Talk:Oceana (non-profit group)

Untitled

Chunks of this article read like a press release from the organization.Buellering (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

URL not working

I tried to link to this article from another WP article and got an error. How can this be fixed? ChristineBaker1 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ChristineBaker1 Hello, the way to make a link is to take the full title of an article and put it in brackets. So the link has to be "[[Oceana (non-profit group)]]" and will render as Oceana (non-profit group). If that looks awkward, you can make a "piped" link according to the instructions at WP:PIPE. A "piped link" is when the text says one word, the but link goes somewhere else. In this case, you might use the code "[[Oceana (non-profit group)|Oceana]], which displays as Oceana but links to the article with the title in parentheses. I hope that helps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Thanks, I realized I could make it an external link, but hoped that somehow the actual title could be fixed so that it could be an internal link too. ChristineBaker1 (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I try to add the link as internal link such as Talk:Oceana_%28non-profit_group%29 I get the error message "invalid title." ChristineBaker1 (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Promotional piece

This article also reads like a promotional piece or a press release, not an encyclopedia article. I'm removing "Notable Supporters" and "Board of Directors" -- that information is at their website and it really shouldn't be here. Also, this article needs objective, outside information regarding Oceana that reports on their goals and if they were met, any controversies, etc. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Tags have been their for years, with IP additions. I've culled the unsourced nonsense but we need have to nominate this for deletion.

Conflict of Interest creator who has done nothing 10years but this.Lihaas (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I recall one sensationalist press release that was picked up by the press. The content is nonsense, comparing marine airgun pulses with nuclear explosions, but the reporting provides us (if my recollection is correct) with a secondary source. I will dig around and report back. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I found this similar story in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, but the timing is wrong because its publication date is 2013 whereas the Oceana story is dated 2014. The El Mundo article contains the same nonsense, citing an organization called the 'Alianza Mar Blava' as its source. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you agree with AFD'ing this? @Dondervogel 2: Lihaas (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection from me. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Also concern content being added from IPs like 185.17.53.130 whove only updated family articles. Even Elisabeth Mann Borgese this lacks substance.Lihaas (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with it sounds like a promotional peace. I have re-added the COI tag. Many of the Sources are self published by the organization. I have removed external links twice now that only are there to promote the organizations successes. --VViking_TalkEdits 19:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There's surprisingly little basic information outside of self published piece (for example, I can't actually find a source with the cities where on-DC offices are located, even though this is incredibly basic and the self published data must be true for legal reasons on this matter). You can certainly change the phrasing, but I'd like to clarify that I'm not an employee of the organization. I'd also recommend reading the edit history of this document because the person you are "agreeing" with was looking at an almost entirely different document, and they deleted roughly 75% of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toad02 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you editing on their behalf or are you a volunteer who has been asked to, or in any other way affiliated with this organization.VViking_TalkEdits 19:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toad02 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

And even with that 75% removed it is still promotionalVViking_TalkEdits 19:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

How exactly could we fix that? From a structural standpoint, it's relatively similar to the wikipedia pages of other, similarly sized environmental nonprofits (I'd recommend reading Ocean Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, etc. Some of these have token criticism sections, which we could easily add to this article.

Much of what I wrote (which, at this point, is almost the entire page) probably should be rephrased. I read a lot of the promotional material to do research and I don't have a lot of experience editing wikipedia (this article seemed like a good place to start) so I doubt my tone is what it should be. There's also some basic information that I found surprisingly difficult to get third party info on (for example, there are two citations for the list of offices. One is fully reliable, but only states the countries. The other is self published and has cities, which is info I couldn't find elsewhere), so if you ever come across this please add it. I find it likely that this information exists, I just wasn't sure where to look. Thanks for any help! Toad02 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the above thread almost entirely refers to a version of the page that has been entirely rewritten, so I would ignore it more or less. I began rewriting this page about a week ago, and none of the material that was being attacked still exists. It's likely that what I wrote is still imperfect, but it's different. Toad02 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Celeb support

Just curious why this keeps getting deleted. User:Viewmont Viking, who keeps doing it, will not respond to my inquiries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toad02 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

For one how does it improve the article to have a random list of celebrity supporters. Ted Danson yes because he appears to be a major part of the organization but the rest are random supporters without a reliable source showing they actually support the organization, in addition to how much they support it. Please state if you have a COI on this topic. --VViking_TalkEdits 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toad02 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent Victories

Recent and similar terms are generally frowned upon in the manual of style. Should probably be changed to important impacts, or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toad02 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing COI (Please tell me if this is wrong)

I am removing the COI tag because it refers to me and is incorrect. According to Help:Maintenance template removal, this tag can be removed if there is a dormant discussion about the topic. In my opinion, this conversation is dormant (because the creator of the tag has not responded in the days since I stated I do not have a COI), but I am new to wikipedia, so I don't fully understand the connotations of "dormant" on this site, and I was unable to find any page with a more definitive definition. Feel free to re-add the tag if you believe this conversation is not dormant and would like to continue it. Toad02 (talk)

Criticism

Definitely incomplete. Should be expanded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toad02 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)