|
==Name==
==[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome]] to [[Wikipedia]]==
"Carnival Corporation & Plc", is that a UK subsidiary?--[[User:Jerryseinfeld|Jerryseinfeld]] 00:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Welcome, {{PAGENAME}}!
*No it's a [[dual listed company]]. [[User:Carina22|Carina22]] 5 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)
== Merger and the Surviving Corporate Name==
Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:
In regards to a statement made in [[Carnival Corporation & Plc]] by [[User:Carina22]] stating that Carnival Corporation & Plc was formerly known as P&O Princess is incorrect! Carnival Corporation was a separate independently operated cruise line owned by Micky Arison and his family for nearly 40 years and P&O Princess was a United Kingdom publicly traded cruise line to which Mr. Arison and his family had absolutely '''NO''' affiliation with until the Carnival-P&O Princess merger occurred. So basically after the merger was completed P&O Princess became a subsidary of Carnival and the P&O name was dropped in favor of the Carnival name but the way you wrote it, it made it look like Carnival was always called P&O Princess which as stated before is an incorrect statement to make. [[User:Misterrick]] 05:10, 05 July 2005 (UTC).
* First, take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Wikipedia Tutorial]], and perhaps dabble a bit in the [[Wikipedia:Test area|test area]].
:No it isn't a subsidiary, it is a [[dual listed company]]. This is an unusual arrangement, so read the article if you don't know what it means. So far as I know Carnival is the only major "American" dual listed company, but we have several in the UK so we are more familiar with the concept. [[User:Carina22|Carina22]] 06:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
* When you have some free time, take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Policies and Guidelines]]. They can come in very handy!
* If you need any [[Wikipedia:Help|help]], feel free to post a question at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help Desk]]
* Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] is a great place to see the goings on.
* Explore, [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold in editing pages]], and, most importantly, have fun!
Also, here are some pointers to learn more about this project:
Again, In accurate statements being made by [[User:Carina22|Carina22]]. Yes, P&O Princess did become a subsidary under the new dual listed company and again Carnival was never formerly known as P&O Princess, As stated before P&O Princess was a separate company that mergered with Carnival, In fact Carnival was started 40 years before Princess even existed so how can Carnival have been formerly known as P&O Princess when P&O Princess didn't even exist when Carnival was first started by Micky Arison's father? Additionally on the Carnival Corporation & Plc website it states, "On April 17, 2003, Carnival Corporation (NYSE: CCL) and P&O Princess Cruises plc (LSE: POC) merged via a dual listed company structure (DLC). Subsequently, P&O Princess Cruises plc has changed its name to Carnival plc." so there is no way that Carnival could ever have been formerly known as P&O Princess. [[User:Misterrick|Misterrick]] 19:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC).
*[[Wikipedia:Five pillars]]
::No, Carnival '''plc''' ''was'' formerly P&O Princess Cruises. The problem is that you still don't understand what a [[dual listed company]] is. The quotation you give does '''not''' state or imply that P&O Princess Cruises plc became a subsidiary of Carnival Corporation, because it didn't. They both became holding companies of a dual listed company. Carnival Corporation was never called P&O Princess, but Carnival '''Plc''' was. This is possible because Carnival Corporation and Carnival Plc are '''two''' ''separate'', independently quoted companies. Carnival plc is the '''same''' legal entity as P&O Princess Cruises with the same shareholder body but a different name, just the same as if Ford changed its name to Detroit Motors it would be the same legal entity with the same shareholder body. The only difference is that now Carnival Plc is one of the two holding companies of Carnival Corporation & Plc. Corporation and Plc are '''two''' companies with separate shareholder bodies and ''neither owns the other'', which is a what being a [[dual listed company]] is about.
*[[Wikipedia:Policy trifecta]]
::Deleting a paragraph and marking that as a minor edit is not appropriate.
*[[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]]
::And finally P&O is a lot older than Carnival Corporation. The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company was founded in 1837, and P&O Princess Cruises demerged from it on 23 October 2000.[[User:Carina22|Carina22]] 09:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]]
*[[Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense]]
You know Carina22, I'll let you have it because your being such an a--hole, I do know what a dual listed company is but you can't get it through your head what I am trying to tell you and by the way P&O doesn't stand for Princess and Orient, it's Pacific and Orient and P&O didn't found Princess they acquired it in the 60s or 70s so Carnival Cruise Lines is older. [[User:Misterrick|Misterrick]] 21:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on [[User_talk:jossi|my talk page]].
You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.
I have to disagree with Carina22 on this one as well. This demerger thing is giving me a headache.
Best of luck, and have fun editing! [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 23:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand using my own knowledge:
.
*Carnival Cruise Lines is formed by Arison
.
*P&O Princess Cruises is formed later by P&O
.
*Carnival Corp/PLC is formed after Carnival gobbles up a bunch of other cruise lines. The Corp/PLC puts all of the lines (Carnival/HAL/Costa) under one umbrella)
*Princess Cruises demerges from the main P&O and becomes it's own company dealing only with cruises (The company has several cruise brands under its umbrella)
*Carnival and Princess merge, or perhaps Princess is bought out. Anyway, Princess becomes another cruise brand under the umbrella of Carnival Corp/PLC
I don't think Carnival was ever called P&O BEFORE the two companies merged. They had no relations with each other until the merger.
::Thank you for your welcome, Jossi, but since when has editing an encylopedia been down to luck?
::Rest assured, I have taken the trouble of preparing myself for what I consider to be a serious and responsible task - and touchstones from the links you so kindly reminded me of are ones that I intend to keep in mind whenever contributing to this project. I'd like to post them here, if only as a reminder:
Here is the company history website: [[http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=200767&p=irol-history]]
::*<b> All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.</b>
*It says that in 2003, Carnival Corp (including brands Carnival/HAL etc) merged with P&O Princess Cruises plc (consisting of Princess, P&O, and AIDA cruises). Perhaps the names were merged to become Carnival Corporation & plc
After further research, I found this confusing text from cruisecritic.com about Princess:
::*<b>It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.</b>
*Princess is now part of the industry's giant Carnival Corporation a move that occurred when Carnival acquired the cruise line's parent company -- U.K.-based P&O Cruises.
And regarding P&O Cruises ...
::*<b>As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.</b>
*It acquired Los Angeles-based Princess Cruises in 1974 and Sitmar Cruises in 1988, which P&O chose to merge. Even more expansion followed for its Princess Cruises subsidiary. In October 2000, the company underwent another major change: P&O's parent company was acquired by Carnival Corporation and is now known as P&O Princess.
And Taken from P&O Cruises' website:
::*<b>… when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence.</b>
*In April 2004 P&O Princess plc, the parent company of P&O Cruises, joined together with Carnival Corporation, bringing together two of the best known and most successful organisations in the cruise industry. Already Britain’s market leading cruise company, P&O Cruises is now part of one of the world’s largest leisure travel companies.
*P&O Princess Cruises demerged from the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company on 23 October 2000 when it started trading as an independent company on the London and New York Stock Exchanges. Carnival Plc is now the third largest cruise company in the world by revenue
::*<b>… we do not try to decide or claim that an opinion is "true" or "false". We state instead, neutrally and factually, which people hold what views, and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Remember, Facts are never subject to consensus.</b>
'''In conclusion,''' I'm totally confused!
::Jossi, you evidently have much time at your disposal to edit here. I don't. But I hope both of us can respect the spirit (at least) of the excerpts from the Wikipedia guidelines that I've posted above. [[User:Revera|Revera]] 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)revera
==Ships==
== communication with Momento re. Rawat's claims to divinity==
you listed historic cunard ships like RMS Queen Elizabeth 1940 and old Carpathia under Carnival Corp. ships. What's that? It's wrong!
QE 2 and QM 2 are okay. 10:01, July,29th 2005 DEF
:I'd argue that since Cunard is now a subsidiary of Carnival Corporation, that these were correctly placed. As would RMS Titanic for example. However it would have to be properly noted. [[User:JonEastham|JonEastham]] 15:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Momento, you have selected some quotes that support your opinion.
But in doing so you make transparent your bias. It's blatantly clear that, by omitting quotes that demonstrate that Rawat made claims to divinity which are relevant and notable, a very bright spotlight is shone on the supposed "neutrality" of your position as editor, and your subsequent influence on the article.
So, how come I can't get to a P&O Cruises (Australia) or a P&O Cruises (UK) page where I would find info on the ships Pacific Sky, Pacific Star, Pacific Sun or Arcadia, Artemis, Aurora, Oceana, Oriana and soon Ventura? Where is all this located? Because when I search for P&O Cruises, I'm basically told it doesn't exist, when it does. --[[User:Eeclwa|Eeclwa]] 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
:'''No. I have selected quotes that represent Rawat's view on God.'''
"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion?"
"God made the mind but He never made a stoplight. And when He saw that 'There is no stop in this mind which I have made,' He was very sorry. He had to take a form. The form of Guru is nobody but Himself, the whole that you want to see. The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the 'Supremest' of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity."
"To be here as individuals, and yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything; in which everything is, and he is in everything. Guru Maharaji. The Lord. All powerful."
<br />I'd love to see you try and explain how the meaning of the words "The Lord all powerful" and "God" are so very different!
I agree that P&O cruises should have it's own page, Carnival may own P&O, but it owns Princess to and they have their own page (incidentally P&O took over Princess before both brands were taken over by Carnival, deepening the injustice!) P&O Cruises has a history of over 100 years that stretches back way before Carnival comes along. Just because we trade as Carnival now (ok, so the cat's out of the bag, I work for P&O, well, Cunard, but that's another rant...) we still trade as P&O in the UK, most people don't know who Carnival are!
:'''Certainly. From Wiki on Gurus -'''
<br /> I'll agree to the last two comments. Definately something that needs doing one day. [[User:Newda898|Newda898]] 21:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:There is an understanding in some sects that if the devotee were presented with the guru and God, first he would pay respect to the guru, since the guru had been instrumental in leading him to God.[13][14] Gurus are said to be greater than God because they lead to God.[15] Some traditions claim "Guru, God and Self (Self meaning soul, not personality) are one and the same. In this context, saints and poets in India, have expressed their views about the relationship between Guru and God:
:Kabir
:Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate?
:I bow before Guru who introduced God to me.
:Brahmanand
:It's my great fortune that I found Satguru, all my doubts are removed.
:I bow before Guru. Guru's glory is greater than God's.
:I started a separate article for [[P&O Cruises]]. It's a tad shortish as I didn't dare to get into the company history after all this confusion... so if anyone can wrap their heards around this better than me, go and improve the article right now! - [[User:Kjet|Kjet]] 11:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:[[User:Momento|Momento]] 05:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Great idea, it was the pain of taking a leap and starting it that seemed so daunting. Ah well, there's a project for the Easter holidays! [[User:Newda898|Newda898]] 18:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
== Titanic ==
::No, momento, Lord God, Lord almighty, God almighty, Lord all-powerful - all are terms which any sane person would accept refer to the same thing.
Yes Carnival did not own Titanic, but threw the purchase of Cunard, it has become part of its history. Please do not just revert back with talking about it. -[[User:Texaswebscout|Ben]] 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
::''"In a religious concept, The Lord is a name referring to God, mainly by the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity)"''. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord
::Your response does not answer my question. Either your sophistry is bordering on being willfully deceptive, or perhaps you are simply in denial. Neither should be attributes of a Wikipedia editor. [[User:Revera|Revera]] 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not able to change your mind, I can only give you the facts. In Hinduism, and we are talking Gurus here, Gurus are said to be "greater than God" because they lead to God. So if God is the Almighty, the Guru is the Almighty Plus. It's a pity you didn't include this sentence "A Lord is a male who has power and authority. It can have different meanings depending on the context of use". Exactly. [[User:Momento|Momento]] 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:: Momento, he was educated in a Catholic College and was addressing an American audience at the time he claimed to be ''"the Lord all-powerful"''. And more: ''"The form of Guru is nobody but Himself, the whole that you want to see. The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the 'Supremest' of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity"''
:: That is more than a claim to being able to "lead people to God" (and by the perverse semi-logic that some Hindu teachings apply, thereby being 'greater than'). Rawat was not just any old Hindu guru who, in their controversial arrogance, liked to claim to be '''greater than God'''. The Sant Mat tradition had plenty of contenders for that title. Rawat pretended - to a Western audience - to BE God. Are there any other Hindu gurus who had the chutzpah to do that?
::And the above quotes prove it.
::[[User:Revera|Revera]] 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
== Thank you ==
Thank you for taking the time to express your kind words on my talk page. I've found that making a stand for what I feel is right can sometimes be frustrating when facing an entrenched opposition. Your encouraging note helped make a difference. [[User:Mael-Num|Mael-Num]] 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:I find battling with Rawat's promotion team can get a bit too time-consuming (not that I get too caught up in it). For a breather, I like to take a look at contributions to sites like http://hamzen1.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=duh&action=display&thread=1161430405 Words can often play second-fiddle when faced with a good picture essay! Regards, [[User:Revera|Revera]] 20:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:P.S. I've just read something in which the author makes a point which I wish I had found earlier: ''"The things which are true must be said, and your ability to keep cool and keep thinking and writing on the subject in hand, without being too thrown off balance by the barrage ..."''' You get the idea. [[User:Revera|Revera]] 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, thank you. When life's getting to you, there's nothing quite like a picture of an obese cult leader in a funny hat to turn a frown upside-down. ;) [[User:Mael-Num|Mael-Num]] 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
==[[:Category:Wikipedians by former religion]]==
I created [[:Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Sathya_Sai_Baba]]
You may be interested in creating [[:Category:Wikipedians_who_used_to_follow_Guru_Maharaji]] [[User:Andries|Andries]] 01:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
: thanks for the suggestion, Andries, but personally, I find that identifying with labels such as "Wikipedian" and "ex-premie" doesn't really float my boat, if you get my drift! [[User:Revera|Revera]] 07:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
== Re: BLP and Deletion ==
Honestly, I'm not sure how that would apply here. You make an excellent argument that the information, as presented, is not biographical in nature. In the spirit of what Jimbo recommended (which is what BLP policy was written to formalize), there's nothing wrong going on here. You're not presenting defamatory or false information, which was/is obviously Jimbo's concern.
You should be able to say what you'd like on your own talk page. Moreover, you should be able to say what was removed because it's not being presented as factual (which is the case in a biographical article, and arguably talk pages related to that article) and the only comment that is related to Rawat (obese) was presented in a humorous style, which is parody and therefore protected speech which is not defamatory by legal standards. At least not in the US. Even if it wasn't considered parody, it's true and correct, so either way you win.
All that aside, I just don't like the way that phrase in the BLP is being applied here. It should be struck, as it can be (and in this case, is being) used to censor speech in a manner that is at the very least counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia. Such a rule could be invoked by anyone seeking to produce a chilling effect towards critics of any given biographical subject, throwing all hopes for NPOV out the window. That and I've never been partial to the thought police.
I can't tell you what to do at this point, but like I said and detailed above, I think you've got at least a few pretty good reasons why you should be able to preserve what was written on your page if you choose to.
[[User:Mael-Num|Mael-Num]] 01:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for responding - and so quickly! I've given Jossi something to think about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jossi#Contentious.2FBLP
:Can it really be true that Jossi is the one who's re-writing the self-same BLP Policy? Does he know what the word "contentious" means? Is Judge Dredd ( http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950701/06300060.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Dredd ) his hero?! [[User:Revera|Revera]] 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's been mentioned before that Jossi was one of the major contributors to the [[WP:BLP]] policy. You can check the edit history yourself; this seems to confirm it. I can't comment as to whether his efforts in crafting the policy have any motive other than just making a good working policy, but as I've already said, I think the portion of BLP that's being invoked here may have undesired effects and consequences. For that reason alone, I think it should be revisited. You know, even though we're not admins here, we can have input in Wikipedia's policies. You may want to take this up on BLP's talk page.
::And as an aside, I like Judge Dredd. Even the Stallone movie. I smile every time I hear his "I am the law!" line. ;)
[[User:Mael-Num|Mael-Num]] 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::: Hmmm, I guess I'll just have to respect your respect for Judge Dredd! But what do you make of Jossi's apparent attempt to emulate him? It appears to me that he's just removed all reference to the WP:BLP discussion from his talk page. At least, I can't seem to find it, though it was there a few days ago. [[User:Revera|Revera]] 20:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
| 