Talk:International Maritime Organization

London Start‑class Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: United Nations Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

NPOVing

This needs NPOVing. It reads like a US government press release. Secretlondon 21:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this reads like a press release, but whether by the US government or not is irrelevant. The following statement is evident enough: "Of course, the numbers will never be known, but IMO has protected countless lives, saved enormous amounts of money, and prevented numerous environmental disasters over the years." --194.204.104.117 23:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I don't know whether or not the USA is really dominant in IMO decisions, though; it seems doubtful to me. Isn't most of the worldwide merchant shipping fleet European and Chinese by ownership, Panamanian and Liberian by flag?Gigacannon 14:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the exact numbers, but most of the ships that cross my desk are built in Malaysia, China, Korea, Singapore or Vietnam. The US shipbuilding industry is a footnote and a drop in the bucket in comparision. Most vessels are flagged as Malaysian, Vanautu, Bahamas, Singapore, or other tax-friendly country. US flagged vessels, while there are a few of them- are a very small percentage. Who runs the IMO? I don't know, but if this article is a press release, I doubt very much it is a US government one.--Dj245 00:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic disaster

I do not believe that "By modern standards, the design of Titanic made her appallingly vulnerable". As someone directly involved with shipping I have heard stability and ship construction experts saying that the Titanic and her sister ships the Olympic and the Britannic surpassed the stability and damage control criteria of modern cruise ships. Who owns the IMO? It is part of the United Nations. Welkinridge (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welkinridge -- In response to your constructive observation, I been bold in moving the unsourced text here pending further development:

"The concept of IMO was born after the RMS Titanic disaster. By modern standards, the design of Titanic made her appallingly vulnerable. Her "watertight" bulkheads, by design, did not extend all the way to the overhead because the engineers calculated that it was impossible for the ship to take on a trim or list sufficient for water to cascade over their tops if the bulkheads were of a certain height."

"When Titanic struck the iceberg, these calculations were proven dismally incorrect. When people began abandoning ship, it became obvious that not nearly enough lifeboats were available. Many lives were lost in this tragedy."

Until that time, each nation had made its own rules about ship design, construction, and safety equipment."

If anyone can provide credible sources which support the analysis in this article's context, it could become a welcome addition to this article. --Tenmei (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs major revision

This article still needs fairly major revision. I have made a start with the Introduction and History sections, and added a list of secretaries-general. The Legal Instruments section probably needs some major expansion. The Current Issues is not only out of date but seems to be a US-originated statement referring that nation's perspective on its work (with no mention of initiatives by other countries) - the connection with "Maritime Domain Awareness" is tenuous and should not be mentioned here. Davidships (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of member states

Does the article really need a complete list of IMO member states? Since most countries in the world are IMO members the list is quite long while carrying very little information. Also the map IMO Participation.svg is in the info box and has the same information in a much more accessible way. I don't like deleting other people's work, but unless someone objects here, I'll remove the list of member states in a few days. Jaho (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done so now. As an alternative I've linked the original list on www.imo.org in the external links section. Jaho (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the map needs improving. At the standard scale, the bright-green of the associate states is indistinguishable from the medium-green of the members (and it's not much better even if you click on the image to look at the full-size version). A contrasting colour (e.g. red) would be much better. Wardog (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'United Nations' is a name

'United Nations' is a name, not a description. 'International Business Machines' is another example of a name (as opposed to a description). The expression 'the United Nations' is therefore confused language, like it also would be mistaken to refer to IBM as 'the International Business Machines'.

It would improve the language of this article if United Nations were properly referred to by using its name as just that, a name. That is to say one should refer to UN as simply 'United Nations', and avoid referring to it as 'the United Nations'. Of course this also applies to 'International Maritime Organization' (a name, not a description). --62.16.186.44 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]