Talk:ZIM (shipping company)

Untitled

From a version of Dubai Ports World controversy:

Surprisingly, Israel's largest shipping firm, Zim Integrated Shipping Services, came out in support of the deal. This is despite the U.A.E.'s backing of an Arab boycott of Israeli shipping. The company sails under the flags of other countries to avoid the boycott.

Which flags do they fly under?

Who say that the "do it to avoid" the Arab League Boycott of Israel? --Uncle Ed 14:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Zim and 9-11 attacks

It is evidently untrue that ZIM left the WTC the week before the attacks. The decision to move to Virginia had been made months before and there were still ZIM employees working in the WTC on 9-11. This is explained in two Web log articles that seem to be the best source for this:

http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2008/09/slander-that-just-wont-die-where-does.html http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2007/12/sorry-not-convinced-yet-this-post-is.html

Evidently the source of the hoax is Christopher Bolleyn, a well known Holocaust denier and racist associate of David Duke http://www.911review.com/denial/holocaust.html - [[Mewnews (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Which piece of info sourced by Knight Ridder is allegedly wrong. I don't have time to read long web pages and find the allegation, so it would help if you'd share it. Carol Moore 18:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

One week prior to the WTC attack, the Zim Shipping Company moves out of its offices in the WTC, breaking its lease and costing the company $50,000. No reason has ever been given, but Zim Shipping Company is half owned by the State of Israel (The Rothschilds). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetherothschilds (talk • contribs) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The state of Israel is not the Rothschilds. 2A02:C7C:EE78:2500:24C1:3F10:38AE:C7C6 (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I researched this and found on here http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=zim-american_israeli_shipping_co. it referenced it to Newspaper Articles in The Virginia Pilot back in 2001. Christopher's article were 2002. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/09/AmericanFreePress0902.html . This page http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2012/05/zim-israel-navigation-company.html links to about a hundred news articles on how they did move out weeks before 9/11. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Blockade

There seems to be some disagreement over whether the placement of this section on the Zim Integrated Shipping Services page is appropriate. After many attempts by a number of anonymous users to completely remove the section, I had restored the section with the justification that these protests are not strictly in response to Israel's 2014 offensive in Gaza, but rather part of an ongoing and years-long effort. The most recent example of this is a similar effort taken in 2010 in response to Israel's assault on the Mavi Marmara flotilla.

In addition to this, the protesting of Zim's shipping services has made international news - as outlined in the very section in question - thus it would make the most sense to keep this as its own section on the Zim Shipping Wikipedia page, as these efforts continue.

Regarding the word count and proportionality, the fact that a section outlining protests directed at particular company has grown in light of new details should not be an argument for its removal. It is still a minor section relative to the rest of the article.

Iproofreadwiki (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The section about the blockades is out of place. It should be under "Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict".

The Wikipedia article about Zim is a relatively short description of an organization with a history of 70 years. There were probably many similar occurrences in the past but non of them is mentioned. Inserting this section is grossly disproportionate. At most, there should be a link to the "Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict".

It should also be noted that the focus of the protest operations is Israel and its government's policy towards the Palestinians. ZIM is targeted because it is identified as an Israeli national company, which is not the case.

Dannyzimrin (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I notice that a section I created outlining the recent blockade in Oakland, the previous blockade of a Zim ship after the Israeli attack on Gaza Freedom Flotilla, and the planned future blockades of Zim, has been deleted by an anonymous user. Given the special relation of Zim Integrated, and the fact that many wikipedia users are coming to this page in search of this information I think it is important to have a section on this unique aspect of Zim shipping. I will thus restore my addition...

Target of Blockades On August 16th, 2014, the Zim Piraeus was the target of a successful blockade action at the Port of Oakland, involving 2,500 protesters and expressions of support from ILWU members. The action was organized by a coalition of groups that came together in response to the Israeli military activity in Operation Protective Edge and more generally to protest against Israeli policies towards Palestinians in line with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Due to community pickets and safety concerns of ILWU members, the ship was unable to unload for 4 days and, according to some reports from workers, then only a limited number of its containers. In 2010, Workers and protesters at the port of Oakland blockaded another Zim vessel in response to the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara Gaza Freedom Flotilla. The 2014 action has attracted international attention[15][16]. Following their initial success Oakland groups are planning future blockades and activist groups in LA and Seattle[17] are also organizing blockades targeting Zim ships.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausrussell (talk • contribs) 00:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dannyzimrin (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I just wanted to draw the attention of all editors to the notice I put at the top of this page. This article falls under the arbitration committee enforcement rules for all articles related to the Arab-Israel conflict. One of the most important rules is that there is a strict prohibition on editing warring. Specifically, editors are prohibited from making more than one "revert" (changing back what an editor did) per 24-hour period. There has been edit warring and it must stop. The controversial material in question must be discussed in accordance with Wikipedia rules pertaining to verifiability and neutrality. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on "blockade" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been extensive edit warring over a section that some editors are seeking to add, current titled "Target of Blockades." This relates to recent efforts by pro-Palestinian activists to prevent unloading of Zim shipping at ports in the United States.

1. Does this material deserve a separate section such as in this version, and is this section fair, accurate and neutral?
2. Should it be integrated into the History section, such as in this version?
3. Should it be omitted entirely?

--Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Integrate into the History section (with possibility for future break-out into separate section) - While one blockade did occur in 2010, this is essentially a 2014 phenomenon and doesn't merit its own section (yet). That said, given the depth and breadth of coverage, there is no reason to omit it entirely and it should be integrated, chronologically, into the History section. Further, if these blockades become more regular and a consistency over a course of several years occurs, I think it would be reasonable to revisit breaking it out into a new section. DocumentError (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Integrate into the History section per DocumentError. Not only is a separate section undue emphasis, given the size and prominence of this company, but it is also an example of WP:RECENTISM. The section is not neutrally worded and was sourced to two partisan publications that did not even remotely meet the requirements of WP:V. Lastly the term "blockade" in the title does not seem to be accurate. These were pickets, and to call it "successful" is a value judgment Wikipedia cannot be making in its own voice. Given that this is a serious neutrality issue I have changed the section title and will check the section content itself for neutrality and accuracy. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I've toned down the language and tagged for accuracy, sourcing and neutrality. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I don't believe that a subsection of the History section, which has been recommended, is warranted at this time. That may change but right now it would be undue weight toward a recent event. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• There seems to be some disagreement over whether the placement of this section on the Zim Integrated Shipping Services page is appropriate. After many attempts by a number of anonymous users to completely remove the section, I had restored the section with the justification that these protests are not strictly in response to Israel's 2014 offensive in Gaza, but rather part of an ongoing and years-long effort. The most recent example of this is a similar effort taken in 2010 in response to Israel's assault on the Mavi Marmara flotilla.

In addition to this, the protesting of Zim's shipping services has made international news - as outlined in the very section in question - thus it would make the most sense to keep this as its own section on the Zim Shipping Wikipedia page, as these efforts continue.

Regarding the word count and proportionality, the fact that a section outlining protests directed at particular company has grown in light of new details should not be an argument for its removal. It is still a minor section relative to the rest of the article.

Iproofreadwiki (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Separate sub-section within the history section. Integrate the material into the history section, but the history section is getting too long to read comfortably. It should be broken into about three subsections. Darx9url (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Integrate into History section per DocumentError and Figureofnine: give this content due weight for a recent, (basically) singular event. Further subdivision of that section does not seem necessary but I'll leave that to those more involved here. Invited randomly by bot. Jojalozzo 22:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Integrate. I think I prefer the integrated version. It's more concise and puts less emphasis on recent events. I think the history section is alright; it's really not too long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Integrate, RFC worded badly Integrate the information while ensuring that the references and citations continue to be leigitimate. Also the RFC is not worded properly and employs assumed biased rhetoric i.e. "Pro-Palestinian activists" Damotclese (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was uncontroversial and undisputed. Shall I remove "pro-Palestinian"? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Integrate, into history section. also, imho, not npov in current version, needs better citations and re-write. example: was this a blockade? (blockade is total harbor or railway etc block) - hard to add more comments without seeing a re-write - as i know nothing about this this needs more/better information whilst still keeping in short and to the point (and as i have no opinion on the israeli/palestinian conflict - mainly because i know to little or nothing about it. So, please ignore my remarks/comments if they are ignorant (of anything). - i am also new to wikipedia so am learning about weight and recent) Zarpboer (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Integrate and trim: Wikipedia is not a new site and dedicated sections for these types of events are very rarely justified, unless the source material is overwhelming. CorporateM (Talk) 01:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a request for a citation for "expressions of support from ILWU members". Here is a video of the ILWU member and labor leader Clarence Thomas speaking at the Oakland protest. YouTube: PNN-TV: Longshoremen Speaks for Gaza at Blockade the Boat Action in Oakland Wanted to check that was suitable as a citation before adding it. [btw. I only wish to contribute usefully to this wikipedia and this page and have learned a lot from your comments, thanks!]

Ausrussell (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and I appreciate the cooperation of all editors in ceasing the edit warring and discussing it all here. I think that the Youtube video you mention in all likelihood would not be acceptable, based upon a widely followed essay, WP:NOYT, that describes what is and is not acceptable as a reliable source. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Figureofnine. There are rare and limited instance in which a YouTube video would be a RS, and this is not one of them, I'm afraid. Having personally been present at/participated in one of these pickets (and we should be using the word "picket" as "blockade" is a marketing term and may mislead the reader) I can attest to the veracity of the notion that some individual ILWU members did offer statements of support. However, I have yet to find any RS sources that provide neutral affirmation. DocumentError (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Separate section in the 1st edit history is alright. CutestPenguin ^discuss 07:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement from ILWU might serve as citation for 'Due to community pickets and safety concerns of ILWU members' if required http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com/2014/08/volatile-atmosphere-at-gaza-demonstration-prevents-longshoremen-from-entering-port-of-oakland-terminal/

Ausrussell (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I utilized that and sfgate.com as a source. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence or citation that there was a only limited unloading at Oakland : http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/unpublicized-impact-successful-bds-action Ausrussell (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been another successful action in Oakland on 27th September, which prevented the unloading of any cargo. There's significant press about it Reuters: Israeli cargo ship heads for L.A. to unload after Oakland protest... and I think worth mentioning the growing internationalism of the campaign... Liverpool Dockers Solidarity with ILWU Local 10 and Oakland Community Picket of ZIM Ships. As requested I'm discussing possible edits to the page and would be happy to help update it as the content is now out of date. I would suggest the growing significance of the campaign against Zim which shows no sign of weakening, is a strong argument for the protests to have their section. Many people will be wanting to read news of Zim in relation to these protests.

Ausrussell (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Reuters article is obviously a reliable source and its text should be incorporated with proper weight, in accordance with the RfC consensus. Indybay I think does not meet the requirements of WP:V. There is some unsourced text in the article that needs to be removed. Also I believe the RfC may have expired and if so it needs to be officially closed by an administrator. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done some editing to add the new material, add reliable sources and also to integrate with the history section, as is the clear consensus in the RfC. However, the RfC hasn't been officially closed so obviously that will be binding. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.