Talk:New Star incident

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Shipwrecks

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Transport: Maritime

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force.

Russia: Military / Politics and law C‑class Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

China: History Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Mid-importance).

So named “historical background”

The area was ceded by Qing Empire in 1860 (Convention of Peking), 148 years before events in question. AFAIK no Chinese government claimed Primorye (or some aquatory in Japanese sea) since then. Not Republic of China nor PRC did it. There is an article History of Vladivostok, but here this information is irrelevant. I do not justify recent actions of Russian Federation, but Chinese imperialists’ historically based views of Primorye have clearly nothing to do with this incident. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The historical fact is Vladivostok belonged to China since ancient time, and I think it is very relevant to have the fact being presented here. What the Chinese imperialists (and Russian imperialists) did or did not do, has nothing to do with this article, but the fact that "Vladivostok belonged to China since ancient time" does help general readers to understand more about this article. Arilang ^talk 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose, you sell me a house, where your grandfather and his father and grandfather lived and died. In the future, your son (who even never saw the house before) come to me with some petty business, but a quarrel ignited and he was beaten at the steps of my house. After 148 years, yes. Have the fact (that it’s the father of the beaten one who sold me a house) something to do with legal and moral estimates of the incident? Does anybody understand more with the history of his ancestors? IMHO no. If you continue to defend that so named historical section without a clear explanation of its relevancy to this particular case, I would ask for a mediation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Vladivostok was not "Sold" at all. A normal business transection, like buying of a house, would involved the "Legal transfer of a deed", and I don't think you can produce any official document regarding the "Deed of Transfer of Vladivostok", can you?

There is a document, where Qing Empire dropped claims of the area east of the river Ussuri. Did the Chinese think at the time that they was robbed or no, does not matter. There was no another Chinese government at the time than Qing, and Qing ceded Primorye. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, like Tannu Uriankhai and Sixty-Four Villages East of the River, Vladivostok was taken by force, by the Russian, there is no question about it. My point is, a robbery is a robbery, be it 148 years, or 248 years, or 348 years later; time does not change a thing. Arilang ^talk 22:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who was (supposedly) robbed, historical Qing Empire or somebody of modern Chinese? There was no modern Chinese claims on Vladivostok or nearby parts of Japanese sea, these land and waters recognized as Russian without a contest. Stop diverting a discussion out of the topic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The historical situation of Vladivostok seems to be irrelevant to this article, neither side have drawn attention to the fact that the territory Vladivostok is now situated in was Chinese before 1860. Unless there is a good reason presented for having this section it should be deleted as currently it appears to have become a coatrack for nationalist claims. Robbery 148 years ago or not, it doesn't seem to have any connection with this incident which is over allegations of smuggling. Benea (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Benea, and I've removed the section from the article. It is irrelevant here who owned Vladivostok in the past. The claims and counter-claims of what the ship was doing are relevant, and both sides view should be represented. Please do not re-insert the section unless and until there is consensus to do so. Further edit warring and disruption over this will lead to admininstrative action taking place. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Star ship incident → New Star incident – It is not usual to name ships "[Name] ship". The name of the ship should also be italicized. 216.8.148.227 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I read this as "New Starship incident" and was confused.--Xiaphias (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet Vladivostok–New Star shipping incident would be better -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.