Jump to content

Talk:Costa Concordia disaster

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JIMfoamy1 (talk | contribs) at 17:46, 17 January 2012 (→‎Should we mention this?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rename

"Costa Concordia disaster" is highly POV. 4200 people were rescued. Suggest "2012 Costa Concordia sinking" or just merge back into the article. Either way, this title sucks. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How about Costa Concordia shipwreck or Costa Concordia wreck? -- Update: Since that "shipwreck" redirect existed to the main article's specific section before this article was created, it's the obvious choice. When it is renamed, don't forget the DISPLAYTITLE at the top. Selery (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll check back in 12 hours or so, and unless there are good reasons against a rename, I'll change the title. A "good reason" would explain why this is supposedly a disaster, but a random traffic accident with three dead is neither a disaster nor meriting a Wikipedia article. — Felixkasza (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the front page and has thousands of Google News hits. Selery (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ditto Whereas Sinking of the RMS Titanic clearly merited its own article, unless scores are subsequently found dead or some serious consequences develop, this doesn't.-Kiwipat (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, you should probably ask at WP:AFD, but please don't interfere with a pending noncontroversial rename. Selery (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not on the front page. Costa Concordia is. Kiwipat is absolutely right. This page was created in a premature rush without due thought which was why I nominated for speedy deletion. The issues have not improved. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This article is at the size where a standalone one is appropriate and desirable. Having this much information squeezed into the main article about the ship would be undue coverage of this accident in relation to the ship itself. See WP:WHENSPLIT. Goodvac (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14,200+ Google News hits, and NPR is saying it's the largest cruise liner grounding in history. That's worth an article. Selery (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be renamed; 'sinking' seems wrong because it's in rather shallow water, so 'wreck' or 'shipwreck'. Alarbus (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply "grounding"? While the ship would have sunk had it not been driven aground (for the second time), I wouldn't call what happened "sinking" since the ship is in rather shallow water (i.e. I agree with you). However, as for "wreck" and "shipwreck", while I am aware that the words also refer to the incident, I would rather use them to describe the ship itself instead of not what happened. If the Costa Concordia is left where she lays, then it would be a (ship)wreck... Tupsumato (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grounding suggests she can just be pulled off a sandbar. No, she sank, just in shallow water. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the correct term "partial sinking"? --Efti (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, once the initial hysteria surrounding this incident ends, this page needs to be moved. Costa Concordia disaster is a POV name which doesn't accurately describe what has happened. I would suggest either Wrecking of the Costa Concordia or Grounding of the Costa Concordia. Adam4267 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS means other titles are irrelevant. That said to move to shipwreck is fine, but there is nothing wrong with calling this a disaster. Its obviously not sucnk yet so sinking would be deceptive.Lihaas (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a simple traffic accident. The loss of a ~$500 million vessel with 4,000+ onboard at the time is big news. Not sure what the best name is though. Disaster is a bit ambiguous and maybe a bit biased. Wrecking or shipwreck sounds better than sinking, as it didn't fully sink due to the depth. Agree with above comments, grounding sounds like it can be towed off something and the ship will be OK. The cruise industry will be pointing to the incident for decades to come. It deserves its own page.--Varaldarade (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how its "biased" to consider this a disaster. Lives have been lost and a multi-million dollar ship seriously damaged. The word "bias" suggests that the text in general has a subjective POV; that the term "disaster" implies that this incident is "bad". Well, how on earth can this possibly be construed as "good"? Biased or no, it's the appropriate perspective on what has happened. theBOBbobato (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disaster implies a measure of how bad it was. Seems like the facts should speak for themselves. Over 300,000 people died in the Haitian Earthquake but the article is called "2010 Haiti Earthquake" Not "2010 Haiti Disaster" or "2010 Haiti Epic Disaster" - which it is if this sinking was a disaster. The name should be reflective of the nature of the incident. Incident might be a better word until the nautical community starts using a single name to refer to this. What about "Costa Concordia Wrecking"? Most people seem to agree the ship is wrecked. Even if it can be salvaged (unlikely) and spends 2 years in dry dock - it is currently wrecked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaldarade (talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Costa Concordia disaster → Costa Concordia shipwreck – With no more than 20 deaths possible at this point, it's hardly a disaster. Consensus seems to be with "shipwreck". Selery (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose "Costa Concordia grounding incident" per below. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move "Disaster" is definitely too much, but I would prefer "grounding" or something similar over "shipwreck" as the latter may also refer to the wrecked ship itself in addition to the incident. Tupsumato (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move "Disaster" is too much. I think also that "shipwreck" is too much. I like "grounding" or "incident" myself. However, I'm sure the authorities have a proper name for it, and we should go with that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep or accomodate with moev to ]ship]wreckLihaas (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest waiting until rescues and recovery is complete. There is significant concern that the ship's nearly full fuel tanks may leak, which WOULD be a disaster for the region. If the fuel is safely contained and removed, perhaps debacle would be a more correct term. Or "grounding and subsequent loss".Wzrd1 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to shipwreck or more simply, to accident. But please, let's not talk about an incident for an event in which at least 5 people died. I'd find incident even more POV than disaster. Cochonfou (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep at disaster. I don't know where this idea came about that the word is POV; that seems to be based on editorial opinion. The word is widely used for broad, catastrophic events, and the definitions given at disaster and w:disaster include large-scale destruction, not just loss of life. The IMO, in its primary document Surviving disaster -- life-saving at sea, uses disaster in such a way that it incorporates any event in which abandonment of the vessel becomes necessary. I would argue, then, that disaster is not only the technically correct word, it is also the best or ideal word for our purposes, as it obviates any debate over the definition of sinking, grounding, wreck, and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 11:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment except that a "disaster" is a qualitative observation, making it utterly and absolutely the wrong word to use. There isn't a single "Airline Flight xxx disaster", the Deepwater Horizon oil spill isn't named a disaster either, and the MV Sea Diamond didn't even get a separate article. The only question I have is why the move hasn't taken place already. We can move it again later if need be, but we have to get rid of "disaster" and now.--76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note Hindenburg disaster or the Space Shuttle disasters, though. Cochonfou (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disaster is only qualitative in the colloquial sense. (Conversely, so is incident minimizing.) There is nothing wrong with it as an encyclopedic term. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (or doesn't) isn't much of an argument, and anyway, airplane flights are more precisely designated by their flight numbers, which the media have also gravitated toward. Cruise ship outings may well be designated thus internally, but it hasn't become a way to identify these (rare) incidents (most of which don't result in a loss of the vehicle). To continue the analogy, police departments had long used the term accident for motor vehicle collisions, but have gravitated toward collision or crash instead, likely for sensitivity toward victims rather than anything technical about the word. These words have been used this way for decades and had perfectly understandable neutral meanings. Disaster is being used by the media today for this event: WaPo Reuters BusinessWeek CBS (I could go on). If you can somehow decide on the one precise description that will be widely acceptable, I'm not going to object further, but it seems that there isn't any agreement between grounding, sinking, wrecking, and (most recently) capsizing, even if a case could be made for each individually. Disaster is a generic term which encompasses all these outcomes, not some hand-wavey hyperventilation about the event's scale. --Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm not arguing for deletion, just for a little WP:CONSISTENCY. Seeing that no other major marine incident had the term "disaster" in it's title, it seems totally illogical and out of place to have it here. So you found some news sources calling it a disaster, I found some that don't CTV ABC Time. Drop the word incident, I don't care; grounding, floundering, sinking are all more accurate and dispassionate than "disaster". --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to my bringing primary sources to the fray, yes. Note that the official US agency that would have responsibility for an event of this type is the US Coast Guard, and they routinely use the word "ship disaster" for things that did not involve loss of life or even the permanent loss of the vessel: 1 2 3. The last is a cruise ship which was 100% safely evacuated, to again underline the irrelevancy of any loss of life. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official statements and updates

http://www.costacruise.com/B2C/USA/Info/concordia_statement.htm URLs for other languages at Talk:Costa_Concordia#Costa_Cruises_notices_pages_about_accident Selery (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...shifted the centre of gravity to the starboard side..."

This sencence is sourced to an article written in Italian, so I can not verify it. However, "shifting centre of gravity" does not seem to be likely in a passenger ship not carrying significant amounts of cargo that could shift during the turn, shifting the ship's centre of gravity and causing a list. I think it's an error in translation and the sencence should be slightly reworded if that's not exactly what happened. Tupsumato (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its the water causing it to list ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.241.166 (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A sharp turn to port would, indeed, cause flood water within the hull to shift to starboard, by "free surface effect", which would be consistent with the eventual list to starboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.148.253 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. At first I thought I wouldn't have to take free surface effect into account as the compartments were "open to the sea", but in the end the holes are quite small in comparison to the volume of the compartments, and the ship was in motion. If we get good sources about the cause of the capsize, I think we should elaborate it a bit in the article. Tupsumato (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

OK, it's a current event and the article is getting much attention from editors at the moment. Once thing settle down in the coming days, the lede will need rewriting, and there should really be a section on the ship giving a brief overview of the ship itself. The Lede should be a brief overview of the article, and should not generally need to be plastered with refs. Such references should be in the main body of the article referencing the facts that they represent. The section on the ship should have a {{main}} to the article on the ship itself. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

le Scole

Can someone who understands Italian better than just Google Translate please see whether this annotated chart says that the ship struck the reef at the circled le Scole point?

I've requested an updated map as these sources both meet WP:RS and many other news articles are confirming the route. Selery (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks to those who know wiki standards and processes better than I. My expertise is in nautical charts and technical writing. It was I who first reported in "talk" as being in error the description of the ship's course stating that the reef was "north" of the harbour, I see that that "north" has now been changed to "south", as I suggested it ought. So, now that article reads "This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) south of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio." OK, that's good but, as the la Repubblica chart (the "carte nautiche" referred to in this discussion) shows, THE sole reef that is that distance SOUTH of the harbour is indeed "la scole". Therefore, the article necessarily implies that the reef is la scole; so why then do we repress the carte nautiche that clearly shows the la scole reef???? I had inserted footnotes to the la Repubblica article, and the carte nautiche, and the confirming Wall Street Journal "translation", but these have all been removed. That is far too timid an action and ought be reversed. That chart is highly important, especially at this time of high interest in the facts of the ship's course. The title of the la Repubblica chart says "le_scole", which is the group of rocks named on the nautical chart. That needs no translation into English. I take the WSJ translation to be a credible neutral public source so I'm not at all sure that it's a better course (no pun intended) to substitute a call for some one, self-accredited as Italian speaking, editor to subjectively verify. I prefer that, for now, the la Repubblica chart and the WSJ article "translation" be reinserted.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the editors who have now inserted a chart showing le scole as the initial impact point.SteveO1951 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC World Service is reporting that the ship's black box has been recovered.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now inserted into the article "Costa Cruises confirmed that the course taken was "not a defined route for passing Giglio." I had inserted this yesterday but it was removed, although not removed was my parallel insertion of the statement of the "local official" re intentional deviation from normal course. Both statements are from the same Wall Street Journal article. The admission by the ship's operator is certainly important and is the most credible source possible on that point. Could anyone please discuss/explain before again removing the statement by Costa Cruises?SteveO1951 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Le Scole needlehole

apparently, looking at the gash in the ship's side, the ship wasn't running straight when it hit the rock, it was turning to the right or drifting left or both, otherwise it couldn't have hit a rock at approx. half its length. This 300m long ship had approx 10m on each side when passing in the needlehole, so add a slight drifting and a slight turn, and that 10m margin reduces rapidly to nil. 217.162.73.165 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "Le Scole needlehole": I agree that the entire impact area on the hull appears to be aft of the beginning of the widest part, which suggests that she must have been turning or drifting, and was, like Titanic, 'just a bit late' in the turn. However, I do not see any evidence or suggestion in the press that the ship actually passed BETWEEN the little islets of le Scole, the "needlehole" you refer to. I just assume she hit the easternmost part. But this event seems to have a lot of things that people thought "impossible". Someone will soon find and photograph the remaining part of the rock the ship hit, and then we will know and report that in the Wiki article.SteveO1951 (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have (the article does not have) an actual link that supports the article's statement "This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) south of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance."???? I did not write that and the footnote is not a link and merely says "Reuters News". That is not a sufficient citation to support these alleged "facts". We need to give a credible, objective cited source, or else rip it or rewrite it.SteveO1951 (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still dispute that the text I questioned above has been adequately cited. "Someone" took out my "citation needed" entries without discussing it here OR providing actual supporting links to the alleged facts (though my Italian skills ended in 8th grade). For example, the Orange County Register article cited certainly has nothing about the reef being 800 meters south of the port, or about the ship going another 1000 meters before turning around, etc. SHOW ME THE MONEY someone, please. This is important. Unless we hear from someone who can prove the basis, then I will take it out until we do.SteveO1951 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What was unclear about my edit? The text is sourced to La Repubblica's "'La nave ha urtato uno scoglio' Il comandante: 'Non era sulla carta'", and was originally added by Rich0908 (talk · contribs) in this edit. I've asked him to clarify where his additions came from. Goodvac (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, Goodvac. We can work this out. I see that your edits were to the ending words of the sentences for which I had inserted "citation needed". I did not intend my request to be specific to those words but rather to apply to all of the alleged facts in the entire sentence(s). The paragraph has, if you parse the compound sentences, 9 full statements of fact before the first footnote. The original footnote simply said "Reuters News", and though I searched Reuters as well as I could, I found no support so I discussed that and entered "citation needed"s to ask for actual links. In response the footnote did drop the "Reuters" source and substituted Repubblica and OCRegister. I appreciated that but, again checking the links and trying to find specific text in the links to each of the 9 statements to which the links are given as support, I could not find any specific support. The Repubblica article is general and, for example, mentions "150 meters", and 70 and even (I recall) 105, but certainly I could find no reference therein to "800 meters" or 1000, or references to North or South. My Italian language training ended 40 years ago so I cannot "say" that the cite is wrong but this is the problem we get when a footnote is given at the end of 9 substantive statements of "fact", and that citation is in a language other that that of the Article. We certainly need to vet that citation and think about how to make it more clear to the reader. I just want (1) a clear demonstration here in Talk, for each of the 9 clauses, of the specific news text that supports it, and (2) a discussion of whether the "string cite" (which means placing two or more footnote citations together to support "en masse" a bunch of previous statements) ought not be better placed among the statements. That said, I also read the O C Register article cited and found that it is just a general article and does not support ANY of the 9 statements to which I assume (that's the problem with string cites) it is intended to apply. So, I came back to Talk to discusss that and ask again for better citations practice and ANY supporting credible source. Please know that I an not "playing gottcha" or making this personal. I appreciate everyone's efforts and none of us has all the skill in WP that we would like. You in particular have been very helpful re WP practice in ways that I am not competent to have done myself.SteveO1951 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goodvac and Rich0908, the edit cite that Goodvac specified above to Rich0908 is not an edit of the text about which we are concerned here. To be clear, we are trying to find, and to properly express, valid support for each and every one of the elements of the article's text before the first footnote, which text is: "On 15 January La Repubblica reported that the captain did not mention any mechanical problems but had stated that they were 300 metres (330 yd) from the rocks (i.e., about the length of the vessel) and that they hit a rock that was not marked on nautical charts. This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) south of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour. This turn shifted the centre of gravity to the starboard side of the ship, and it listed over to that side initially by about 20°, finally coming to rest in about 25 fathoms (150 ft; 46 m) of water at an angle of heel of about 80°" Why is this important, rather than just an exercise? Because we have no direct proof (a photo of damaged reef) that le Scole was the impact point; editors such as PhaseBreak (talk · contribs) have discussed that the vessel's track, so far as can be determined, may well have been more westerly than northerly just prior to impact. Therefore, we cannot yet assume le Scole to the exclusion of some point on the main part of the island a bit North of le Scole (or even the "uncharted rock"). So credible statements of the distance between the impact reef and the harbour entrance would be a highly important point of fact. On the other hand, we must assure that the 800 meter reference is not merely an inference, or self-measurement, by a well-meaning WP editor.SteveO1951 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned 14 January La Reppublica article does not provide any other measurement than the public prosecutor, Francesco Verusio, saying "the ship was just 150 m away from the coast". Other distances or measurements should be referenced by other sources or deleted. Teofilo talk 01:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with any thought that she could realistically cruise between the rocks and feel that the edge of the circle in the article’s map should start at the rocks and span northwest. That would follow the Captain’s statement of 300m. But putting that aside, the question of a rotating moment is a good observation. What I would like to add for other editors to observe is that the port stabilizer appears undamaged despite the hole in line aft from it. There is even more to come from the black box than first thought. PhaseBreak (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Route of ship

The present article seems to be saying it approached from the south (heading north). "This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) south of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance". That indicates it approached from the south and then went past the harbor entrance. Looking at the pictures of the vessel though they seem to show it north of the harbor but pointing toward the entrance, so it would have been travelling south to the entrance. Google maps confirms the present location is north of the entrance. Maybe it did a U-turn after passing the entrance? http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2012/01/14/216897-costa-cruises-accident.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.187.103 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. See the links in #le Scole above. She tried to come around to the harbor, I suspect, but there is no question she was at least without electrical power after striking the reef. Selery (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting it now. That explains why it listed to the opposite side of the gash which didn't make a lot of sense until you figure the turning force pushed it to the opposing side. I expect a diagram with a path marker will appear which will make it clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.187.103 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, indeed, the ship's one week itinerary was a anti-clockwise route around the Western Med. So, starting from just North of Rome, she heads North through the Tuscan Archipelego to the first port of call in far North Italy. Therefore, all of her process on that route is northerly, and so she approached everything "from the South", at least until she reversed course after hitting the reef. SteveO1951 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the route would have been "generally northly" over its entire length, I see that Talk participant PhaseBreak suggests that the ship might have been traveling more westerly than northerly for a considerable distance before the impact with the reef. Time, and the black box and AIS analysis will, I expect, show that. If anyone can find a credible witness who asserts that, or any technical proof, please consider entering that fact and source.SteveO1951 (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC reports Costa Cruises boss Pier Luigi Foschi saying ""This route was put in correctly. The fact that it left from this course is due solely to a manoeuvre by the commander that was unapproved, unauthorised and unknown to Costa.". From my reading it's not unusual for these ships to make the type of diversion the Costa Concordia did on this trip, and in fact this very diversion is reported to have happened a number of times. It seems a stretch for the boss to claim these diversions are unknown to the company which his words IMO are trying to indirectly convey. With all the ships and all the cruises undertaken surely they'd know if programmed routes are regularly circumvented. Something to watch here. (I'm the original section creator - a bit OT but didn't think this worth it's own) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16576979 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.187.103 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree but, yes, we do need to await citable sources to the facts. this WP article will be HUGE in the coming year.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and readers please note: There is considerable overlap between this Talk section on "Route of Ship" and the other section, "le Scole", which has a more specific focus but is also discussing some citations to post-impact manoeuvering. I am not suggesting a merger, just alerting readers here to visit both sections as needed.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a very interesting chart of the differences (AIS data points) between the route of this cruise compared to that of the previous week. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16576979SteveO1951 (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Electrical Fault"?

I dispute the article's statement that "Reports indicated that the ship had developed a a major electrical fault". The footnoted news report states merely: "There were reports last night that captain Schettino, had been dining with passengers when the accident happened – but the ship’s operating company, Costa Crociera, said he was on the bridge. He then discovered that the ship was four miles off course, but was unsure why. One theory is that an electrical fault had wiped out the ship’s navigational power and steering control. Captain Schettino told investigators that charts showed he was in waters deep enough to navigate. He was quoted as saying: ‘The area was safe, the water was deep enough. We struck a stretch of rock that was not marked on the charts. As far as I am concerned, we were in perfectly navigable waters.’ "

That is NOT a report "indicating" that an electric fault "had developed". Rather, it is mere speculation as to any possible basis for the captain's excuse. In fact, as we all know, the captain has said that he was intentionally only 300 meters from the coast, so there can be no remaining claim that the ship was "four miles off course but was unaware why." Think about it: Ship's bridges have an invention called "windows"; ship's officers on the bridge can SEE that they are not 4 miles from the bright lights of Giglio Porto (when indeed those lights are only 300 meters away). Absolutely incredible that the persons on the bridge thought they were 4 miles away. The electric fault claim is entirely unsubstantiated.

As written, the wiki article gives, without appropriate basis, far too much support for the idea that some electrical fault had taken place. IMHO, the captain was intentionally slipping by the coast and "cut it too close".SteveO1951 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think events and circumstances leading up to the event need to wait for a reliable source. The media is reporting speculation. I added a dubious tag. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate not only your dedication but also your "wiki-skill". SteveO1951 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the above. If an announcement was made that there was ‘an electrical fault’ (and it does seem to have been made) it appears that this was a pre-arranged tannoy call to calm the passengers rather than a statement of fact. Of course with the massive ingress of water, it wouldn’t be long before a major electrical fault did occur. Rich0908. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich0908 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that there was an electrical power failure after the ship hit the reef rocks. That has been in reliable sources all along. However, the captain is now claiming that there was no loss of power when the initial collision occurred, just that the reef wasn't on the charts. The indisputable fact is that the ship was intentionally sailing too close to the shore. The only question is whether it was out of the ordinary for it to do so. So I think we should take out the part about loss of control in the intro and power failure/surge/etc. in the body. Selery (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the reference to electrical fault be moved down from its prominence at the beginning of the paragraph and that it be rewritten as follows: "Although early news reports (here give the citation)suggested that "one theory is that an electrical fault" could have been the cause of the ship's approaching so closely to the island, there has been no actual allegation that any such fault occurred prior to initial impact with the reef." I will give this issue a bit longer to be discussed and then, after reviewing any additional reported facts, I may "rewrite" the offending sentence. I know we are not here to talk about the facts of the case; I only want to make the point that the "electical fault" even if I happened prior to hitting any rock, is NOT a sufficient excuse under maritime law or practice, and so the assertion of "electrical fault" ought not be given any prominence whatsoever unless and until any assertions of fact are clear, have a credible basis, and are attributed to someone with actual knowledge or expertise. The International Maritime Organization rules require, regardless of the sophistication of navigational equipment, that the captain have a "real person" at all times "on watch" solely for hazards and other vessels in the ship's path. Reports are that on a calm, clear night no Mayday was sent and any radio communications did not mention any problem with steering or navigation equipment. My objection is certainly premised on the article's use of the past-perfect tense ("had occurred"), which grammatically means, as I read it, "had occurred prior to the initial contact with the reef". I have sailed among islands (in several oceans) on the basis of nautical charts for about 4 decades (pre-GPS!), and as a captain have taken passengers sailing(often a night) for weeks at a time among islands, some new to me. I hold certain certifications regarding navigational charts and piloting rules. So, I have a training and substantial experience of what safe practice is, especially at night. SteveO1951 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far as my research shows, the "one theory" previously referred to in the article re an "electrical fault" POSSIBLY being the genesis of the event came from a very creditable expert named Malcolm Latarche, editor of the global shipping magazine IHS Fairplay Solutions. Mr. Latarche wrote that "the morning after" without much facts to go on. I think we should include that possibilty IF we can find any actual participant or witness that asserts as fact, or has some FACTUAL basis in this case to support, electrical failure as the actual genesis, and not a mere theory. Please be alert to include any such appropriate claim and source.SteveO1951 (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian has interviewed experts who suspect Power blackout could have caused Italian cruise disaster. Teofilo talk 16:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great article (thanks) and it DOES cite Mr. Latarche on this point. More interestingly is the timeline it states: "Passengers had reported a power black-out and hearing a large blast shortly before the grounding, indicating the vessel could have suffered an engine room explosion, he noted." Contrast that to the current WP article's statement that the power went off after the impact. Let's certainly look for solid sources regarding that timeline. This is highly important.SteveO1951 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the AIS signal timeline: the ship stopped sending AIS signals between 21:37 and 21:53, and I found no reports that the ship had hit anything before 21:58. This may corroborate the Captain's version of a power failure that rendered the ship uncontrollable until they regained power at 21:53, probably setting a course to resume their route, and hitting a rock in the process. Was the rock uncharted? 217.162.73.165 (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • if there was a power failure, why weren't the passengers affected?

is it possible for the crew to disable the AIS system to cover up a dangerous route change? 217.162.73.165 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Influence

I'm thinking that an "Influence" section may be appropriate as sources like this and this come up? Perhaps this info could also be added to the "Aftermath" section. Goodvac (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Impact" or "Effects"? Selery (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Broader Impact on Cruise Industry". The term "Impact" certainly has other connotations in this event [smile]SteveO1951 (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation - which agency?

Who is going to do the technical investigation into the accident?

http://www.amem.at/pdf/AMEM_Marine_Accidents.pdf says it would be the "Commissione Centrale di Indagine sui Sinistri Marittimi" CCISM - At www.guardiacostiera.it Is this true?

We need to have a Wikipedia article on the authority who will do the technical investigation WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge it should be a combination of Italian authorities and NTSB in the US. Generally flag state, company of ownership, and company where it is operating at the time all have a say in the investigation. 108.25.135.226 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that many agencies do work together in accident investigations. With aircraft accident investigations, usually the country which had control of the territory has the primary responsibility of writing the accident report, and other relevant countries (of the airline, of the aircraft's manufacturer, of the engine manufacturer) cooperate with the primary agency. With the Tenerife disaster, Spain wrote the primary accident report, and the USA and the Netherlands gave input. If the accident occurs in international waters, then usually it's the country of the airline that investigates (For instance, with Air France Flight 447, the French BEA is investigating since the airline was Air France, and the crash occurred in international waters). Sometimes it differs, i.e. the Egyptian authorities asked the US NTSB to investigate EgyptAir Flight 990, even though the Egyptians had the right to start the primary report. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling it's probably going to be open-and-shut. The voyage recorder black box has very precise position and time information. Selery (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know with aircraft disasters, what may have seemingly simple causes may have more complications. E.G. an Aeroflot crash in 1994 seemed like it was simply that the pilot let a teenager manipulate the controls, but the Russian authorities found additional details that contributed to the disaster. The pilots were not briefed about certain features of the aircraft, and had they known, they would have easily recovered from the disaster. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Details about what's going to happen with the wreck

This article (currently <ref name="Jones"/>). Goodvac (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your using this article as a source for something I take it? Well good to know. If you still object to the word SINK, as in this ship SANK. You should see that in the second paragraph of this article it says, and I quote "The 290-metre long vessel, a multistorey floating resort carrying 4,229 passengers and crew, FOUNDERED and keeled over after being holed by a rock on Friday night. A total of 64 people were injured in the accident, health authorities said." Please see what the deffnition of the word FOUNDER is here. wikt:founder You will find it in Etymology 3. Cheers Mate.--Subman758 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See also: wp:founder. Alarbus (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail 'comparing disaster to Titanic'?

Having read the article, the Daily Mail does not report it as such, it just uses quotes from passengers it has interviewed who say they felt there was a similarity to the Titanic.

I see but that was their opinion, and not fact. None of these passengers could have possibly traveled on the Titanic, so for us to accept their comparison to it, is just ludicrous.--Subman758 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant the film, not the actual ship. Many of the passengers would have seen that, and thus be able to make the comparison. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another article with comparisons to Titanic. Goodvac (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • And another. At this point the semantics regarding whether the passengers were actually on Titanic are irrelevant as comparisons to the Titanic have become part of the media narrative. And anyway, the circumstances on board Titanic have been part of the widely available public record for nearly a century, so one does not have to have been on board Titanic to have an idea of what it might have been like, and as noted, anyone unaware will have been influenced by the Cameron film which, while elements of crew behavior have been criticised as being fictionalized, is known for its accuracy of depicting the sinking itself. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support inclusion as a sentence in the accident part, but oppose a whol section as non-notable/opinion.(Lihaas (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
From my understanding Wikipedia also covers opinions too. We do have to weigh which ones are important and which ones are not... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decent timeline

[1] has a very nice timelime from a reliable Seattle-based news source. Should we adapt it? Selery (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! According to this copy, AFP wrote the article, so that's even better. Goodvac (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFP is not, of course, a primary source and it does not state the basis for the timeline. It might be approximately right, but it might contain a lot of guesswork or reliance on hearsay or general comments. I think that, at best, it can be included as a "reference" without entering any of that into the article text. I, personally, don't think it is worthy of being a reference because it has no attribution other than any credibility of AFP itself.SteveO1951 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure if National Post/AFP's "10:20 pm: The coastguard launches rescue operations" fits well with The Australian's "first call to the coastguard at 10.43pm" (citing AP, AFP, THE TIMES). Does it mean the coastguard launched operations before being called ? Teofilo talk 14:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to know at this point, but excellent sourcing! Selery (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alle 22.10 l'equipaggio comunica alla capitaneria di porto di avere un problema al generatore ma non parla di urti o secche. L'allarme vero e proprio scatta alle 22.30, molto in ritardo(La Reppublica) translates as At 22.10 the crew communicates the harbor master to have a problem with the event but does not speak of shock or shoal. The real alarm was triggered at 22.30, very late Teofilo talk 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I reading that correctly, that it is already based on black box recorder data? (My German sucks.) Selery (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no, they say the timeline has been reconstructed form several sources that appear reliable for the SZ. They say the ship stopped sending AIS signals between 21:37 and 21:53. They mentioned the black box when quoting La Republica which reported that the black box had recorded the ship had hit a rock. So it seems La Republica has access to some black box data. 217.162.73.165 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more timelines and diagrams: [2], [3]. Goodvac (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The timelines do not fit the AIS data. Some timelines say the impact happened at 20:30 or 20:31 GMT. BUT: at this time, the ship was still kilometers away from the island, as shown in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ZrIpsjwHA But passengers said they heard a bang and some minutes later, the power went off, which would coincide with the AIS transmissions stopping at 20:37. And at 20:53, the CC was already north of Giglio Porto. There is something very strange here... It looks as if the coordinates do not match the ship's actual position at the time. So what happened first: collision or power failure? 217.162.73.165 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the chance that the AIS transmitter was intentionally disabled for the "cruise-by"? Selery (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • indeed - this Italian newspaper has a version of the timeline that appears very credible. According to this Italian newspaper timeline, they figured at 20:07 GMT that they are approaching the island too fast and were too near to make the turn safely. Then, by magic, the AIS transmissions stopped at 20:37, before impact at 20:45. I guess the captain was called to the bridge at about 20:30 (whisper in the ear after which he ran from the dining room) and tried to avert the disaster (and to cover it up). It looks like the guy in charge of the bridge f*cked up and failed to slow down and make the turn in time (speculation). Interesting also to note that the ship sped up between 20:33 (14.5 knots) and 20:37 (15.3 knots). What were they thinking? Is it a case of bad input into the autopilot? 217.162.73.165 (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water depth at final resting place

The article currently states that the water where the Costa Concordia lies is about 25 fathoms / 46 m deep. I deem this an error as nautical charts of the location show a maximum depth of 20-30 meters. Furthermore, the ship is about 38 m abeam - with a tilt of 80 degrees it would be nearly fully submerged in 46 m deep water. Extrapolating from the exposed parts I think it rests in about 20 m of depth (in avarage, the sea-bottom is sloping quite steeply towards the east. J. J. Hornung (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where can one see those nautical charts? Is there an online source? More to the point, are there public domain or otherwise freely licensed charts showing the location which would tend to confirm or deny the claim that the rock was unmarked? Or is it not as simple as that? I ask here merely as an interested reader; my knowledge of Italian nautical charts is so close to zero that I have no real opinions on whether or what we might do with one if we had one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At present we have [4] marked 6 fathoms (11 meters) at the capsize final destination but 11 fathoms with two rocks between Isole le Scole in white (non-navigable), and [5] in which [6] seems to have a quite different profile (and is missing a rock) compared to the former. For reference, the ship had a 8.5 meter draught. Selery (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chart obtained from a forum I'm a member of. Note obstr[uction] just to south east of Isole le Scola. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cant read that. Could you consider uploading a crop to http://imgur.com or the like? Selery (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, maybe you need to be a member. I'd rather not upload a crop for reasons of copyright. You should be able to view this from the BBC News website. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chart from La Repubblica. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nautical chart from this blog Teofilo talk 14:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the highest resolution chart of le Scole indicating that most of the keyhole was less than 10 fathoms, but that the collision occurred on the easternmost rock if the captain's distance statement is correct. (0.16 nautical miles = 296 meters) Selery (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I begin to believe the captain's version. IF there was a power failure which caused the interruption of AIS signals between 20:37 and 20:53, he certainly wouldn't have tried to pass through the needlehole with an electric system he couldn't rely on. After regaining power and control over the ship, they would most probably have set a course to resume their route. The damage on the hull seems to suggest the ship was turning right or drifting left when it happened, which is also congruent with a hard right turn to avoid the island. 217.162.73.165 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
meh - something doesn't add up. at 20:53, the ship was already well past Giglio Porto. IF it hit something at at 20:58, the impact took place north of Giglio Porto. *scratchhead* 217.162.73.165 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on company shares

The shares of Carnival Group are down by about 18% this morning. Is this worth including in the "Aftermath" section of the article? Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my opinion.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dual listed company, the NYSE opens in 20 minutes, I'm interested to see what happens there too. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NYSE opens tomorow, so we can add that the. but for now we can add the current plunge(Lihaas (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

I don't think we should mention the stock price because it's still above last Wednesday. The ship was insured for the estimated loss. I'm completely mistaken. I forgot the US markets are closed today. Selery (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, totally forgot about MLK day. Anyway, the NYSE code is CCL for Carnival Corporation. We'll see tomorrow. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No its not worth mentioning. By mentioning it you ascribe any change in price to the incident in question. There are any number of factors that could affect the stock price. We should try not to sound like CNBC and say we know what people were thinking when they bought or sold shares. I sold shares in a great company so I could buy a house. Hated doing it. The media said the price went down because the CFO quit that night. It was really because I had to buy a house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaldarade (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under our verifiability policy we rely on what published sources say, and not what's actually the truth. That means that, in your scenario, we would have to go with what the media says, unless newer articles say otherwise and/or the media publishes a retraction. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

portals

The "death portal" really? For 6 deaths? The place would be choked with airplane crashes and Iraqi bombings if this was normal. Please remove.

"Disaster portal" this is highly subjective. That article covers things like the Haiti quake and Darfur. I think it's obvious this is not in the same class. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on both.  Done Selery (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had the impression that every incident leading to a loss of life would get the death portal, and every incident leading to a hull loss (we don't know yet if this is a hull loss) would get a "disaster" portal WhisperToMe (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check the portal pages. death portal is things articles and topics surrounding death, not incidents where there was death. For disaster, I looked at Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, and Ocean Ranger, none of them have the disaster tag. Many airplane crashes do, but those are accidents with a high percentage of life lost. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, usually I coordinate the portal tags to the relevant projects. I.E. if there is a death portal tag, the page is also a part of WikiProject Death. Anyway, I think that if the death project considers this to be within its scope, then the portal tag death should remain. Same for, say, disaster management. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if you're the person who looks after such things, and the portal projects consider this in scope, then I guess that makes sense. I looked at similar incidents and didn't see "Death Portal", looked at their portal page and saw it covered things like "Death customs" and posted the above. Just doesn't seem like a fit. Same with Disasters portal. I look at this as a lay-reader, does "death portal" make sense. No major media that I can see is calling this a "disaster" so again, as a lay-reader, this doesn't slot in with Haiti or Bhopal. Thats all. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC have been referring to the "Costa Concordia disaster" all day. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the disaster portal needs to be added back. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Disasters portal and removed the Italy portal because on reflection the event is far more tangential to the latter. Selery (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I vehemently disagree with the removal of the Italy portal. Not only did the accident involve an Italian operator (Costa), but it happened in Italian waters, and the investigating authority will be the Italian authority. Everything has to do with Italy. Plsu it's a part of WikiProject Italy. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Location of Costa Concordia cruise-ship disaster (13-1-2012).png and "collision location"

I disagree with the adding of a red cross captioned with "initial collision" on File:Location of Costa Concordia cruise-ship disaster (13-1-2012).png. On the map on the first page of the Sueddeuteche article ( this map ) the red cross is captioned with "Havarie", meaning damage. It does not mean "collision". It can mean electric damage, engine damage, any kind of damage with or without any collision. On the second page of the same Suedeutsche article there is this second map which locates the "Havarie" (damage) in a less conclusive way somewhere between the 21:37 and 21:53 positions. I think Wikipedia should refrain from presenting a theory on where the first damage and where the first collision happened, and on whether the first damage was a collision or something else. Teofilo talk 19:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to replace "Initial collision" with "Damage" to be true to the source? I did that. Selery (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use question marks like on this map ? Teofilo talk 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Süddeutsche Zeitung not a reliable source? The second map is attributed to marinetraffic.com, where they merely have the low resolution AIS data. It is no different than the AIS video. Selery (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what f.SteveO1951 said above in "decent timeline" 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC) : AFP is not, of course, a primary source and it does not state the basis for the timeline applies to Sueddeutsche Zeitung too. Usually AFP and Suedeutsche are reliable sources, but when they merely speculate, we should just take their ideas as speculations. Teofilo talk 20:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have no way to know whether it's speculation, but we are supposed to prefer secondary sources such as news outlets to primary sources per WP:PSTS. Also, there appears to be corroboration on [7]. Selery (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Der Spiegel, usually a reliable source, has a quite different trajectory map Teofilo talk 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing shallower than 50 fathoms on the charts for that course. Selery (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is corroborating. Selery (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Stampa says l’ora delle 22,30: ovvero 45 minuti dopo l’impatto della Concordia con gli scogli delle Scole, 150 metri a sud del porto dell’Isola del Giglio, without any caveat or nuance. So it seems it is no longer questioned that the impact took place at around 21:45 and that it was with the Scole reefs. Teofilo talk 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue efforts halted due to shifting

I've heard from many sources that rescue efforts have been halted due to poor seas, should this be added? Dmartin969 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's already been resumed. However, it's worth mentioning that the ship shifted a few inches, which makes rescue efforts unsafe. Goodvac (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Could not speak Italian or English"

From the article: "Some crew members were Italians but according to one passenger, most were Indians, Filipinos and Sri Lankans, many of whom could not speak Italian or English.[8]"

Based on an [Italian] passenger's testimony, apparently. Dubious because there are far more English speakers in Sri Lanka/India and the Philippines, than there are in Italy. Previous reviews of her sister ships Costa Romantica and Costa Pacifica, specifically state that while Italian was the language in signs and announcements of the ship and the Italian crewmembers, Filipino crewmembers spoke English.
I've removed it per this BBC article in which though a passenger complains that the crew did not speak English amongst themselves (it's a friggin' Italian ship), they did speak English.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. It seems incredibly unlikely that crew members "could not speak English" full stop. From my experience on an international cruise (admittedly not Costa, but one with very international clientele and crews), all crew members speak English to at least a mildly proficient degree. It's a prerequisite of employment, in fact. The thought that Filipino or Indian people, who must have English proficiency for all sorts of international jobs, would be hired by an international cruise liner operating in Europe speaking only, say, Hindi or Tagalog, is laughable and absurd. I imagine in a panicked situation, it appeared as though their English skills were lacking in precision, but I believe that "could not speak English" must be wrong without further qualifiers. Moncrief (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The claim that they did not speak Italian well (or at all) is probably true though.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't doubt that. At any rate, I hope a better quote can be found to convey this idea. Moncrief (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cause

Wouldn't the cause be hitting a rock rather the a reef, and shouldn't capsize be included in the cause? Dmartin969 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See reef which includes underwater rocks (there could have been more than one rock) but you are right about capsize. Selery (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain "offered" to retrieve voyage data recorder

This site might present some WP:BLP problems without confirmation. What do others think? Also, I'm not sure it's a reliable source. Selery (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An aside: are you proficient in Italian? Would you be able to check if "On 15 January La Repubblica reported that the captain did not mention any mechanical problems but had stated that they were 300 metres (330 yd) from the rocks (i.e., about the length of the vessel) and that they hit a rock that was not marked on nautical charts. This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) south of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour. This turn shifted the centre of gravity to the starboard side of the ship, and it listed over to that side initially by about 20°, finally coming to rest in about 25 fathoms (150 ft; 46 m) of water at an angle of heel of about 80°" is verified by La Repubblica's "'La nave ha urtato uno scoglio' Il comandante: 'Non era sulla carta'"? There are concerns expressed about this at #le Scole. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only Google Translate-proficient, sorry. Selery (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries. Goodvac (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More info not reported by other sources. Same as above—may cause BLP violations, so we should wait for better sources. Goodvac (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This too. [facepalm] Selery (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saluting former captain ?

Does anyone understand Turkish better than Google Translate ? http://www.denizhaber.com/HABER/27962/1/costa-concordia-kaza-giglio-sergio-ortelli-francesco-schettino.html It seems to explain the diversion to Giglio as a salute to the island, or a former Captain now living on the island ? The article quotes corresponence between islanders and the Captain, and the videos show the Mayor of Giglio's appreciation, and a previous pass - the harbour is busy so it was in summer. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corriere.tv was the source of the 'previous pass' video - Aug 2011 - for a local festival. Perhaps the 'current' captain was not the captain then ? This has now been picked-up by the BBC. They also show 'police divers photographing evidence at the rock she struck' ('looking for evidence' might be more NPOV, BBC!) - looks roughly compatible with #le Scole discussion above. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
repubblica.it has the letters in the original Italian, which Google understands better !
It seems the island was saluted by Concordia twice - in August and in 2008, both by a previous captain who had a friend on the island.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
quotidiano.net says the friend on the island is "storico comandante della Costa Crociere" which Google translates as 'historical commander of Costa Cruises' ! So they sometimes just said 'Hi' in passing ! Could be embarrassing... RS? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The friend's name matches a former Police Chief and Senate member (Nato Admiral, even!) - could be a political smear campaign ? Seems that article occurs in several places I'm not familiar with ... --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
dailymail.co.uk is digging deeper into what happened. Major UK paper - not impartial, reliability occasionally suspect !
lavika.it counters with a message from a senior Costa Crew Member (GSM=Guest Service Manager) who says "Non è vero che il Comandante è sceso per primo" - unfortunately Google gives the opposite translation 'It is true that the captain fell for the first' ! Why? ('Non è vero' = 'It is not true' correctly !)
I'm beginning to suspect the Captain had a doppel-ganger aboard - he abandoned ship early + late ; he was on the bridge + dining with beatiful women simultaneously !
It does emphasise we shouldn't rely on reported eye-witness statements - that old 'Primary Sources' thing. Or Google Translate. Especially WP:BLP, not to mention sub-judice.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the article of the Daily Mail referenced above is full of bull, and mostly sensationalist. How relevant is it that the captain was with a beautiful woman in the dining room or how much his apartment costs? Such articles are a shame and worthy of the gutter press. The Daily Mail gets both the timeline wrong as well as the place where the impact occured. The "normal route" reported by the Daily Mail is wrong too. 217.162.73.165 (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Higher resolution Isole le Scole charts

Check this out: Go to http://www.charts.noaa.gov/NGAViewer/53135.shtml and zoom all the way in on le Scole, and look at how far East the furthest reef and blue unnavigable area extends. At least the length of the outcropping to the furthest reef, right? Then look at [9], [10], and [11] which all show a different but much smaller extent. Wow. Compare to Google Maps satellite picture. Selery (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what the red things south of the islets are ? And in the innermost channel ?
[12] What is the dotted circle south of the red push-pin - a marker-buoy ?
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New course map?

From Czech Wikipeda

cs.wikipedia.org has a map with some interesting AIS data-points that some sources don't show. RS ? Seems to be a loss of data in-between, though. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 from me.--Andylong (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 17 January 2012

Change FTSE to London Stock Exchange because FTSE is an index provider, not where shares are listed and traded. lǎogong (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Selery (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coastguard call

The BBC has just put up an English language transcript of the call between the captain (when he was already on a lifeboat, while passengers were still on the Costa Concordia) and the local coastguard. [Ref here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16599655]. 86.143.70.16 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention this?

This wreck is the second time there has been a problem with a ship of this class, the first being the Carnival Splendor. Should we mention that?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Costa_Concordia_disaster&oldid=471896866"