. All claims have been cited from various sources and I don't have any reason to doubt their validity despite not having access to them. While I personally believe that direct quotes from the crew count as primary sources (and hence tagged them as such), on the other hand they have been published in news/magazine articles written by others.
In any case, I believe that outside help is needed to end the "tug-of-war" between myself, User:That Icebreaker Guy and a few IP editors; otherwise this will never end (well). Tupsumato (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I would remove anything about the first officer and the master and their opinions as they are not WP:RS. Per WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The opinions of the first officer and master of the ship fail that as they are not independent of the subject. Llammakey (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
While I agree when it comes to direct quotes, the cited references are still articles authored by a third party. Could the crew's remarks be somehow generalized? I think it's worth mentioning that while the MSVs have faced criticism over the years, the people actually working on them have not been that critical about the vessels' operational performance. Tupsumato (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think you have summarized it pretty well. Those who crew the ships do not have criticisms of the vessels themselves. That is pretty much all that has to be said. However, the crews themselves don't plan the missions and where vessels are stationed and all the overhead decisions that come with acquiring ships, so the other criticism remains pertinent, if not more so. I may like the car that I own since I drive it, but that does not mean it met the requirements for what it was designed for or that others do not have criticisms. Llammakey (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
One of the key challenges in writing a neutral article is that positive comments primarily come from those directly associated with these vessels (designers, builders, operators) whereas secondary sources more acceptable to Wikipedia will more critical (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and will more readily emphasize the negative aspects (which may result in a biased article). Tupsumato (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
...and before anyone gets to say it, I would like to stress that my intention has not been to focus only on the negative aspects of these ships even though in past few days it may appear that I have primarily tried to look for sources that support the criticism for their technical characteristics and business model. Tupsumato (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have now revised the chapter about criticism, condensing each topic (performance, economics, environment) to a single paragraph focusing on the key points. I removed the direct quotes but retained a general remark about the crew being satisfied with their vessels. I also removed quotes from the citations; those can be found on this talk page if necessary. Finally, while there are still some shortcomings in the criticism chapter (namely that it is written in passive tone and includes some weasel words due to the nature of the publicly-available references), I removed the hatnote and inline template for "better sources needed"; the wording now implies that the vessels are "perceived" as compromise designs without stating it as a fact. Tupsumato (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the article about MSV Botnica, the chapter omits the environmental aspects as Botnica has never been employed in the Arctic but includes some unique details about that particular ship. Tupsumato (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Relevant references

edit

In order to help with cleaning up the section in all three articles, I have collected and sorted the references from all three articles below. If there are formatting errors, feel free to fix them. Additional sources for later use in the article can also be included in this list. Later I may include the relevant quotes and their translations under each reference. Tupsumato (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Criticism about capabilities
    • "Italialaista jäänmurtoa: käsikirjoitus" (in Finnish). YLE. 29 November 2010. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
      • Rune Lyngvi, toimitusjohtaja, GDV Maritime: ”En isbrytare och ett offshorefartyg, de är egentligen väldigt forskellige i egenskap och kraftegenskap, och ett offshorefartyg och en isbrytare, de går på tvärs egentligen. Det som gör en isbrytare god är väldigt dåligt för ett offshorefartyg. Bevegelsen i sjön och sådana ting på havet med stabilitet och sådana ting så det gör att de har alltid (-) att det som är väldigt god isbrytare är inte något offshorefartyg.” (Rune Lyngvi, managing director, GDV Maritime: Icebreakers and offshore vessels are actually quite different from each other. In fact, their characteristics are contradictory: what makes a good icebreaker is very bad for an offshore vessel.)
      • Lyngvi kertoo, että Fennican, Nordican ja Botnican päivähinnasta joutuu tinkimään monesta syystä. Yksi syy on kova polttoaineenkulutus... ... Toinen tärkeä syy on, että markkinoilla on paljon uusia, ainoastaan offshore-toimintaan tarkoitettuja aluksia. Suomalaisalukset saadaan vuokrattua vasta kun muuta ei ole tarjolla – tai sitten pitää myydä halvalla. (Lyngvi tells that the daily rate of Fennica, Nordica and Botnica had to be reduced for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is high fuel consumption... ... Another reason is that there are many purpose-built offshore vessels in the market. The Finnish vessels would get charters only if nothing else was available - or they would have to be offered at reduced rate.)
    • "Arktinen löytöretki – näin Suomen valtion jäänmurtajat löysivät ja kadottivat kansainvälisen bisneksen" (in Finnish). YLE. 21 November 2018. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
      • Avovesillä ne eivät kuitenkaan olleet yhtä hyviä kuin muut laivat, eikä murtaminenkaan sujunut niin kuin pelkästään jäänmurtoon tehdyillä aluksilla. Mutta kompromissialuksista on vähän kaikkeen, ja niitä voi käyttää kesällä ja talvella. (In open water they were not as good as other ships, and in ice they were inferior to purpose-built icebreakers. However, the compromise ships were suitable for diverse uses and could be used in both summer and winter.)
    • Silén, Iivari (2013), Talvimerenkulun ympäristötietopalvelut - Tarjonta ja tarvekartoitus laivan näkökulmasta (PDF) (in Finnish), Satakunnan Ammattikorkeakoulu, p. 19, retrieved 24 November 2021
      • Syntyi käsite "monitoimimurtaja", joka on eräänlainen hybridilaiva, kompromissi jäänmurtajan ja öljykentillä käytettävien ns. Offshore/Stand-by alusten välillä. ... Monitoimimurtajien jäänmurtokyky ei ole samaa tasoa kuin perinteisten murtajien mutta useimmiten riittävä Suomenlahden ja Selkämeren sekä Perämeren kevyempiin jääolosuhteisiin. (The result was an idea of a "multipurpose icebreaker", a compromise between an icebreaker and an offshore/stand-by vessel used in oil fields. ... The icebreaking capability of multipurpose icebreakers is not at the same level with traditional icebreakers, but usually sufficient for the Gulf of Finland and the Bothnian Sea, and light ice conditions in the Bothnian Bay.)
      • Tämän ympärivuotisen käytön kannattavuudesta on on ollut monenlaista näkemystä, joista kriittisimmät ovat sitä mieltä, ettei se aina peitä edes omia kulujaan, vaan tuottaa tappiota jota sitten katetaan jäänmurrosta saatavilla tuloilla. (Opinions about the economic viability of this year-round use have varied with the most critical stating that it does not even cover its own expenses, but results in financial losses that are then covered by income from icebreaking.)
    • Kääriä, Markus (2010), Jäänmurtopalveluiden kilpailutus palvelua tarjoavan yrityksen näkökulmasta (PDF) (in Finnish), Lappeenrannan Teknillinen Yliopisto, p. 20, retrieved 24 November 2021
      • Monitoimimurtaja on aina kompromissi, joka rakennetaan palvelemaan kahta eri käyttötarkoitusta. Oikein suunniteltuna se soveltuu molempiin tarkoituksiin, mutta ei ole kummassakaan yhtä hyvä, kuin sitä varten erityisesti suunnitellut alukset. (A multipurpose icebreaker is always a compromise built to serve two different operational needs. If designed correctly, it is suitable for both, but is not as good as a purpose-built vessel in either of them.)
      • Kaikesta huolimatta monitoimimurtajat täytyy kuitenkin myös tulevaisuudessa suunnitella ja rakentaa niin, että ne soveltuvat myös avomeriolosuhteissa työskentelyyn ja tämä on aina pois aluksen jäänmurto-ominaisuuksista. (Nevertheless multipurpose icebreakers have to be designed to be suitable for work in open water and this will always reduce their icebreaking capabilities.)
    • "J/M Polariksen hankintaideologiat" (in Finnish). Länsi-Suomi. 28 September 2016. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
      • Nykyiset monitoimimurtajat eivät tähän pystyneet talven 2010 jääolosuhteissa huimista päivärahdeista huolimatta. (The current multipurpose icebreakers were not capable of this [escort icebreaking in normal winter conditions in the Bothnian Bay and off Pori] in winter 2010 ice conditions despite high daily rates)
    • "Kekkosen tyräyksestä Suomi kärsii yhä" (in Finnish). Iltalehti. 1 April 2015. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
      • Ne eivät ole hyviä murtajia eivätkä ne ole hyviä offshore-laivoja. (They [multipurpose icebreakers] are neither good icebreakers nor good offshore vessels.)
    • Voelker, Richard (22 April 2003), Trip Report to Northern Europe for National Science Foundation project (PDF), US Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, retrieved 28 November 2021
      • Includes both negative and positive remarks about the vessels' characteristics.
  • Counter-criticism
    • "Sekä jäissä että avovedessä - monitoimimurtajat täyttävät paikkansa", Suomen Merenkulku, no. 1, pp. 6–9, 1997
    • Abrahamsson, Elina (1994), "Uudet murtajat uusissa töissä. Suomalaista osaamista Pohjanmerellä.", Vapaavahti, no. 5, p. 9
    • Harjula, Arto; Siirilä, Timo; Eronen, Harri; Lohi, Paavo (1999), "Multipurpose Icebreaker MSV BOTNICA, Basic Design Aspects", Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions (POAC '99), vol. 2, pp. 568–577
    • Hakala, Matti (1999), "The Ice Trials of the New Multipurpose Icebreaker Botnica", Maritime Research News, no. 1, Maritime Institute of Finland (VTT and Helsinki University of Technology), p. 2
    • Honkanen, Seppo (14 March 1999), "Varta vasten Suomenlahden talveen ja Pohjanmeren kesätöihin suunniteltu Botnica on miehistön mielestä onnistunut kompromissi", Kymen Sanomat{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MSV_Fennica&oldid=1213139811"