Jump to content

Talk:MS al-Salam Boccaccio 98

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sister Ship and General Information

[edit]

Factual inaccuracies plague this article. The sister ship to Boccaccio 98 was not Pride of Al Salam 95 as stated, but the ships CARDUCCI. LEOPARDI. MANZONI. PETRARCA. PASCOLI. (www.faktaomfartyg.se). Pride of Al Salam 95 was originally Free Enterprise VI whos sistership is Free Enterprise VII (townsend thoresen car ferry company). The statement "Even a small amount of water moving about inside can gain momentum and capsize a ship, in a way known as the Free Surface Effect." is highly dubious. please state quantities required for vessel of that size - referencing for example the herald of free enterprise where I believe 2-3 inches was all that was required over the WHOLE length of her vehicle deck. As for the other information on this page, with these two vague statements and inaccuracies, I would be hard pushed to believe all I read here. rob (talk)

Radar contact??

[edit]

Sorry to burst your bubble on this but what exactly do you mean by "radar contact"??I'd rather say "the last point where the radar signal of the ship was recieved."Its not like radio that you can lose contact.

I'd read that as "the last time the ship's radar echo was detected by coastal radar stations", but "losing radar contact" is more succinct. -- Arwel (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Passengers

[edit]

I heard in German news that the number is 1318, as announced by Egyptian officials. The article says 1310. If anybody has more up-to-date information, please correct it. (source: ZDF (TV channel) 15:00 news - Germany timezone)

  • I also saw 1318. -EKN

Title

[edit]

In Arabic you say asSalaam not Al-Salaam. 83.160.142.158

That is true, but the ship was registered in Panama under the name given in the article, and as such it is the name that should be used. Batmanand 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at their website, they apparently have no strict rules for writing AsSalaam. Nevertheless, I agree with you. 83.160.142.158

The definite article in Arabic is always written "Al" (alef, lam), regardless of pronounciation (as in "As-Salam") or transliteration ("el," "il"). Therefore the title is correct. Further, since there is no capitalization in Arabic, the fuss about al-Salam vs. Al-Salam is meaningless. 24.63.125.223 20:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The homepage of the company name one of their ship Al-Salam 89. There is no Al-Salam 98. I think the number could be wrong. Al-Salam 89 81.230.118.34 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The homepage also lists M/V Al Salam Boccaccio'98. [1]. This is the ship which sank.--Wedian 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "now"

[edit]

It is really ridiculous to read that Reuters is "now" reporting. Shouldn't encyclopedia be timeless? 83.160.142.158

Yes, though it will obviously be changed over the coming hours. violet/riga (t) 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provide sources when updating casualty figures

[edit]

Hey guys, when giving updates on casualty, please provide sources and references. It is because other editors need to know which information is new and which are out-dated. There will be conflicting reports emerging from the media, we need to "time-stamp" all these information to facilitate our updates. At least provide the external links of your sources. Thank you. --Vsion (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Salam article

[edit]

There seemed to be a notable absence in an article on this ferry operator, and I have thus started an article on El Salam Maritime Transport. I would encourage editors with information on the company to help expand it! └ UkPaolo/talk�? 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN-AP please add

[edit]

BREAKING NEWS Egyptian official says 314 people rescued from sunk ferry that was carrying 1,400 passengers and crew, AP reports.

WikieZach 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Better Map

[edit]

From the Library of Congress: [2]. --Grocer 10:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Shouldn't the name of the article be "M/S Al-Salam Boccaccio 98"? kallemax 11:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

AP is now claiming "1,272 passengers and a crew of about 100" and only 800 dead but since the article didn't say who gave this number I didn't use it.[3] Rmhermen 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rina : coincidence ?

[edit]

French newspaper le monde <err...DID NOT> report (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-737865,0.html in French) that the ship was inspected the day before by Registro Italiono Navale (Rina). This company is famous due to the fact that it was the one that authorized the Erika (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naufrage_de_l%27Erika in French) to navigate depsite negative comments by its own employees.

I did not update the main page, as my wikipedian skills are practically nil.

Be quick to fact-check, as the Le Monde link will not stay live very long.

Well, hope, nobody in Egypt starts to blame Italy as well ?! Even though that organisation might deserve it, but after all the Muhammed cartoon violence additional "Roman-Catholic-Jewish" conspiration rumors might even make the whole situation around the world worse... --Richard 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to NPR, thie type of ship does not meet continental standards (which were raised after similar past incidents) and this is why it was sold. Clearly, significant blame falls on the nations with the low safety standards that permitted its continued operation. I checked the Le Monde article; it does NOT say that Rina had inspected it the day before!

riots or demonstrations?

[edit]

So middle eastern people do "riots" while West European people do "mass demonstrations"? Isn't this rather POV and racist? As far as we know so far, the protestors didn't carry out any violence against people, they only damaged some inanimate objects such as tables and chairs. Boud 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read any racist content in the original description - the dictionary shows that in English riot can be applied to a violent demonstration which damages property. The choice of words may be a matter of spin; what one person perceives as a peaceful demonstration may be another person's riot, especially as in this case the usually careful BBC say that the riot police were called in! My preference would to be a bit less sensitive to spin. However, the present wording does mention the damage, the flames and the riot police so I dont really object to the article as at present - I just offer a perspective on use of English! Op. Deo 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While a riot can manifest dissatisfaction, calling one a "demonstration" is usually (but not always) incorrect. A mass demonstration can be peaceful or violent, but is almost always planned and organized. In contrast, during a riot the commonality of behavior is more a matter of mass psychology than of agreed-upon rules or the leadership of designated individuals. Riots are violent or can reasonably be expected imminently to turn violent (please see the Wikipedia entry on riot). These definitions are NPOV and do not depend on one's sympathy with whatever "cause" one believes to underlie the phenomenon. Indeed, calling a riot a demonstration takes a point of view (but may not necessarily be considered POV in the context of Wikipedia) as it posits a particular principle cause of the riot, which may be a matter of interpretation. In the instant case of the Safaga riot, the "purpose" or "intention" behind the violence is ill-defined. Clearly, the crowd was angry, felt disrespected and helpless and had been demanding better communication from the authorities (governmental and commercial). There may have been a desire by many to punish El-Salam Maritime Transport (as if a corporation were a person) by inflicting damage. Many may have wanted to just DO SOMETHING, and were looking for some target to attack. They probably also wanted to gain respect and command more attention. However, they apparently did not create an ad hoc organization, appoint spokespeople or discuss and agree on an action plan. Damaging files in the El-Salam offices could well have destroyed evidence that might be useful in assessing blame for the disaster, prosecuting those responsible and preventing more such incidents. In light of all this, "mass demonstration" is misleading (not just a matter of "spin" or political correctness) and "riot" is accurate. Myron 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having been picky with Boud's argument, I will be picky with Myron's. The way I read my dictionary and the BBC report referenced in the article, both terms could legitimately be applicable. What started off as a public demonstration of relatives' feelings became violent and an incident of public disorder with damage to property, and at that point it could also be called a riot. The issue of organisation is not addressed in the report and I don't think this is necessary for a sponataneous demonstration, nor of course does it have to be absent for the word riot to be used. I think the title could be either. In actual fact the section title presently reads mass protest which is also acceptable to me since the section content expands on the title, and mentions that violence occurred. Op. Deo 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sister ship

[edit]

The Al Salam Boccaccio 98 is not a sister ship to the Pride of Al Salam 95, the two vessels are of a completely different type. http://www.bymnews.com/new/content/view/24496/82/

above comment moved off article page by me. Fixed text to reflect that they are owned by the same company [4], which is different from being sister ships. Knotnic 14:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Echo

[edit]

I immediately saw an erie resemblance between this and Lord Jim, by Joseph Conrad. A fire on the boat that the crew tries to hide so the passengers don't panic while the crew safely escape and doom the ship.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MS al-Salam Boccaccio 98. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Court

[edit]

The issue if Italy has jurisdiction is before the European Court of Justice, case number C-641/18 [5]----Bancki (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:MS_al-Salam_Boccaccio_98&oldid=1213138061"