Talk:Semester at Sea

Article added to Wikiproject California

This article was added by a robot to WikiProject California on 22-OCT-2006. This was, I suspect, because the article is under category "Chapman University," which is in California. Chapman University is one of the previous academic hosts of SAS -- the host university is moved around periodically -- but Chapman is no longer affiliated with the SAS program. SAS is now at the University of Virginia.

I'm not convinced that Semester at Sea really qualifies to be part of WikiProject California, because SAS isn't run from there now. I do think that a strong case can be made that SAS should continue to be categorized under all of the previous University hosts, because that's an integral part of the program's history. Anyway, it probably doesn't matter, and I'm not going to sweat it. Kevyn 23:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this page is almost an advertisement, and seems practically lifted from promotional brochures/rhetoric. It should be cleaned up to be more encyclopedic.

Also, it seems the UVA info at the bottom is highly irrelevant to Semester at Sea and should be removed. Springreturning 06:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent Controversy" Section

This section has been a mess ever since it was added earlier this month. It involves a scandal that allegedly occurred during the recent voyage, and in its original form was basically a rant about an unfair situation.

Students may feel disgruntled, and the things being written may or may not be true, but this section cannot be in this Wikipedia page because it fails two crucial tests, according to Wikipedia Official Policy.

1) It does not meet the burden of evidence. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.. Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.

2) It does not meet the burden of being encyclopedic. See What Wikipedia is not.

I have left some, in the interest of not completely deleting what others may consider important to be on this page, but I have eliminated anything biased or clearly un-sourceable. While I acknowledge that some of my replacement text also is not sourced, I have acknowledged that with the Shipboard Rumors footnote.

--Springreturning (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of Control in a Storm

Aparenty one or more of the cruise ships lost control during a storm as a result of a wave break the bridge window and shorting the electronics, according at least to the comments on this youtube video.
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=tVoMtPFtEg0
I came here to find out more but there seems to be no mention of what, at the very least for the students on board, have been a notable event. Hold on, there was a documentary about it on the weather channel which is also on youtube.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6DBGhXI586k
Since there are also newspaper articles backing this up, I have added one sentence referencing the event. I think that it is likely to have a negative impact on perceptions of the cruises but at the same time, it seems that it did happen, and this is something that it would be fair to tell prospective participants. --Timtak (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the storm incident, but the Weather Channel video on YouTube makes the single sentence in this article sound like it's not telling the whole truth: 'On January 26 2005, the MV Explorer weathered a storm in the north Pacific in which a large wave smashed the windows of the bridge, breaking one of them, and briefly affecting the navigation systems.' Is there a definitive account somewhere? I can't find anything much on the web. Sam Dutton (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 0087 of the Weather Channel series Storm Stories features an incident that sounds like the one mentioned here. I'm working at a TV station that is airing the episode right now. It basically happened over the first 2 weeks of the trip, the ship was severely battered, but there were no casualties and the trip continued once the ship was repaired. The students traveled by air for the leg immediately following the storm while the ship was being repaired. That could probably be incorporated into the article, but I don't have time to do it right now, since I'm at work.

It might also be good to include information about incidents that have resulted in student fatalities during the program. I believe in 1996 there was an accident in India that resulted in at least 3 student deaths, as well as others.63.64.10.174 (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on this: just found information that Pitt might have cut their academic sponsorship of the program in 2005 in part related to concerns over the accident in India. Unfortunately, the only source I can find is a newspaper article pasted in a LiveJournal community. If anyone can find more about it, that would go a long way towards making the article more encyclopedic, and less like an advertising brochure for the program.63.64.10.174 (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the live journal link gives the actual newspaper link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.75.36.208 (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of the program

Would a section like this be appropriate? Possibly including the voyage that the above comment is about. Doubleohsix (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this incident or whatever that occurred? And if it did occur, it should be in the article from a factual standpoint. Coffee4binky (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should S.S. Seawise University be included?

The following statement about the S.S. Seawise University is the subject of deabte:

One ship SAS intended to use, the S.S. Seawise University (formerly the RMS Queen Elizabeth), burned and sank in Hong Kong Harbour during its retrofit into a campus in 1972, and consequently was never used for students.

There is disagreement between User:Kevyn and User:Msa1701 as to whether this information should be included or not. I request that all editors of this article chime in on the debate.

Kevyn's rationale: (Full disclosure, Kevyn is an alumni of Semester at Sea, Fall 1997 voyage aboard the S.S. Universe Explorer) The story of "the SAS ship that sank and burned" is an important part of Semester at Sea's history and lore. As a student, I heard about it when I was on board. I know others have as well. The fact that it sank before its maiden voyage, and never carried students, does not make it irrelevant. The Seawise Foundation, which owned the ship, and supplied it and managed it for Semester at Sea, as well as the S.S. Universe and S.S. Universe Explorer, is intimately linked with the history of SAS, even though that partnership no longer exists. It is completely relevant to the history of the program, and furthermore, I think that the photo of the wreck should be included. The only reason I could think of not including it is because SAS is afraid that it will look bad or frighten prospective students and families. However, Wikipedia is not advertising, and objectively, this information should be included. kevyn (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that this information is verifiable: The SAS media information kit, which is cited in the references section, specifically talks about the S.S. Seawise University in its program history. kevyn (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, it seems SAS has since removed that piece of information from the brochure. *sigh* So much for verifiability using that source, now. kevyn (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

The history section is pretty much a list of disasters and problems. I think thats POV or just plain dumb.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs to be fleshed out, especially with more of the early history -- but POV? No, it's just stating facts.kevyn (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cost?

There is no mention of the fees to participate, which would be a critical piece of information. Given that the information is also difficult (impossible?) to find on the originating website, the value of that information is even higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.135.82 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info available here. Not usually something we include in an article I think though.... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Semester at Sea. 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) 08:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]