text:
Bull Nakano

Keiko Aoki (青木 恵子) is a Japanese retired professional wrestler and professional golfer better known as Bull Nakano (ブル中野). She began competing in All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling (AJW) as a teenager under the ring name Bull Nakano. As a wrestler she was a villain, who often teamed with her mentor Dump Matsumoto. In Japan, she held several of AJW's singles and tag team championships. After being phased out by the company in the early 1990s, she traveled to North America, where she first competed in Mexico's Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), becoming its first World Women's Champion. In 1994, she made her way to the World Wrestling Federation (WWF), where she had feuded with Alundra Blayze over the WWF Women's Championship. After holding the title once, she also competed in World Championship Wrestling (WCW). In 1998, Nakano began competing as a professional golfer, and in 2006, she joined a tour with the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA). She was inducted into the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame on 2001 and was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2024.

All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling (1983–1996)
Nakano's career as a professional wrestler began in All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling (AJW) organization in Japan when she was 15 years old. After winning the AJW Junior Championship at the age of 16 in 1984, her ring name was changed to Bull Nakano. In July 1985, she won the AJW Championship, which she held for the next three years. Meanwhile, she teamed with Dump Matsumoto, who was also her mentor, as a pair of heels. With Matsumoto as her partner, Nakano won the WWWA World Tag Team Championship in August 1986. Nakano and Matsumoto also wrestled for the World Wrestling Federation in 1986 against the team of Velvet McIntyre and Dawn Marie Johnston.

After Matsumoto's retirement, Nakano won the WWWA World Tag Team Championship a second and third time, with Condor Saito in 1987 and Grizzly Iwamoto in 1988. As a singles wrestler, she won the 1988 Japan Grand Prix in June. One year later in June 1989, she also defeated Mitsuko Nishiwaki to win AJW's All Pacific Championship, which she lost to Noriyo Tateno in November. Around the start of the 1990s, Nakano began to be positioned as the ace of AJW. In January 1990, Nakano won a tournament final to win the vacant WWWA World Single Championship. She held the title for nearly three years, before dropping it to Aja Kong in November 1992. Afterward, AJW's use of Nakano in storylines and matches decreased.

Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (1992–1993)
After she stopped working for AJW, Nakano traveled to Mexico in June 1992, where she was a finalist in a 12-woman battle royal and later defeated Lola González to become Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre's first World Women's Champion. She lost the title to Xóchitl Hamada in March 1993.

World Wrestling Federation (1994–1995)
She then made her way to the United States and competed for the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) once again. Debuting as an associate of Luna Vachon, Nakano competed against the WWF Women's Champion, Alundra Blayze in August 1994 at SummerSlam, but failed to win the title. Nakano eventually defeated Blayze for the title on November 20, 1994, in Tokyo at the Big Egg Wrestling Universe event. Among her defenses was a victory over Kyoko Inoue in March 1995 in the semi-main event of AJW's Wrestling Queendom Victory show. Nakano's title run lasted for approximately five months, until she lost it back to Blayze on the April 3, 1995, episode of Raw (in a match taped weeks prior) ending her reign at 134 days. The rematch occurred in the wake of Wrestlemania XI the night before. The WWF had planned on bringing in Bertha Faye to feud with Nakano while Blayze got plastic surgery on her nose and breasts.

It would be her last match in the company, having been released soon after for allegedly being found in possession of cocaine.

World Championship Wrestling (1995–1996)
In 1995, Nakano also traveled to North Korea, where she was part of the joint New Japan Pro-Wrestling/World Championship Wrestling (WCW) Collision in Korea event in Pyongyang that set a record for attendance at a professional wrestling event with 150,000 spectators. At the event, Nakano and Akira Hokuto defeated Manami Toyota and Mariko Yoshida. Later that year, she competed at WCW's World War 3 pay-per-view event, teaming with Akira Hokuto to defeat the team of Cutie Suzuki and Mayumi Ozaki. Nakano—with Sonny Onoo as her manager—continued her feud with Blayze, who was now known as Madusa, at WCW's Hog Wild event in August 1996; Madusa defeated Nakano in the match with the stipulation that she was then allowed to destroy Nakano's motorcycle. In subsequent years, Madusa called Nakano "a good-hearted person" and an "incredible talent", with whom she had some of her best matches.

Retirement
Due to injuries, Bull Nakano retired from professional wrestling in 1997. On January 8, 2012, Nakano produced her own professional wrestling event, titled "Empress", which saw her recreate her most famous matches with her old opponents. The event ended with Nakano's official retirement ceremony, though she had not been an active wrestler for several years.

Rise Wrestling (2017)
It was announced at Rise Wrestling's Bellatrix 26/Rise 4 event on September 15, 2017, that Bull Nakano would join the promotion as a facilitator, along with Cheerleader Melissa and Madusa, Nakano's former rival. Nakano turned heel during her appearance at Rise 6 on December 1, when she attacked Melissa during her match against Kikyo, and formed a modified version of her heel faction, Gokumon-To; aligning with Kikyo, Dynamite DiDi, and Kris Wolf. Nakano appeared later in the event as a heel manager for Kris Wolf in her match against Shotzi Blackheart (who had Madusa in her corner), and provided interference that led to Wolf defeating Blackheart.

Sukeban (2023–present)
On September 21, 2023, Bull appeared at the inaugural show for the US based, all-female Japanese pro wrestling promotion Sukeban, where she announced she would be the acting commissioner; she revealed the Sukeban World Championship, and announced the winner of the main event, Ichigo (Unagi) Sayaka, would face Commander (Arisa) Nakajima at the next show—crowning the first champion.

WWE return and Hall of Fame (2024)
On 6 March 2024, it was reported by ESPN that Nakano would be an inductee into the WWE Hall of Fame Class of 2024. She was later inducted into the Hall of Fame by Alundra Blayze.

Professional golf career
Nakano became a professional golfer in 1998. In November 2004, Nakano played in the Futures Tour Qualifying Tournament in Florida, but ended the tournament in 250th place of 251. The following year, she ended the tournament in 261st place of 271. As a result, she failed to qualify for the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA). Nakano later qualified for the LPGA and joined the Duramed Futures Tour in January 2006.

Championships and accomplishments

 * All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling
 * AJW Championship (1 time)
 * AJW Junior Championship (1 time)
 * All Pacific Championship (1 time)
 * WWWA World Single Championship (1 time)
 * WWWA World Tag Team Championship (3 times) – with Dump Matsumoto (1), Condor Saito (1), and Grizzly Iwamoto (1)
 * 1983 Rookie of the Year Decision Tournament
 * Japan Grand Prix (1988)
 * Tag League the Best (1985) – with Dump Matsumoto
 * AJW Hall of Fame (1998)
 * Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre
 * CMLL World Women's Championship (1 time)
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame (Class of 2001)
 * World Wrestling Federation/World Wrestling Entertainment
 * WWF Women's Championship (1 time)
 * Slammy Award (1 time)
 * Most Devastating (1994)
 * WWE Hall of Fame (Class of 2024)

title: Bull Nakano


text:
Talk:Fox News/Archive 3

Latest edits - Deletion
The latest edits by User:Thejackhmr raises alarm bells. First is a wholesale unilateral deletion of lots of the article, immediately followed by a very minor edit with no edit comment (and actually introduces a grammatical error) that gives the appearance of covering tracks. I'm not accusing Thejackhmr of malice or impropriety, but I find it all very disappointing given how hotly debated an article this is. Fuzheado | Talk 05:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Ha! No grammatical error was introduced -- you are mistaken. Maybe you should attend to your own grammar though; your first sentence above should actually be: The latest edits by User:Thejackhmr raise alarm bells. Anyway, see the "Neutralization" section above for an explanation of my changes. ~thejackhmr

 * My bad on the grammar. I was reading the raw diffs which read " an American " and thought the "an" was paired with United States, rather than American. Apologies for the grammar error. I still think your wholesale deletion is in bad faith. Fuzheado | Talk 06:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Your half-page deletion was not supported by anyone in the above section Thejackhmr.--GD 05:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The latest edits by Thejackhmr are completely justified. Wikipedia is not a commie propaganda outlet like Zmag, "Indymedia" or "FAIR". 209.142.200.92 19:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * One-edit sock puppet.--GD 05:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * That I chose not to register a user name does not mean I am a "sock puppet". 209.142.198.33 22:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I will now be known as Fogger. 209.142.198.33 22:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I suggest that you look at it like this. Wikipedia is not here to hide the existence of "commie propaganda." That FAIR has said certain things is a fact and might be the kind of thing that can be included in Wikipedia. If it should not be included, then tell us why. You could be more persuasive than simply asserting so. That is not to say that FAIR is even remotely trustworthy, but FOX News certainly isn't (see and "WTVT Ruling Coverage" on ).
 * Tim Ivorson 10:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * WTVT is an affiliate of the Fox television network. It is not the Fox News cable channel.

 * WTVT's news department wanted to add comments from Monsanto representatives. Jane Akre and Steve Wilson refused, and were fired.

 * Jane Akre and Steve Wilson need to be forced to pay the legal costs of WTVT's defense against their frivolous so-called "wrongful termination" lawsuit, plus punitive damages.

 * Trying to discredit an entire cable news network using a single incident where the news department of a Fox network affiliate decided to edit some left-wing propaganda piece is dishonest. In any case, the Fox News Channel is several orders of magnitude more reputable than "FAIR".

 * - Fogger 11:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thejackhmr

I would appreciate it if you would not use such inflamatory titles for your edits, not repeat edits which have already proved controversial and explain changes likely to be controversial. I agree that there is room for improvement here. Maybe you could try constructive edits. Tim Ivorson 07:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * How would people feel about spinning off a separate Criticisms of FOX News article? That would enable this one to not be so criticism-heavy and thus stay more focused, while also allowing extensive coverage of the considerable body of criticisms of the station.  We can have a Main article: Criticisms of FOX News atop the Allegations of bias section. V V  09:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * That's okay with me, but won't acknowledging the criticisms still be problematic? Do we need to find some kind of synthesis with Thejackhmr's edits as well?
 * Tim Ivorson 10:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * In general, folks have tried to avoid splitting off into "Criticism of..." articles, since 1) they would be simply a dumping ground for POV and 2) they siphon off any critical analysis in the main article. Therefore, it would be nice if it could be reconciled on this article and accomplish what Jimbo mentioned in the press recently about John Kerry - an article which is acceptable to both sides. Fuzheado | Talk 12:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Well as I understand it - and I'm not unsympathetic - Thejackhmr's objection was that this article looked rather unlike the, say, CNN one, but is instead largely made up of a litany attacks on the channel. This lack of balance is problematic in its own right, and it would be reasonable to have a much-pared-down article with the basics, and then a separate one for the sizable and growing field of attacks on FOX News.  It would be analogous to having a History of Poland article separate from Poland, an Iran-Contra scandal separate from Ronald Reagan, and, indeed, a John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 separate from John Kerry.  Whether it would be a POV magnet or not compared to the present article is hard to say, but FAIR and PIPA are hardly, well, fair organizations, and they are featured prominently here nonetheless. V V  13:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't care one way or another but critical opinion belongs somewhere. PS: Your baseless assertions about FAIR are just that.--GD 05:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I would not be in favor of removing allegations of bias to a different page, so long as a similar section was added to CNN and other such media accused of being "liberal." Also, the FAIR report should certainly be documented, as the PIPA study and Ann Coulter's response, and any other significant controversy surrounding FNC. Incidentally, I think that now, rather than an anti-Fox spin on the bias paragraph, there is a decided spin in favor of the channel (my, this is tedious). I propose replacing this:
 * Some of the differing opinions of FOX News might result from the perceived lack of a clear-cut line between straight-news programming and news analysis programming. One of the founding concepts of the channel has always been to provide strong and opinionated news analysis, particularly during prime time.
 * with this:
 * FOX News CEO Roger Ailes defended the network in an online column for the Wall Street Journal, stating that FOX's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage and ignore instances in which FOX has broken stories which turned out harmful to Republicans or the Republican Party.
 * Fair and balanced, I hope - so long as FAIR and PIPA's criticisms are mentioned.  — Dan | Talk 17:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Mention them, but we don't need half an essay on them.  —  Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  18:09, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Dan | Talk 03:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * As there was no protest I have now switched the paragraphs. — Dan | Talk 05:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On an entirely different subject - I have just reverted an anonymous edit which quoted one of the internal FNC memos discussed in the bias section, as I did not think it was necessary; I linked the MediaMatters page containing the memos in question, so a curious reader can see for himself.

Also, I removed the detailed reasons behind FOX's ratings success from the opening paragraph and moved it to the relevant paragraph below. The purpose of the article is to go into detail; the purpose of the opener is to state the very basic undisputed facts. I don't think either of these changes should be especially controversial; just wanted to tell everyone so as not to be accused of unilateralism. — Dan | Talk 03:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed.  —  Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  04:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Greta Van Susteren
It strikes me as quite inappropriate to cite the political activity of Greta Van Susteren's husband as evidence about her beliefs. Wives are now allowed to hold views and vote independently of their husbands. I notice that there is no corresponding discussion of the political activities of any male's spouse.

Views of FOX News outside the US
There seems to be no discussion of how FOX News is viewed outside the US - i.e. that many consider it very patriotic - that is to say, a mad raving looney right-wing neo-con propaganda tool. Mostly people who tune in consider it hilarious - just as a Canadian journalist suggested (when it was announced Canada was to get FOX News). For me, it's quite humorous until one realises that there are many who take it all entirely seriously!

The "not biased" allegation is the worst attribute - I could stomach it otherwise to some extent. In fact, this applies to US foreign policy too - people could accept it more if they weren't so adamant about "We're right, we're doing this for the greater good, we've a God-given duty".

So, to conclude - I think it's important to mention the strong feelings that this channel stirs up! Certainly the whole incident with that Canadian guy and the ensuing hate-mail from FOX News viewers should be mentioned.

I'm not putting in anything myself into the article though - because I realise this is probably extremely contentious. In fact, there's probably many who find my above comments appalling. Still, you've got to face reality!

zoney ▓ █ ▒ talk 13:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * If such views, justified or otherwise, have been documented by a reliable news source, they should be added under "Allegations of bias" with a link to the relevant article(s). — Dan | Talk 17:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Given that many outside the US still haven't gotten over the habit of getting their news from various fronts for the Novosti Press Agency and the KGB's Service A, any news organization that allows those to the right of Pol Pot to express their viewpoints in debate will be seen by these people to be "a mad raving looney right-wing neo-con propaganda tool". - Fogger 00:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * There are plenty of people who don't just get their news from one source. People who watch FOX News and laugh are likely to be among them.

 * FOX News gives a lot of time to minor issues and tabloid stories. This makes FOX News seem sillier than foreign news organisations that mosly report real news. Some of FOX News seems calculated to make people laugh. O'Reilly is little more than a shock jock.

 * I am not sure where Pol Pot belongs on the political spectrum, but many British news sources present a range of views, though, like FOX News, they underrepresent libertarian (with a small l) views. FOX News looks especially silly to foreigners because of its "patriotism" and claims like "we killed some bad guys today!" Obviously, FOX News describing soldiers who share its nationality as "us" or "our troops" (yes yes in its opinion sections) makes more sense to americans, but the BBC would not usually do the same regarding British soldiers.

 * Some critics of FOX News seem to mistakenly believe that other US news channels are much better. They are not, but this does not make FOX News "fair and balanced" and it claiming to be makes it a target for criticism.

 * Even if FOX News is not guily of bipartisan or partisan opinion and ideologically cherrypicked news stories, it does appear to many foreigners to be a joke news source.

 * Tim Ivorson 09:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Swedish right leaning paper (Expressen actually) recently called FOX News "the most biased news source in the west". // Liftarn

Recent POV additions
I have just reverted a few edits which I feel introduced unnecessary POV into the article. The first (diff) connected two paragraphs to make an extremely long paragraph - bad form, even without the POV - but the transition line was "Meanwhile, critics contend that FOX has a conservative bias. Critics whose claims, on November 1, 2003, were undeniably supported by a report in the Los Angeles Times that quoted Charlie Reina..." That FOX "undeniably" carries a bias is not for an encyclopedia article to judge.

The second edit (diff) cast doubt, without a source, on the legitimacy of the liberal FOX anchors. These claims should certainly go under "allegations of bias" and not in the section about personalities, if, indeed, they merit inclusion at all. I don't think they do unless they generate sufficient controversy to be reported by a mainstream news source. — Dan | Talk 17:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"relatively right-wing"
Egad, now there's another one which an anon has restored after I removed it once (diff). I don't want to get into an edit war, but to say, without qualification, that FOX News presents a right-wing viewpoint, and call it neutral, is absurd. The fact is that they have been accused of bias. It is not for us to make a value judgement on a channel. Despite my beliefs, I would never write "It is noted for putting liberal spin on the news" in the CNN article; I would instead document accusations of bias. Consequently I'm going to revert it again. — Dan | Talk 12:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not quite anon; see my user page. Btw, 81.168.80.170 and 195.167.169.36 are both me: I put that statement in originally and I restored it in modified form after it was removed.  The statement I made is not quite what you state above: I wrote "It is noted for presenting a much more right-wing viewpoint than most news channels.", which is a comparison with other news channels rather than an absolute statement.  Critics say that Fox News has right-wing bias, whereas supporters say that other channels have left-wing bias; the sentence I added makes neither of those contested statements, but states only that Fox News is further to the right than other news outlets, which is true regardless of which news outlets one considers to be neutral overall.
 * I haven't seen anyone dispute the accuracy of this comparison. Your example of a statement that "CNN is noted for putting liberal spin on the news" is a correct analogy for the statement that you attributed to me, but is not a correct analogy for the statement that I actually wrote.  195.167.169.36 15:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I see your point: it is FOX's relative right-wing-ness (surely there's a better term for it!) with which your statement is concerned. While FOX may present a viewpoint closer to that of an average Republican than to that of an average Democrat, and while its slogan "Fair and Balanced" actually markets to those who believe CNN is liberal, I think that the statement as you have worded it is unverifiable and prone to misinterpretation (to which I fell victim). I do not believe that it is possible to determine, beyond doubt, that FOX News is to the right of CNN; indeed, I beleive that any judgement of where FOX lies on the political spectrum does not belong in a Wikipedia article. I maintain than NPOV only permits such statements when another notable source has said so.
 * If a professional study is done which compares stories run by FOX and its competitors and attempts to methodically determine a bias or lack thereof, I will welcome the mention of the study in the article - cited as a study and not as unqualified fact. — Dan | Talk 01:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I've been pondering introducing terms such as "relatively right-wing"; perhaps a clearer wording of my statement could be based on that. I'm surprised that you consider in "unverifiable", however.  It seems to me that it's not in dispute, which is why I haven't looked for an authoritative source for it.  I certainly disagree about it being POV: whereas absolute descriptions such as "right-wing" depend on where one's POV deems the centre of the political spectrum to be, comparative descriptions such as "relatively right-wing" or "further to the right than" depend only on which way round one perceives the spectrum to be and on perceiving a difference between the news sources.
 * Is there anyone claiming that Fox is to the *left* of (for example) CNN, or that it is at the same place on the political spectrum? I think the (relative, at least) political position of a news source is relevant basic information about it that should appear in an encyclopaedia article.  Furthermore, in this case, the political position is particularly important: it is widely remarked upon, hence the "it is noted for ..." comment.  All of this is entirely independent of absolute political position and bias in reporting.  195.167.169.36 11:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * What about a compromise, which I suggest should be written into the first paragraph of the "Allegations of bias" section:
 * FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks, and its promotional statements include "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide." The network thus intends to provide an alternative to such news sources as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, or CBS, for those who believe that the other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. Observers agree that FOX lies to the political right of other prominent news sources; there is much dispute, however, as to whether the channel is actually a neutral source, or carries a bias in favor of right-wing, conservative, or Republican interests.
 * What about it? It makes your point clearly - that FOX is more right-wing than CNN & Co., relatively speaking - but avoids language that would lead a reader to misinterpret the meaning, i.e. it clearly attributes outright accusations of right-wing bias to other sources. — Dan | Talk 01:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I like "Observers agree that FOX lies to the political right of other prominent news sources.". It seems a very clear way of stating it.  I agree that that should be stated in the "Allegations of bias" section, but I think that because of its importance it should also appear in the lead section.  195.167.169.36 09:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I have edited the paragraph under "Allegations of bias" accordingly, but I still do not believe that the information belongs in the intro. I tried to put it in as best I could in a number of ways, and couldn't help but think each time of a reader seeing "It is generally agreed that FOX presents a viewpoint further to the right than most other prominent news sources" and disgustedly writing off Wikipedia as a liberally-dominated load of bilgewater.
 * The fact, I think, is that the difference between that statement and saying "it is generally agreed that FOX carried a right-wing bias" is so subtle, and blurred to such an extent in other media, that it requires immediate clarification which does not belong in the intro paragraph. I also don't think that FOX's relative political position is its most significant political attribute, and is certainly less "noted" than the various accusations of bias already mentioned in the intro. — Dan | Talk 01:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Not all "Observers agree that FOX lies to the political right of other prominent news sources." Extreme leftist made a fuss, so people have that perception, but evidence that it's conservative is almost always taken out of context.  I started watching it to see what all the fuss my liberal friends were making about it; the only stance that seems to be nearly universal of its reporters and commentators is that they're pro-American and proud of it.  That, in itself, does not make them conservative; I think it's almost as far to the left as CNN, but if prominent news sources means CNN, NY Times, LA Times, etc., then yeah, I guess it would be, but I think most people (Americans, anyway) get most of their news from local broadcasts and local papers; there is no major prominent news organization in the US the way there is in other countries.  If you mean only other cable news channels, there aren't enough for a fair comparison.

Title of recent edit
A recent edit of the article was called "Personalities - So...Chris Wallace has a main job at Fox News which means he is automatically "conservative?" quickly glance his bio no affiliations with a political party...." I don't think that being a conservative necessarily means supporting a conseRvative party. Tim Ivorson 17:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Chris Wallace has never made his political preferences public and appears to have had no affiliation with any political organizations at all, parties or otherwise. (See his thoughts on the subject in a Washington Post article).
 * Personally, I think grouping the commentators by political affiliations is inherently POV. It appears to be because FOX's journalistic neutrality is a hotly contested issue - but the same is true of CNN, the New York Times, etc etc etc. I would prefer a bulleted list of personalities, with political affiliations, when relevant, mentioned briefly. — Dan | Talk 02:01, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. I just thought that it was an opportunity to encourage people not to use conservative to mean Republican or openly supportive of any party. It seems to generate some confusion elsewhere. In the UK we speak of "conservative with a small c" to distinguish from the Conservative Party.Tim Ivorson 07:33, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An arm of the tobacco industry?
BJAODN material, for sure. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  01:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * "Theories have also been expounded that Murdoch has plans to construct a SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT for the purpose of aiding his conquest of the Chinese media market, though this has not been substantiated." Hmmm, I'm sure I heard about that on CBS recently. — Dan | Talk 03:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moving the Criticisms Section
I am removing this from the summary. There is no equivalent in any other media outlet section. The fact that this has been allowed to stand is fairly alarming.

For example, take this report: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf

Fox scores a 39.7 whereas CBS Evening News scores a more extreme 73.7. (Note that a centrist voter was rated at 54)

The study isn't perfect but it at least gives us a more deterministic way of defining bias.

Finally, by the Wikipedia community's own admission, the Washington Times is similar in ideology to Fox News yet its summary section doesn't have this veiled attack. Fox has been singled out and has been held to a different standard than other news outlets on Wikipedia.
 * What other pages do/do not have in this regard is irrelevant. If you wish to bring up the fact that other pages do not have this type of statement then bring it up on those pages. The reason this statement is included in this article is because almost all broad criticism (as can be seen in the respective section) of Fox News is that it has a conservative bias, and because the criticism is notable it should be stated in the lead. NcSchu ( Talk ) 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

TO:NcShu

"What other pages do/do not have in this regard is irrelevant."

Why is it not relevant? Facts and statements on other Wikipedia pages would seem to be relevant, after all, most pages have links connecting to other pages. What is someone to think if he reads something on one article and follows a link to find the exact opposite stated in another article.

It is almost certainly desirable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to be as consistent as possible across its articles.

The above quote does not seem right to me.

"The reason this statement is included in this article is because almost all broad criticism (as can be seen in the respective section) of Fox News is that it has a conservative bias"

When you say "almost all broad criticism" ... from what population are you sampling? I cited a scientific paper which defined a measure for bias. This is a more superior source than the others cited according to Wikipedia's rules.

I'm removing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF, you might find some help there. Dock Hi 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To DockU:

Appreciate the reference .. but nothing in the link you provided seems to apply.

"you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" I'm not talking about articles that do and don't exist. I'm talking about an inconsistency between two or more articles which needs to be fixed. My contention is NOT that the WS Times or CBS news articles need to be fixed, it is that THIS ONE DOES.

"'there are lots of other bad articles' is also common" All of the articles mentioned are fairly updated. My contention is NOT due to the lack of updates of certain articles. It IS due to an apparent slant in the writing of the articles and we are trying to correct it.

I encourage anyone to come up with or reference some kind of reasonable systematic analysis of news sites that shows fox news is slanted more to the right than the major networks are slanted to the left. I have provided one above which refutes this.

If I added an equivalent statement to CBS News it would be deleted because the liberals think CBS is not biased. However, I also agree that it does not belong there but for a different reason: that such criticisms don't belong in the summary section of ANY of these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The point of a lead is to essentially introduce the article...when examining the Criticism section all I see are arguments pertaining to Fox News's conservative bias, but when I look at CBS, for example, I see more of a variety of criticisms, ones that can't be grouped and summed up in one statement and don't all focus on the network being 'too liberal'. But again, though WP:OTHERSTUFF is pertaining more to article deletion/creation arguments it does still have relevance in this argument. This isn't a case of consistency as the article's content is obviously going to be different depending on the different article subjects. Consistency only comes in to play with article formatting and such graphic presentations. Claiming liberal conspiracy won't get you far, I've been fairly well unbiased with my editing of this article. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four ~ after your responses, thanks! NcSchu ( Talk ) 13:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy implies some type of cooperation among the actors. I don't claim this. The liberal bias found on Wikipedia is merely by accident, though it is clearly apparent. The people who tend to read/post to Wikipedia are probably more from academic circles (I would bet) and therefore are more liberal.

The criticisms section of this article is much larger than others (due to the aforementioned bias). However, I agree that the large amount of this article that is devoted to criticism is consistent with having a few sentences in the summary.

You guys would do well to update the criticisms section (since I am apparently not allowed to). McClellan has since admitted that he lied about his statements regarding the talking points. 68.198.48.12 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 * There is no bias here. Everything in the article is referenced. Please let us know if there is anything unreferenced and we will remove it. You might also want to think about creating an account which might help establish some rapport with the community if you are planning to stay here for a while. It also makes it easier and comfortable for others here to know whom we are talking with. It is just a suggestion, you dont necessarily have to take it. Dock Hi 00:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * By the by, in that video McClellan only says the White House did not send talking points to O'Reilly specifically; his assertion that the White House was doing it to Fox News in general still stands and that's what's reflected in the article. NcSchu ( Talk ) 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * No, at first he made a general claim Fox News commentators. But when Matthews forced him to be specific, he said not journalists or daytime guys like Brit Hume. He restricted it to the "nighttime" guys.  Now it doesn't take any speculation or any advanced forms of reasoning to deduce the two main nighttime guys: Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.  The only other nighttime people are either liberals (Alan Colmes) or not very political either way (Greta).  So, when he apologized to O'Reilly the only person left is Sean Hannity.  This article makes it seem like an indictment of the whole network and does not make it immediately clear that he retracted arguably his most important allegation, which was about Bill O'Reilly.  But not only that, it made his only remaining accusation about Hannity much less believable.  This section totally biased by any reasonable interpretations and all the other edits have been attempts to make the apology part as insignificant as possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

--

Its not fair to start the Criticisms so close to the beginning of the article, especially when CNN is towards the bottom of their page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 Apr 2008

God man, sign your posts and read the above discussion. What do you think we're debating about? TheNobleSith (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The criticism section is a bit long for a section that has it's own sub-article. We don't need to duplicate information, but rather, sumamrize.  Bytebear (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - conservative and right-wing/Republicanism are NOT the same. There are conservative Democrats (blue dogs) and conservative Republicans, just as there are moderate and liberal Democrats and Republicans. Thus, Conservative and Right-Wing are not exactly synonomous.

Proposed Addition to the FAQ
Based on recent discussion, I'd like to add the following to the FAQ. Please advise.

"The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal, shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well. No. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors.  The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias.  No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.  Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories.

Is there any proof that Fox News is biased as the lead implies. Please review the lead again. The introduction takes no position on whether the Fox News Channel is biased. It's only point is to highlight that a notable controversy concerning the network is that it has a perception of promoting conservative positions. The lead takes no position on whether such a perception is in fact accurate; to do so would violate WP:NPOV."

Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm surprised at the first part. Is including the idea that Fox News might be liberal really a "frequently asked question"? It almost seems like the question itself is fringe.The second part seems solid. Urzatron (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd support the inclusion of these two points. I agree with Urzatron, as I'm sure Ramsquire would, that the insinuation that FNC has a liberal bias is in fact fringe, but we have had that question raised before. I'd be nice to have a solid answer hammered out, and the two summaries don't appear to take a stand on either side of the issue (reads neutral). - auburn pilot   talk  00:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I support inclusion of these points as helpful and valid. There might be a few grammatical improvements (punctuation and form), but the language seems fine and the points seem spot-on to me.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the second point. The first point sounds a bit harsh in it's wording, and it should point out that the lead does give an alternative view.  It currently sounds a bit "biting." Bytebear (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Seems fine to me. Kevin Baastalk 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Excellent idea. I'm all for it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To Bytebear-- I don't see the "biting", perhaps you can point out specifically what the problem is. These are proposals, so I didn't do a spell or grammar check before posting. I just wanted to know what people thought of the idea. All grammatical and style suggestions are greatly appreciated. To Urzation-- The point of the first sentence is to respond to users who want the "some say x, others say y, and some even say z" formulation that editors often want in the lead. As AuburnPilot has noted, it has come up from time to time. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The biting issue is just a matter or rearanging things so the reader isn't repremanded for asking the question (starting with a "No" is not particularly polite).

"The introduction mentions allegations of conservative bias but I've seen studies that say FoxNews is centrist and/or liberal. Shouldn't these viewpoints be mentioned in the lead as well? Although there are studies with various viewpoints on Fox, for the lead we are restricted to only note the major controversy, i.e. the conservative bias, and the fact that this viewpoint has detractors. The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. The notability of this particular controversy is measured by studies, documentaries, films, boycotts from influential persons based on the perception of bias, and numerous pop culture references to the alleged conservative bias.  No other viewpoint has gained as much currency, and therefore including them in the lead would violate WP:FRINGE; WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.  Please note that WP:FRINGE is the name of the guideline that covers viewpoints which are outside of the mainstream, and is not meant to characterize other less popular viewpoints as fringe theories."

 * How's that? Bytebear (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Looks good to me. - auburn pilot   talk  18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I see you removed the "No." and swapped the remaining first two sentences. You're right, it is less biting, and I think I know why: it's generally good communication to restate what the other person is saying first, so they know you understand them and are taking their thoughts into account.  Additionally, it helps to clarify how what you're saying relates to what they're saying.  I like. Kevin Baastalk 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I support the improvements made by Bytebear. Of course, I didn't mean to be biting or impolite with the no.  I was just trying to give a short answer first with explanation to follow.  But BB's version is better.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the FAQ, as there did not seem to be any objection. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * This does not belong in the first paragraph at all and must be relocated much further down in the article; or you can start a new article about Fox News controversies and criticisms. 64.126.34.118 (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I do not know what "this" refers to. The proposals in this section are not for the article but for the FAQ.  The disputed language which is the subject of the FAQ is not located in the first paragraph of the article, and there already exist a FoxNews controversies and criticisms. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It isn't going in the article. It's just going here, on this talk page. Urzatron (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Fox News/Archive 3


text:
Reiko Ōmori

Reiko Ōmori (大森 玲子) is a Japanese voice actress and J-pop idol singer who voiced the title character (Miho Shinohara A.K.A. Fancy Lala) in Fancy Lala and also sang the opening and ending themes.

title: Reiko Ōmori


text: User talk:66.27.20.219

title: User talk:66.27.20.219


text:
Cheli

Cheli is a Spanish-language juvenile sociolect or jargon diatopically restricted to the Madrid area, developed in the 1970s, primarily associated to the post-Francoist counterculture. It drew influence from the hampa and drug-dealing jargons, and it has been noted for Spanishizing Caló and English words as well as rescuing archaic Spanish-language words. Some popular Cheli words (such as privar, molar or vasca) were actually recorded already in the early 20th century in dictionaries of argot, even if frequently with different meanings.

Other phenomena related to the sociolect include the distortion of words, modified with -ata, -ota and -eta suffixes. While as a non-technical jargon, many, if not most, of its words have fallen into disuse as the language evolves, some of them have proven resilient enough to remain in the spoken language at the expense of more recent words.

title: Cheli


text:
For Everyman

For Everyman is the second album by American singer-songwriter Jackson Browne, released in 1973 (see 1973 in music). The album peaked at number 43 on the Billboard 200 chart and the single "Redneck Friend" reached number 85 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. In 2012, the album was ranked number 450 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.

History
For Everyman marked the debut of multi-instrumentalist David Lindley's long association with Browne. Guest artists included David Crosby (harmony on the title track), Glenn Frey (harmony on "Redneck Friend"), Elton John (credited as Rockaday Johnnie, piano on "Redneck Friend"), Don Henley (harmony on "Colors of the Sun"), Joni Mitchell, and Bonnie Raitt.

The title track was written by Browne in response to the apocalyptic "Wooden Ships", a song written by Crosby, Stephen Stills and Paul Kantner. His own version of "These Days" appears here after having been previously recorded by Nico, Tom Rush, who also covered "Colors of the Sun", and Gregg Allman. Nico was the first to record the song in 1967. Browne later commented "When [Allman] did [These Days] I thought that he really unlocked a power in that song that I sort of then emulated in my version. I started playing the piano. I wasn't trying to sing it like Gregg; I couldn't possibly. I took the cue, playin' this slow walk. But it was written very sort of, kind of a little more flatpicking." "Take It Easy" was written by Browne and Frey and became the Eagles' first single, released on May 1, 1972.

For Everyman was certified as a Gold record in 1975 and Platinum in 1989 by the RIAA.

The album cover photograph is a depiction of Browne's childhood home in Highland Park, California, "The Abbey San Encino” which was hand-built by his grandfather Clyde Browne and owned to this day by his brother Edward. The photograph was taken by Alan F. Blumenthal. The cover of the original release was a cutout with the inner sleeve showing Browne sitting in a rocking chair. When removed the picture on the inside had the same background but Browne and the rocking chair were omitted.

Reception
In her November 1973 review in Rolling Stone, Janet Maslin wrote that "for inwardly panoramic songwriting of an apocalyptic bent, Jackson Browne's second album is rivaled only by his first (the second one wins), and Jackson himself is rivaled by nobody," adding that "his work is a unique fusion of West Coast casualness and East Coast paranoia, easygoing slang and painstaking precision, child's-eye romanticizing and adult's-eye acceptance." Mostly complimentary throughout, she noted that his singing had improved since the first album, and consciously reviews the album by placing it squarely within the context of the times: "Jackson's concerns, even more than his genius for rendering them simultaneously intimate and universal, are the basis for the album's unique strengths. He stands alone as a composite of ambivalence about maturity, weariness of the race, fear that love may not be enough ... confusion over whether or not a lasting home can be found in a progressively nightmarish world. He also stands alone as someone who, resigned to all that, is still willing to seek out some quiet way of weathering his time's new trials. Brilliantly conceived, incomparably immediate, For Everyman truly earns its title." Acknowledging that Browne had a large task ahead of him in following his debut Jackson Browne in his review for AllMusic, William Ruhlmann claimed Browne "turned to some of his secondary older material, which was still better than most people's best and, ironically, more accessible..." and summarized the album as a "less consistent collection than Browne's debut album. But Browne's songwriting ability remained impressive."

In a 1999 Rolling Stone review, Anthony DeCurtis claimed the album as uneven and that "Browne is still searching for his true voice on For Everyman. Is he the genial rogue of 'Red Neck Friend' or the mystical dreamer of 'Our Lady of the Well'? He will find that voice the following year on his masterpiece, Late for the Sky. But on For Everyman, he was testing his various talents with obvious joy, because, like his audience, he was just discovering them."

Music critic Robert Christgau gave the album a B grade, writing "Even as he lists toward the pretentious and the vague, the reflective evenness of Browne's delivery sets up an expectation of cogency that on this album is satisfied only by such relatively unambitious songs as 'These Days,' 'Red Neck Friend,' and the charming 'Ready or Not.' Which save it for me."

Cash Box called "Ready or Not" a "catchy autobiographical sketch of life on the road" whose "story line is an intriguing romance with humorous overtones" and said the song had "excellent balance and instrumentation." Record World called it a "nifty self-produced number that features good country-tinged instrumental work behind [Browns's] ear-catching vocalizing" and that "straightforward lyrics follow a solid melody line."

Track listing
All tracks are written by Jackson Browne except where noted.

Side One

 * 1) "Take It Easy" (Browne, Glenn Frey) – 3:39
 * 2) "Our Lady of the Well" – 3:51
 * 3) "Colors of the Sun" – 4:26
 * 4) "I Thought I Was a Child" – 3:43
 * 5) "These Days" – 4:41

Side Two

 * 1) "Redneck Friend" – 3:56
 * 2) "The Times You've Come" – 3:39
 * 3) "Ready or Not" – 3:33
 * 4) "Sing My Songs to Me" – 3:25
 * 5) "For Everyman" – 6:20

Personnel

 * Jackson Browne – vocals, acoustic guitar (1, 2, 5, 7, 10), acoustic piano (3, 8, 9), rhythm guitar (6)
 * Spooner Oldham – Hammond organ (3)
 * Bill Payne – acoustic piano (4)
 * David Paich – acoustic piano (5)
 * Elton John – acoustic piano (6) [credited as Rockaday Johnnie]
 * Joni Mitchell – electric piano (9)
 * Mike Utley – Hammond organ (9, 10)
 * Craig Doerge – acoustic piano (10)
 * David Lindley – electric guitar (1, 9, 10), acoustic guitar (2, 3, 4, 7, 10), slide guitar (5, 6), electric fiddle (8)
 * Sneaky Pete Kleinow – pedal steel guitar (1, 2)
 * Doug Haywood – bass (1–6, 8), harmony vocals (1, 2, 5, 8)
 * Leland Sklar – bass (7, 10)
 * Wilton Felder – bass (9)
 * Mickey McGee – drums (1)
 * Jim Keltner – drums (2, 4, 5, 6, 8)
 * Gary Mallaber – drums (3, 9)
 * Russ Kunkel – drums (7, 10)
 * Don Henley – harmony vocals (3)
 * Glenn Frey – harmony vocals (6)
 * Bonnie Raitt – harmony vocals (7)
 * David Crosby – harmony vocals (10)

Production

 * Jackson Browne – producer
 * John Haeny – engineer
 * Al Schmitt – engineer, mixing
 * Kent Nebergall – assistant engineer
 * Rick Tarantini – assistant engineer
 * Greg Ladanyi – mastering
 * Anthony Hudson – art direction, design
 * Alan F. Blumenthal – photography

Charts
Album – Billboard (United States)

Singles – Billboard (United States)

title: For Everyman


text:
RMS Niagara

RMS Niagara was a transpacific steam ocean liner, Royal Mail Ship and refrigerated cargo ship. She was launched in 1912 in Scotland and sunk in 1940 by a mine off the coast of New Zealand.

Her regular route was between Sydney and Vancouver via Auckland, Suva and Honolulu. In her 27-year career she made 162 round trips between Australia, New Zealand and Canada and sailed nearly 2500000 nmi.

Niagara was owned firstly by the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand (popularly known as the "Union Company"), and later by the Canadian-Australasian Line, which was jointly owned by the Union Company and Canadian Pacific. Like many Union Company ships, she was registered in London in the United Kingdom.

Niagara was built to burn either coal or oil. She was the first oil-burning steamship to be certificated by the Board of Trade to carry passengers. When new, Niagara was the largest merchant ship yet owned by a New Zealand company. In 1914 and 1915 she set a number of speed records for crossing the Tasman Sea.

In 1918 Niagara was instrumental in the spread of Spanish flu to New Zealand.

When she was sunk in 1940, Niagara was carrying about 8$1/2$ tons of gold bars. Divers recovered 555 bars in 1941, and another 30 in 1953, but five gold bars remain unaccounted for.

Niagara was bunkered with oil when she sank. Heavy fuel oil has leaked from her bunker tanks ever since, and has caused some environmental damage in and around Hauraki Gulf. Some oil remains in her wreck, and the scale of environmental threat it may pose continues to be debated.

Building
John Brown & Company built Niagara in Clydebank, Glasgow. Laura Borden, wife of Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden, launched her on 17 August 1912. Niagara was completed in March 1913. She was 524.7 ft long, her beam was 66.3 ft and her tonnages were and.

Some of Niagara's holds were refrigerated for perishable cargo. When she was new, her number one (forward) hold was not refrigerated.

When new, Niagara was the largest ship in the Union Company's fleet and the largest ship owned by a New Zealand company.

Before she was launched, Niagara was nicknamed "The Titanic of the Pacific". After RMS Titanic sank in April 1912 this was changed to "The Queen of the Pacific".

Propulsion
Niagara had three screws. Her port and starboard screws were each driven by a four-cylinder triple-expansion steam engine. Exhaust steam from the low-pressure cylinder of each of these engines powered a Parsons low-pressure steam turbine that drove her middle screw.

The combination of three screws, two piston engines and one low-pressure turbine had been pioneered in the New Zealand Shipping Company's refrigerated cargo liner SS Otaki (1908), launched in 1908. The same company then ordered a passenger liner with a similar combination, SS Rotorua (1910), which was launched in 1910. The giant Olympic-class ocean liners and several other passenger liners had also been built with similar "combination machinery". It offered better fuel economy and speed than propulsion purely by piston engines, and more flexibility than pure turbine propulsion.

Niagara had two double-ended and six single-ended boilers, heated by a total of 40 corrugated furnaces. The boilers supplied steam at 220 lbf/in2 to the high-pressure cylinders of her triple-expansion engines. She was equipped to burn either coal or oil. On her maiden voyage she burnt coal.

Niagara was the first oil-burning steamship to be certificated by the Board of Trade to carry passengers. Oil was both a more efficient fuel and could be bunkered more quickly. In 1913 it could take a week to bunker a large liner with enough coal to get from Sydney to Vancouver, and she would need to be bunkered again in Vancouver to make the return voyage. Niagara's fuel tanks had capacity for 5,000 tons of oil, and she could bunker enough oil in 30 hours to make a 15000 nmi round trip from Sydney to Vancouver and back. This was a valuable saving in both time and harbour dues.

Accommodation
Niagara was built with berths for 281 first class, 210 second class and 176 third class passengers. Her first class accommodation was amidships, spread over her main, upper, shelter and promenade decks and included two cabins de luxe, each with its own bathroom. Her second class accommodation was aft, and third class accommodation was in the forward part of the ship.

Much of Niagara's interior décor was in historicist styles. One of her first class cabins de luxe was in Louis XIV style. Her other cabin de luxe and her first class music room were in Adam style. Her first class dining saloon, lounge and library, and second-class music and smoking rooms were all in Louis XVI style. Her second class dining saloon was in Georgian style. The ceilings of the first class dining saloon and smoking room each had a domed skylight. The Daily Telegraph in Sydney called Niagara "a magnificent liner".

Niagara had her own hospital. Mindful of the great loss of life on the RMS Titanic in April 1912, the Union Company stressed that Niagara had enough lifeboats for all her passengers and crew. She also carried a steam launch.

Sister ship
At the end of 1913 the Union Company ordered a running mate for Niagara from the Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company in Govan, Glasgow. She was to be a sister ship, but 30 ft longer and a greater tonnage. Unlike Niagara, the new ship was propelled entirely by turbines, and had only two screws. She was launched on 30 June 1915 as Aotearoa, the Māori name for North Island.

The Admiralty requisitioned Aotearoa and renamed her HMS Avenger (1915). She was completed on 14 December 1915 as an armed merchant cruiser. A U-boat sank her by torpedo in 1917.

Entry into service
The Union Company was based in New Zealand but it registered its ships in London. Many members of her crew were Australian, and they were employed under Australian articles.

Niagara was built for the Union Company's transpacific service between Australia and Vancouver via New Zealand, Fiji and Hawaii. It was informally called the All-Red Line, like the telegraph cable network of the same name.

However, her maiden voyage was to deliver her from Scotland to Australia. She sailed from Glasgow via Plymouth, Durban and Melbourne to Sydney. She reached Melbourne on 22 April 1913 and Sydney on 24 April.

When Niagara reached Melbourne the Auckland Star called her "an unsinkable ship" and praised her as "one of the most palatial and up-to-date steamers seen in Australia". When she reached Auckland a fortnight later, the Auckland Star said her arrival marked "a new epoch in the growth of New Zealand's trans-oceanic trade". Stressing her large cargo capacity, the newspaper said "She cannot fail to encourage trade between New Zealand and Canada", and that she would "inevitably aid the great work of consolidating the Empire".

Niagara was scheduled to leave Sydney on 5 May on her first voyage to Vancouver. She returned from Vancouver and reached Auckland on 1 July 1913, having covered the 6330 nmi at an average of 15+1/2 kn.

Setting records
In January 1914 Niagara set a record for crossing the Tasman Sea. Despite a strong northeast wind on the first day she steamed from Sydney to Auckland in three days and two and a half hours, which broke the previous record by four hours. Her Master, Captain Morrisby, stated that she had maintained a speed of about 17+1/2 kn and must at times have reached 18 kn. In July 1914 Niagara broke her own record with a crossing from Sydney to Auckland of three days and half an hour.

In May 1915 Niagara set a new westbound record across the Tasman Sea by steaming from Auckland to Sydney in three days and 23 minutes. This record stood until 1931.

As well as breaking Australasian speed records, Niagara gained a reputation for reliability, and for stability in all weathers.

First World War
On 28 July 1914 the First World War began. On 15 August Niagara and another Union Company liner, SS Marama, were held for some days at Honolulu because the German cruiser SMS Leipzig (1905) was reported to be near the coast of British Columbia. During the war Niagara sailed blacked out, and she varied her course and speed in response to reported sightings of German warships.

In March 1915, en route from Sydney to Auckland, Niagara lost one blade from her middle screw. This unbalanced the screw, which damaged both her middle propeller shaft and its bearing. Her engineers shut down her turbine and she reached Auckland on 22 March at 15 kn using only her port and starboard screws driven by her triple-expansion engines.

Niagara carried a spare propeller shaft and screw. She was dry docked in Calliope Dock, where her damaged propeller shaft and screw were removed and replacements installed. Engineers worked around the clock and completed the repair in 40 hours, enabling Niagara to leave the dock on 26 March and return to service. At the time Niagara was the largest ship to have been dry docked in New Zealand. She fitted into Calliope Dock with just 12 inch clearance fore and aft and 10 in on either side.

In May 1915 wartime security aboard Niagara was tightened. Police, customs and military authorities in Sydney thoroughly searched the ship, and searched all baggage and questioning all crew and passengers before allowing them aboard. Security in Auckland was also tightened.

By December 1915 there was a shortage of merchant seafarers in Sydney, and ships including Niagara had difficulty finding enough to make a full complement. But there was a particular shortage of stokers and trimmers, which affected Niagara less because she normally burned oil instead of coal.

In March 1918 it was reported that at some time in the war the German auxiliary cruiser SMS Wolf (1913) twice came close to intercepting Niagara. The report did not say when either incident took place. Later it was claimed that Wolf's seaplane once sighted Niagara, but the liner outran Wolf. Wolf also evaded capture, and returned to Germany in February 1918.

Spanish flu
In October 1918, Spanish flu broke out aboard Niagara on a voyage from Vancouver to Auckland. She had left Vancouver on 21 September, and reached Honolulu ten days later. The next day she left Honolulu, and thereafter her stewards began to fall ill. She reached Suva four days after leaving Honolulu, on about 5 October. By then there were about 50 or 60 cases. Her ship's doctor, Dr Latchmore, fell ill, and two passengers, Drs Mackenzie and Barnett, took over.

After Niagara left Suva, passengers and members of the crew also began to fall ill. So many people were infected that women passengers were recruited as volunteer stewards. Niagara's hospital had only about 10 beds. Dr Mackenzie later testified that the outbreak was "in practically every portion of the ship" and little was done to isolate the sick. He also stated that her crew's quarters were "very crowded" and "Their condition was very miserable when we had so many sick men in the tropical heat".

On 11 October one patient aboard Niagara died of bronchial pneumonia. By then more than 100 of her crew were infected, and 25 cases were described as needing transfer to hospital. But Dr Mackenzie considered that the outbreak was "ordinary influenza". One case was complicated by pneumonia, but Mackenzie attributed it to the fact that that patient had suffered a poison gas attack in the war.

On 12 October the Minister of Health, George Warren Russell, told the Governor-General of New Zealand, the Earl of Liverpool, that Spanish flu was not a notifiable disease, and therefore he could not quarantine Niagara unless the Governor-General were to issue a proclamation to that effect. Later that day Niagara docked in Auckland. The Port Health Officer, Dr CC Russell, went aboard and examined the patients. Dr Russell agreed with Mackenzie that all the influenza cases were "simple influenza". Dr Russell examined the pneumonia patient and concluded that the complication was not caused by Spanish flu.

On 12 October, Dr Hughes, Auckland's District Health Officer, sent GW Russell a telegram informing him that one influenza patient aboard Niagara had died of pneumonia. GW Russell replied telling him to give clearance for people to disambark from the ship.

After Niagara docked, 28 patients were transferred from her to Auckland City Hospital and 10 were kept aboard ship to be treated. 10 contracted pneumonia, which often followed Spanish flu. Niagara's second class smoking room and second class cabins were converted into temporary hospitals.

Between 13 and 21 October nine more cases were transferred from Niagara to the hospital. Two patients died after being transferred to the hospital. Another died aboard Niagara the day before she left Auckland. 160 of Auckland Hospital's 180 nurses became infected, and two died.

When Niagara reached Sydney, 296 passengers and about 200 crew were detained for seven days at North Head Quarantine Station. About 280 of the passengers were released from quarantine on 1 November.

Among the passengers who disembarked from Niagara at Auckland were the then New Zealand Prime Minister, William Massey, and his Minister of Finance, Joseph Ward. A newspaper alleged that the reason why GW Russell failed to quarantine the ship was in order to avoid inconveniencing the two statesmen.

In November 1918 Opposition MPs in the New Zealand House of Representatives criticised the Government's handling of the Spanish flu epidemic. Peter Fraser questioned GW Russell's response to the outbreak aboard Niagara, and Harry Holland called for a Royal Commission of inquiry.

On 25 January 1919 Niagara was quarantined at Auckland on arrival from Sydney. She had one patient with bronchial influenza, who was transferred to the quarantine station on Motuihe Island.

Influenza Epidemic Commission
In 1919 the Governor-General of New Zealand appointed an Influenza Epidemic Commission. Its terms of reference included "All matters connected with the arrival in New Zealand waters of the s.s. 'Niagara' and s.s. 'Makura' in respect to their bearing on the introduction and extension of the epidemic". The SS Makura was another Union Company ship, and at the time was Niagara's running mate on the All-Red Line. Makura, unlike Niagara, was quarantined. Three of her patients died.

Witnesses who testified to the Commission included Drs Hughes, Mackenzie and Russell, Dr Maguire, Medical Superintendent of Auckland Hospital, and Dr Milsom of the Auckland Branch of the New Zealand Division of the British Medical Association. Dr Maguire stated that the hospital had admitted no cases of influenza "for some months" before Niagara arrived. Dr Milson told the Commission that the BMA's opinion was that "Niagara was the cause of the epidemic" in New Zealand.

However, before Niagara arrived there had been an outbreak near Auckland in the military camp at Narrow Neck. The first cases were recorded on 30 September. One doctor from the camp stated that on 10 October there were 169 cases, 39 were severe and three were pneumonic. Another stated there were 230 by 12 October. There was then a lull until 19 October, when cases at Narrow Neck increased again. About half of the cases at Narrow Neck that were diagnosed after 19 October were pneumonic, and from 20 October there were deaths.

On 13 May 1919 the Commission published an interim report. It found, inter alia:

"'That, although the latter is not one capable of absolute demonstration, the evidence before is raises a very strong presumption that a substantial factor in the introduction of the epidemic was the arrival in Auckland on the 12th October of the s.s. 'Niagara' with patients infected with the epidemic disease.'"

The report exonerated Massey and Ward from interfering with the decision not to quarantine the ship, but it criticised Dr Russell for accepting Dr Mackenzie's diagnoses of "simple influenza", and GW Russell for not quarantining Niagara when the outbreak aboard her "made her a menace to the health of the city" (of Auckland).

The Commission was given evidence that the condition of crew accommodation on a number of ships was unhealthy. WT Young, General Secretary of the Seamen's Union of Australia, raised this with the Union Company, and the Commission reported that "we were assured that considerable improvements were being effected in that company's vessels". However, the report suggested that the powers and duties of port health officers did not go far enough, and it called for "a regular procedure of constant supervision over the sanitary and hygienic conditions of the wharves and shipping".

Aorangi
In 1920 the Union Company revived its plan for a new liner to share the All-Red Line with Niagara. That June it announced that the new ship would be propelled by reduction-geared turbines like HMS Avenger, and capable of 18 kn like Niagara. But the new ship would be considerably larger: and more than 600 ft long. But in the 1920s marine diesel engines advanced rapidly in size and power. This led the Union Company to change its plans and order a motor ship.

MV Aorangi (1924) was launched in 1924 in Scotland and reached Sydney on 3 March 1925. At she supplanted Niagara as the largest ship in the Union Company fleet. Between them Niagara and Aorangi were scheduled to provide a regular service with timetabled departures from Sydney and Vancouver every four weeks.

Incidents and rescues
in February 1923 a cyclone struck Niagara in passage from Suva to Auckland. An Australian able seaman who had been working on her boat deck, William Kew, was swept overboard, and at least one passenger was injured. Niagara turned back and searched two hours for A/b Kew, but did not find him. The cyclone forced Niagara to heave to for a few hours, and she made only very slow progress for another 24.

Doris Crane
On the morning of 19 December 1927 the three-masted schooner Doris Crane was sailing from Fanning Island to San Francisco with a cargo of copra when fuel for her auxiliary diesel engine caught fire. Her crew fought the fire, but it spread and her engineer died of burns. At 1530 hrs on 20 December the crew abandoned ship in two lifeboats about 340 nmi north of Hawaii.

Doris Crane had no wireless, but at 0400 hrs on 20 December Niagara's lookouts saw the glare of the fire from 20 nmi away and she changed course to assist. By the time Niagara arrived, the lifeboats had drifted away from the burning schooner. After three hours' search Niagara found the two boats. She landed five of the survivors at Honolulu on 22 December and the remaining nine at Suva.

Ika
On 26 February 1928 the 38 ft fishing launch Ika suffered engine failure between Tiri Tiri Island and The Noises in the Hauraki Gulf. Her crew tried to reach Kawau Island by sail power, but her sail was blown away. A heavy sea strained her hull and her crew were bailing constantly. She drifted for two days and nights, by which time she was half-full of water.

At about 1955 hrs on 28 February the crew sighted Niagara, which had just left Auckland for Sydney. The fishermen lit benzene flares, which were seen by Niagara's Second Officer. Niagara changed course and rescued the three fishermen with one of her lifeboats about 10 nmi off Hen and Chicken Islands. Ika had drifted about 50 nmi, and a southwesterly wind was driving her farther off-shore when Niagara reached her.

Vancouver wharf
On 30 January 1931 Niagara collided with a concrete wharf in fog as she came into berth at Vancouver. Eight steel plates of her bow were damaged. Repairs were estimated to cost £1,500, and were completed in time for her to begin her return voyage on schedule. After she reached Sydney, Niagara was dry docked at Cockatoo Island on 2 March for further repairs.

King Egbert
On the evening of 17 July 1935 the cargo motor ship King Egbert collided with Niagara in fog in the Strait of Juan de Fuca about 40 nmi off Victoria. Niagara had just left Vancouver, and her passengers included the Prime Minister of Australia, Joseph Lyons.

Both ships returned to port for survey. King Egberts bow was stove in, and Niagaras hull was damaged above the waterline on her port side forward, abreast of her number one hold. The Wreck Commissioner took evidence from the Masters of both ships and found that neither was to blame. Niagara was dry docked at Esquimalt for repairs. She returned to service on 1 August and reached Auckland on 19 August.

Firework explosion
On 27 October 1937 Niagara was at a wharf in Darling Harbour having 300 cases of fireworks loaded into her number two hold when one of the cases exploded. Dock workers were blown through the air, five were injured, one later died of his injuries and three others were treated in hospital. Windows were broken more than 200 yards away.

The fireworks had been made in China, arrived on the steamship Nankin and were being transhipped at Sydney for export to Fiji. They were of a type that can be detonated by shock, and which were banned in New South Wales. The remaining cases of fireworks were removed to Bantry Bay Explosives Depot.

Wireless developments
When Niagara entered service she was equipped for wireless telegraphy on the 300 and 600 metre wavelengths. Her original call sign was GBE.

In 1925 the Amalgamated Wireless Company built a new, powerful shortwave beam wireless transmitter for her that was installed when she was overhauled in Sydney from February to April 1925. That April and May, Niagara set new wireless records by transmitting and receiving signals to and from both Australia and Canada throughout her voyage to Vancouver and back. While moored in Vancouver she sent a signal to Pennant Hills, New South Wales, and on her return voyage from Vancouver she succeeded in transmitting wireless signals from the Pacific Ocean to England. This was a new record for the Marconi Company, achieved with a transmitter power of less than one Kilowatt.

In January 1928, as Niagara crossed the Tasman Sea, she exchanged signals with a wireless station in Burnham-on-Sea in England. In 1925 Niagara had succeeded in transmitting to England from somewhere in the Pacific, but this latest achievement was claimed as a new record. A service was established by which passengers could send messages to England at a cost of 11 pence per word.

Between 28 May and 9 June 1928 the Fokker F.VII aircraft Southern Cross made the World's first flight across the Pacific: from California via Fiji and Hawaii to Queensland. Its crew maintained hourly wireless contact with Niagara on each leg of the flight.

In 1934 the new wireless call sign GNXP superseded Niagara's code letters JBSG and her original wireless call sign.

In February 1936 the New Zealand Marine Department established a wireless direction finding beacon on Tiri Tiri Island, and asked ships to help to test it. Niagara's master recommended that a second beacon was needed for ships to fix their position by triangulation. However, the beacon on Tiri Tiri enabled ships to get accurate bearings from a range of up to 88 nmi.

Modifications
By October 1928 refrigerating equipment had been installed in Niagara's number one hold. This increased her refrigerated capacity by 450 tons, bringing the total to 81560 cuft.

In August 1929 Niagara received a month-long overhaul in Sydney. The domed skylight in her first class dining saloon was removed in order to increase the deck area of the first class lounge, which was immediately above the saloon. Her passenger accommodation was re-painted, re-decorated, re-carpeted, much of her furniture was replaced and the remainder was re-upholstered.

In 1933 first Aorangi and then Niagara were given their biennial overhauls in Sydney. The Union Company's HMNZS Monowai (F59) was to deputise for each ship in turn. Niagara was withdrawn from service when she reached Sydney on 14 August. Large sections of her deck were re-laid, and equipment to screen sound films aboard was installed in one of her lounges. Niagara returned to service at Sydney on 12 October as scheduled. The combined cost of overhauling the two ships was £60,000.

Canadian–Australasian Line
In 1930 Niagara made her hundredth round trip between Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

In 1931 the Union Company anticipated competition from Matson Line of the USA, which had ordered two new liners, SS Mariposa (1931) and SS Monterey, to run between the West Coast of the United States and Australia via Hawaii, Fiji and New Zealand. They would be swifter than Niagara and Aorangi, and the Federal government of the United States subsidised US ships US$10 per mile to carry mail, which gave them a competitive advantage over UK and Empire ships. In response the Union Company and Canadian Pacific created a new jointly-owned subsidiary, Canadian-Australasian Line, to which the Union Company transferred Niagara and Aorangi.

In June 1936 the UK government commissioned an Imperial Shipping Committee to examine merchant shipping in the Pacific, including problems caused by subsidised US competition. Canadian Pacific's Chairman, Sir Edward Beatty, sought support from the governments of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Fiji to improve Canadian-Australasian's trans-pacific service. He proposed a pair of, 22 kn liners at a cost of £2.5 million if the governments would subsidise the service. P&O, which owned the Union Company, supported the proposal. The Imperial Shipping Committee recognised the problem but proposed no solution.

In May and June 1937 an Imperial Conference considered matters including shipping, which faced increasing Japanese competition as well as subsidised competition from US ships. Beatty reiterated his proposal for new liners to replace Niagara and Aorangi. Hopes were raised but no agreement was reached.

In 1938 Niagara celebrated 25 years in service. By then she had completed about 150 round trips between Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

In July 1939 Sir Edward Beatty stated that the cost of shipbuilding had now risen too high for new ships to be ordered for the transpacific route. Instead there was a proposal that the Canadian Pacific liner SS Duchess of York (1928), or one of her sister ships, could be modified for trans-pacific service to replace Niagara.

On 1 September 1939 the Second World War began. That October Canadian-Australasian Line introduced a 33 per cent war surcharge on passenger fares. In January 1940 this was reduced to 15 per cent to encourage travel between Australia and New Zealand.

Loss
On the night of 13–14 June 1940 the GERMAN AUXILIARY CRUISER Orion laid a field of 228 contact mines across the mouth of the Hauraki Gulf: in a bid to blockade Auckland, New Zealand's largest commercial port. For the next four days ships passed in and out of Auckland without hitting any of the mines.

On the night of 18–19 June Niagara left Auckland. She was carrying passengers including RAAF Air Vice Marshal Stanley Goble, who with his wife was en route to Canada to be air liaison officer in Ottawa. Her cargo included half of New Zealand's entire stock of small arms ammunition. It was being sent via Canada to mitigate a shortage in the Dunkirk evacuation. In her strong room she was secretly carrying 590 gold bars from South Africa, valued at £2,500,000. They were a payment from the United Kingdom to the then-neutral United States for munitions.

At 0340 hrs on 19 June Niagaras bow struck one of Orions mines off Bream Head. The explosion blew the hatch cover and stanchions off her forward hold. The cover was blown into the sea, complete with a motor car that had been secured to it as deck cargo.

Niagara fired distress flares, her wireless operator transmitted a distress message and her crew launched her 18 lifeboats. Everyone aboard successfully abandoned ship in 90 minutes, without loss of life, and with only a few minor injuries. Sources disagree on the number of people involved. They are variously cited as 202 or 203 crew, and 136, 146 or 148 passengers. The evacuation was helped by her electric lighting continuing to function.

Niagara's stern rose clear of the water before she sank by her bow at 0532 hrs in 70 fathom of water between the Mokohinau Islands and Hen and Chicken Islands. Her sinking ended a 27-year career in which Niagara made 162 round trips between Australia, New Zealand and Canada and sailed nearly 2500000 nmi.

At dawn the lifeboats were scattered over an area of about 1 sqmi. Shortly after 0800 hrs the cruiser HMS Achilles (70) sighted them. An aircraft circled them, then at 1030 hrs a fast motor launch arrived whose crew told the lifeboat crews in which direction to steer. The lifeboats proceeded under sail until their occupants were rescued by "a large liner in the vicinity" that was diverted to the scene. Under conditions of wartime secrecy, news reports at the time did not disclose that it was Huddart Parker's Trans-Tasman liner MS Wanganella. The Northern Steamship Company coaster Kapiti and a number of launches transferred survivors from the lifeboats to Wanganella.

Niagara's only apparent fatality was her ship's cat, a five-year-old grey and white long-haired tom called Aussie. His mother had been Niagara's cat before him, his father was a Persian in Vancouver and Aussie was born at Suva. Aussie was put in one of the lifeboats when Niagara was being abandoned, but he jumped back aboard ship. A few days later, residents of Horahora, Whangarei claimed that a cat answering Aussie's description came ashore on a piece of driftwood, and that one of them had taken him in, but the cat escaped and had not been seen since.

Gold salvage
The UK government urgently needed the gold to be salvaged from the wreck. This had been done before. In 1917 two German mines had sunk the armed merchant cruiser SS Laurentic (1908) off the coast of Ireland. She was carrying 3,211 gold bars, most of which were salvaged by Royal Navy divers between 1917 and 1924. The amount was more than 43 tons: five times as much as Niagara was carrying.

Nor was the depth unprecedented. in 1932 an Italian salvage contractor had recovered sovereigns and silver bullion worth £1 million from the wreck of the P&O liner SS Egypt in the English Channel. Egypt lay at a depth of 170 m, which was even deeper than Niagara.

However, the depth at which Niagara lay was a great challenge, and it was in a minefield. Minesweepers disposed of three mines after Niagara was sunk, but no-one on the Allied side of the war knew how many Orion had laid.

1941
The Royal Australian Navy dismissed the idea of trying to salvage the gold. But the Bank of England offered a fee of £27,000 plus 2.5 per cent of the value of any gold recovered. A syndicate from Melbourne, Australia accepted the offer. Captain JP Williams, Captain J Herd and chief diver John Edwards Johnstone led the syndicate, which was called either the United Salvage Syndicate or United Salvage Proprietary Ltd.

An engineer from Melbourne, David Isaacs, designed a diving chamber for the salvagers. A company in Castlemaine variously referred to as Thompson's Engineering and Pipe Co or Thompson's Foundry made the chamber in conditions of strict wartime secrecy. It is made of manganese bronze, has several small quartz glass portholes, is built to withstand pressure to a depth of 125 fathom and weighs three tonnes. It is cylindrical, with a bulbous top, and just big enough for one man to stand inside.

The salvagers obtained the use of Claymore, a Northern Steamship Company coaster that had been built in 1902 and was now rusting in Auckland harbour. Her steam engine was unreliable, one of her propeller blades was missing and her hull constantly needed patching, but she seems to have been the only ship available.

Claymore was fitted out with the chamber and a grab to convert her into a salvage ship. The salvagers based themselves at Whangārei and began operations on 15 December 1940. Claymore searched for the wreck by dragging her anchor across the seabed. Twice she fouled mines that Orion had planted, and was fortunate not to be sunk. Once the diving chamber became fouled with the anchor wire of one of the mines. On 2 February 1941 Claymore found Niagara.

Niagara lies on her port side. The salvagers used explosives to try to blast open her hull, but with little success. Salvagers then used the grab to open the wreck bit by bit. One diver was lowered in the diving chamber to observe the grab, and passed instructions by telephone up to the grab operator aboard Claymore. The divers were John Johnstone and his brother William, who between them made 316 descents to the wreck. Eventually the operation exposed Niagara's strong room.

In October 1941 the salvage crew used explosives to open the strong room door. The first two gold bars were recovered on 13 October. By December 1941 they had recovered 555 of the 590 gold bars. The salvage operation was ended on 8 December, the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

The diving chamber was later returned to Castlemaine, possibly early in the 1980s. It is now preserved and displayed in the historic Castlemaine Market Building.

1953
In 1953 Johnstone returned with a different salvage ship and more modern equipment. Foremost 17 had been built in 1911 as Port of London Authority No. 9, a hopper barge for the Port of London Authority. In 1925 the PLA sold her and her new owner renamed her Foremost 17. She passed through several private owners, until in 1940 the Admiralty bought her and had her converted into a salvage ship. In June 1944 she was at Gold Beach where Mulberry Harbour B was built to supply the Allied invasion of Normandy. In 1947 the Admiralty sold her to a British Company, Risdon Beazley, and by about 1952 she was in Australia.

Foremost 17, like Claymore, was equipped with a diving chamber from which to direct work on the wreck. But instead of a grab, Foremost 17 had what Johnstone called the "iron man". This was described as having robotic arms and legs that could walk on the sea bed at depth, picking up heavy objects. It was operated directly from the diving chamber, instead of relying on an observer relaying instructions to an operator on the surface.

Foremost 17 found Niagara on 16 April 1953. By 23 July she had recovered 30 of the 35 remaining gold bars and Johnstone had ended the salvage operation. Five bars remain unaccounted for.

The wreck since 1953
A New Zealand law passed in 1979 protects an underwater communications cable that passes near the wreck. This law forbids any vessel anchoring above the wreck without special permission.

In 1988 marine salvage specialist Keith Gordon from Albany, New Zealand explored the wreck with a remotely operated underwater vehicle.

The wreck has become an artificial reef, rich with marine life. Since 1999 scuba divers have visited and explored it. Where the strong room used to be is now a crater littered with débris.

Gordon recovered Niagara's bell in 2007.

Environment
Niagara's fuel oil capacity was 5,000 tons. Maritime New Zealand says it does not know how much oil remains in the wreck. News reports from the 2010s variously estimate the amount at 1,000 tonnes, 1,500 tonnes, or 4,200 tons (sic).

Oil has escaped from her wreck ever since she was sunk in 1940. In the 1980s Keith Gordon saw oil escaping from the wreck and forming a slick 15 km long. Another escape was photographed in 2000, when marine environmentalist Wade Doak described the wreck as a "ticking timebomb", threatening Whangārei's mangrove systems and the Hen and Chickens Islands nature reserve. In 2015 she was described as "still bleeding oil".

Maritime NZ says that the remaining oil is in a semi-solid state because of the pressure and low temperature at that depth. But the wreck is deteriorating, and climate change is increasing the sea temperature. A new contingency plan was made in 2016 in case a large amount of oil suddenly escapes.

Environmentalists including Doak, salvage experts, and Auckland politician Mike Lee have called for the oil to be extracted from the wreck to prevent such a disaster. In 2017 Gordon estimated that with modern technology, the oil could be extracted at a cost of about NZ$6 million. In 2018 an art exhibition was held in Mangawhai Heads to raise public awareness of the environmental threat from the wreck.

title: RMS Niagara