Talk:MV Tygra

Ship's Country of Origin

• Any idea why every single American news site I've seen reports this vessel as American-flagged when it is Danish-flagged? yalbik (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was flying an American flag because it is from an American-based Maersk branch, but the Maersk parent company is Danish. --Torsodog^Talk 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

According to ("9164263". Miramar Ship Index.) it is definitely not American flagged. yalbik (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to many other sources, the ship, while owned by a Danish company, was flying an American flag. --Torsodog^Talk 19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Any of those sources happen to be databases like this one, or are they all American news corporations maybe trying to instill a little honest patriotic fearmongering and hate? :) yalbik (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, an Iranian state-owned "news" organization says that the MV Maersk Alabama was indeed an United States-flagged vessel. It is very unlikely pro-American "patriotic" fear and hatemongering is part of their agenda. Even if that was the case, I highly doubt that many Americans would be afraid or angered by Somali pirates taking over a Danish-owned cargo ship on the other side of the world from them. :) 72.83.108.136 (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an American flagged vessel. See this article on globalsecurity.org written before the incident.[1] ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The link above that shows supposedly that the ship is not under US flag points to a different ship. Obvious anti-american propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.84.122 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It is the same ship. --Torsodog^Talk 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Miramar website makes no claims as to which flag any vessel flies. I've taken the liberty of altering the external link as they are reassigned on a monthly basis and the link will point to a different ship in future. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As was mentioned above, Maersk is Danish owned, but the U.S. operations operate American flagged vessels which are under contract with various American Seaman's unions. It's possible that Maersk operates Non-American vessels as well 206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Reliability of Sources

Since when has the Christian Science Monitor been a reliable source of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.36.92 (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason we allow Fox News as a reliable source - it has a bias, sure, but it's still an international news source. The Christian Science Monitor isn't as biased as the name would suggest anyway. I'm sure its adequate for this trivial statement. Matty (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's not good enough for you try military.com.Prussian725 (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

ABC News made a similar statement.   — C M B J   03:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability

How are David J Silver's comments notable? They don't have a specific reference of how his he relevant (e.g. no indication he is a member of the crew), or furthermore his comments, to the specific situation? If someone can't come up with it, this would just make him a talking head.--MartinezMD (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed that portion of the text. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Silver has been long-blocked from Wikipedia for his relentless self-promotion. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Harvardlaw. If any accounts are spotted adding similar information again please notify me or another admin.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The hijacking is the first pirate seizure of a ship registered under the American flag since the Second Barbary War.

This is entirely untrue, dozens of ships were siezed after the second barbary war in asia and in the carribean, for one notable example see Attack on Quallah Battoo for the Freindship incident where an american flagged ship was taken in the 1830's. Or read the exploits of David Porter who led a punative expadition against carribean pirates that lasted until the 1820's. XavierGreen (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, what about the Mayagüez incident in 1975? To my understanding, it was the local rouge forces of the Khmer Rouge that took the ship, rather than an organized effort by the government. Dinkytown 04:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mayagüez was not captured by pirates. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... David Porter is a disambiguation page. Do you mean David Porter (naval officer)? I don't know anything about him but the article on him doesn't mention US personnel captured by pirates. It mentions the suppression of piracy and the imprisonment of a US naval officer by the Spanish. Presumably, the pirates in the West Indies were at least threatening American shipping but the article doesn't give any specifics. Similarly, the article on the Attack on Quallah Battoo mentions a massacre of a US crew but not the taking of them hostage. Did the natives even know how to sail a merchantman? Did they take control of the ship or did they return to shore with the cargo? The article seems slightly contradictory on that point. I don't know. This could just be sloppy journalism by the Daily News but they might be right! Yaris678 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

National Public Radio also reported this. "The first US-flagged ship to be captured by pirates since the early 19th century." Or equivalent. They tend to be pretty reliable. Antandrus (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found a source which lists Jean Laffite as taking an american vessel in 1823 of cuba, well after the second barbary war. http://books.google.com/books?id=q6HmmXy-wkUC&pg=PA457&dq=pirates+american+ship#PPA457,M1 page 457. There also is a referance towards an american vessel being plundered in the 1820's in the article Roberto Cofresí. XavierGreen (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Another referance here in David Porter's own memoir lists him recapturing an American schooner which had been taken by pirates in 1823. See page 288 here http://books.google.com/books?id=fCRCAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA288&dq=pirates+david+porter&lr=#PRA2-PA288,M1. I think that alone should be sufficent.

XavierGreen (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you have established your point well. The problem is that there is nothing reported, other than this talk page, that actively disputes the other article's mistaken claim. The allegation needs to be put back but then appropriately refuted with these references. It will clear up any confusion if someone reads the other source. --MartinezMD (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine by me. XavierGreen (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[Below section merged into existing topic]

What is the source for this statement:

This is the first time in U.S. history that a pirate accused of attacks against an American ship has been captured.

I couldn't find it in either the CNN or BBC articles which are the sources for this paragraph. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It was just on CNN Live, and I've just posted it. I can give you a time-stamp for it if that helps. Rklawton (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a more substantial source than just "CNN Live aired April 12, 2009" because this is quite an exceptional statement and many are coming here to get the facts. Would there be any harm in removing this until which we can come up with a better source? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced; it's a reputable news source, and you have no source indicating otherwise. Removing it would be highly inappropriate. Rklawton (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this was the first Somali pirate captured? Otherwise, the statement seems far too broad and encompassing to be true. CNN is capable of making a mistake. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Its sourced but the source is wrong. See page 288 here http://books.google.com/books?id=fCRCAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA288&dq=pirates+david+porter&lr=#PRA2-PA288,M1. I think that alone should be sufficent. XavierGreen (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I thought the CNN reporter might have been just a bit too blond. Rklawton (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is poorly sourced -- who said it (precisely) -- a historian? A spokesman? What if you misheard it? The burden isn't on me to find sources contradicting an exceptional claim. If there is no consensus for removal, then I'll defer (but I disagree that the removal would be "highly inappropriate" -- this is done all the time). It smacks of the ofttimes problem of adding in exceptional claims into a news breaking article that we get criticized for. My actual point was there would be zero harm to the Wikipedia project to exclude this exceptional claim until we get further substantial sourcing. Glad to see it resolved! :) ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

When citing TV, I don't - unless I've got it recorded so as to answer the questions and avoid the pitfalls noted above. Rklawton (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've forgotten, how do we approach handling media mis-information and conflicting information during a breaking event? It seems helping people sort out facts is useful, on the other hand, that sort of thing has the potential to significantly clutter an article with details that might not have much significance in years to come. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC

Keep to the basic facts and be skeptical of exceptional claims. If they are true, then others will confirm them. Just my 2 cents. :) ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Google Books links are attempt at original synthesis. We need a third-party reliable source that says, "Hey, there has been a piracy of a U.S. ship between 1830 (or whatever after early 19th century means) and 2008!" (or equivalent). Trying to prove it ourselves is not acceptable, and the sources used so far are not particularly persuasive (both seem to be about early 19th century, albeit not Barbary coast). Superm401 - Talk 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it synthesis?? The sources are dated and from a naval officer. Removing the correction is inappropriate. Separate issue: this entire section already had an entry on this talk page. I am going to move it up so it is all under one heading and we keep the topic unified. --MartinezMD (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Story shoots like bullshit!

> The crew managed to regain control of the ship from the pirates by "brute force" <

Yeah, you can wrest four AK47-wielding pirates, of course... This is laughable! A bullet fired from an AK-47 is so powerful it goes through eight (8) people stacked behind each other. Just two days ago a single american madman armed with a single AK-47 killed 3 police SWATs operators in some CONUS county, it was on the evening TV news. So dangerous is the AK-47, who would dare to resist it bare-handed?

American media please try to invent some at least barely believable cover story or admit outright that US Navy SEALs were hiding in that ship, but the clandestine plan to catch some pirates partially misfired. Wikipedia please don't be stupid to report that commerical sailors hand-wrestled AK-47s from brutal pirates, because that is factually impossible! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

lol --Torsodog^Talk 16:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is what sources say, then that is what we put. WP:V is the overriding factor here. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, doubtful or not we go by the available information. Being more constructive or getting an acutal reference would be helpful. --MartinezMD (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I find nothing implausible about the story as reported. I don't find it hard to believe that twenty people could get the drop on four people, if they had the chance to do it one at a time. Even the "awesome" AK47 cant shoot someone if the shooter's back is turned. This "Torsodog" character seems to be looking for a Hollywood solution to a real-world situation. --Bclough —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

I agree - twenty people v. four who: 1) knew their ship far better than the pirates; 2) were trained for this actual event; 3) out numbered them, and; 4) probably had non-lethal weapons of their own. There is no mention of the condition of the pirates' weapons, or their age/experience, or their training for this event. To date, since no one has been killed/wounded yet (lets hope its stays this way), it seams very plausable. This is not a media-hyped drama, but very possible senario - albeit a dangerous one... Dinkytown 04:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's 82.131.210.162, not Torsodog (who was merely laughing at it), that's looking for said "Hollywood solution". Just saying.

(And I agree, "lol" sums it up well.) --an odd name 08:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey odd name! Thanks for setting the record straight. While I may be a character, I was certainly not one who originally posted this ludicrous story. --Torsodog^Talk 18:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reference. It's not CNN but it's from a forum of American Merchant Mariners http://gcaptain.com/forum/professional-mariner-forum/1514-letter-maersk-alabama.html --69.148.52.55 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are SEAL Team Six in the "see also"??

They're not mentioned at all in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.151.204.210 (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this. The mention of the SEAL team has been removed. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Seperate Articles

This article has gotten to the point where it is mostly about the events taking place after the pirates left the ship than about the ship itself. I suggest that any information taking place after the pirates leaving the ship be put into a seperate article, since the ship itself left the seen and continued its journey to kenya. XavierGreen (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We had a separate article about the incident, but someone just redirected it here. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Here: Action of 12 April 2009‎ Rklawton (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I unredirected it, once more details emerge this article will be swamped with events that did not happen on the Maersk Alabamam, i still say that another article is needed to distingush the two seperate events. XavierGreen (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Rescue

CNN reports that 1 pirate was on board a Navy vessel negotiating for the Captain's release. When the captain jumped overboard, SEALs kill the three pirates remaining on the life boat. This accounts for the 1 pirate surviving the attack. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed Washington response section

I removed this section:

===Washington's response===

President Obama administration officials continued to debate how to address a potential terrorist threat to U.S. interests. Some in the Defense Department have been frustrated by what they see as a failure to act. Many other national security officials say an ill-considered strike would have negative diplomatic and political consequences far beyond the Horn of Africa. Other options under consideration are increased financial pressure and diplomatic activity, including stepped-up efforts to resolve the larger political turmoil in Somalia.

This is Washington's response to the Somalia turmoil and not the response to the capture/release of the Alabama and belongs in a different article. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Excellent point. Rklawton (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Pentagon briefing

Vice Admiral William E. Gortney conducted the Pentagon briefing from Bahrain on April 12th. Any takers on writing an article about Gortney? I'm pretty sure general officers are notable - especially vice admirals. Rklawton (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the Admiral reported that Phillips did not initiate the rescue by jumping overboard - that there was only one escape attempt by Phillips. Rklawton (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Under tow

What is the source for:

The Bainbridge had the life boat under tow approximately 25 meters astern at the time.

I can't find that anywhere -- no mention that the life boat was under tow at the time of the shooting in this most recent AP: [2] nor any other place. Am I to presume that this is again your reporting second hand from CNN? I think this needs to be sourced. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The source is the Pentagon briefing held by Vice Admiral Gortney on live TV. Rklawton (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And you can't provide a published source or transcript? There must be an online link at least to the briefing so that we can confirm this since no other source to-date as made this statement? I think it is absolutely critical that we source any additions to this article. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a source for this and will add it. Yes, I knew it was your reporting of the briefing but we need sourcing just in case (it happens) you make a mistake. Please carefully add in sources -- even stating "according to the briefing" requires verification. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Our RS/V sources policy does not require all sources be available online. Magazines, newspapers, video, and even plaques (historical markers) are all reliable sources which may not be available online yet are still verifiable. Rklawton (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. But using a primary source, such as a news conference, requires some filtering. And some way for us to confirm if you are right or not. This requirement is heightened when working on breaking stories. I made the effort and found confirmation. You didn't even reference it to the video. Sourcing is so critical right now -- it takes an extra step of effort but is invaluable to the reader and instills confidence in the article's accuracy. We shouldn't be reporting on press conferences, we should be restating published sources. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If I cited from a rare, old book not found online or in your local library, you still wouldn't be able to remove or reasonably challenge my citation. You'd just have to suck it up until an inter-library loan came through for you to verify it for yourself. The fact that you don't have access to a relevant information source has no bearing on the writing of this article. You can request a transcript or a recording - therefore its verifiable. The fact that the media is audio/video isn't relevant. And no, we don't need an additional filter for a published source. I wasn't at the briefing, and I'm not working from interview notes - so it's not original research. I got my information from a reliable source (CNN) which would not have broadcast a bogus Pentagon briefing. Again, the fact that you can't figure out how to access this briefing is not our problem. It only becomes our problem when you use it as grounds for hindering this article's development. Rklawton (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you cited from a rare, old book about a breaking news story, then I would have reason to question it. ;) I am aware, as I stated earlier, that sourcing doesn't have to be online. But for a breaking news story, we should be able to confirm what is happening. I am simply asking for sourcing. You didn't even source it to CNN. I took a couple of minutes to look it up in Google News and was able to confirm it. Again, the standards are different for breaking stories. So, if anyone besides yourself posts a "fact" without verification, we should take their word for it? You may be reliable, but is the next person as reliable? Should we establish page standards tailored to you or to WP:V standards applied evenly? I don't think it is too much to ask for sources. You added the statement without one. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with applying standards evenly. Inline citations broke up the original citation which was the Admiral. Other editors have repeatedly removed CNN live as a source. Rklawton (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

MAJOR PROPOSALS

I propose the following:

1. The creation of an article "Maersk Alabama Hijacking" for all of the information about the pirate attack. This way, the Maersk Alabama page can have the information about the ship itself, and just have a link with a brief description of the pirate attack. I believe it warrants its own article.

2. WITHDRAWN The creation of an article "Action of 12 April 2009" for all of the information about the US Navy actions and operation that resulted in Captain Phillips's rescue. I know that this article briefly existed, but was taken down. However, I believe that it should be recreated because it a military operation, and there is a precedent with military operations against Somali pirates, as seen [3], [4], and [5]. Marshie71 (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that proposal, but offer as another alternative to simply leave this article about the ship itself, and create another under the Maersk Alabama Incident or similar title, for the military operation and piratical siezure. I would accept Marshie71's propsal as well though. A wealth of more information is sure to follow, such as the court case of the captured pirate, more military details, and analysis and critique of the navy's handleing of the situation. All of that combined with aproximately half of the current information listed on this current article has nothing to do with the Maersk Alambama herself, indeed she was in Kenya during the military operation and much of the standoff.XavierGreen (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, a list films based on the seizure will probably end up being created as well... ;-) 71.56.197.218 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Two NEW articles definitely do NOT need to be broken off from this article. The first article proposal is completely unnecessary. That information is exactly what this article is meant for. The second article is a bit more plausible, but I still don't support it fully. --Torsodog^Talk 04:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The redirect Maersk Alabama hijacking already exists and could be used to house a separate article on the current matter if it wants splitting. I don't think we need a "2009" in there - it's only been hijacked once, and there's no reasonable chance it will be hijacked again, so the date is superfluous. I don't think we need a separate article on the April 12 events - they can be part of a split article on the hijacking, or stay here if the hijacking material isn't split off, but I don't see a need for an article on the April 12 action specifically. Just my 2¢. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the lack of necessity of the 2009 in the title. I like that idea a lot, and i think that we should definitely put all of the information about the hijacking in the article Maersk Alabama hijacking. If someone could do this, that would be great. Secondly, my second proposal (to create an article Action of 12 April 2009 for all of the information about the US Navy actions and operation that resulted in Captain Phillips's rescue) now seems unnecessary as more information comes out it appears that there was not so much of an operation but rather just a few shots fired by Navy SEAL snipers. Therefore, I withdraw my second proposal. Marshie71 (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I made the change, and created the article Maersk Alabama hijacking but it needs to be cleaned up a little. Marshie71 (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

we should still have a summary about the hijacking here as well -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Category

Please see Talk:Piracy#Category_for_pirate_ships.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Description/history

The article desperately needs a section above the "2004 Detention" section giving basic details about who built the Maersk Alabama, yard number, launch and completion dates, entry into service date etc etc. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Phillips' family gathering at a farmhouse

I've removed the following sentence as irrelevant:

Phillips' family had gathered at his farmhouse in Vermont.

It seems pretty obvious that his family would be concerned, so I don't see the need to state it (unless it's to convey that he has a farmhouse in Vermont, which is not notable). -kotra (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Crew's purpose

Is there any information as to why the ship was there in the first place? Was it a mission or something? 137.52.251.196 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What ship? The USS Bainbridge? --Torsodog^Talk 19:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Maersk Alabama was delivering UN food aid to Kenya. Thousands of ships a year traverse those waters. Phizzy 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a cargo freighter. It delivers freight whereever the customer needs his freight delivered to. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Richard Phillips (captain) to MV Maersk Alabama

Feel free to state your position on the merger proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Support

• Support, but like I said on that article's talk page, this might be a bit premature by a month or two. --Torsodog^Talk 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, As per WP:ONEEVENT. "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.", And WP:BLP1EWP:BIO1E. "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." There is no reason to make an exception because it's a current event. APL (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Phillips is an 1979 graduate of the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. The President of the Academy, Admiral Richard Gurnon has told interviewers he expects a big bump in applicants, due to Phillips notability. I suggest that when an individual becomes well enough known that the college he or she attended expects a big bump in applicants this establishes notability. Where should the effect of Phillips heroism on applications to his college be covered? Should it be covered in the article on the Academy? Should it be covered in the article about the capture? Should it be covered in the article on Phillips himself? Other articles report that dealing with pirate attacks is explicitly covered in the Academy's coursework. I think this effect should be briefly mentioned in the articles on the capture, and in the article on the Academy, but that the details belong in the article on Phillips himself. Geo Swan (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Paul Gately (2009-04-14). "Mass. Maritime may see application boost after pirate saga". Daily News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2009-04-15. The admiral said MMA has been besieged for interview requests by national news organizations in the wake of the dramatic Navy rescue of Maersk Alabama skipper Richard Phillips in the Indian Ocean on Easter.
• Support, The article revolves around this one event. Policy dictates (as APL iterated) a separate article is not needed. "without prejudice for recreation if he achieves the fame of Sullenberger" per 293 and 666 in the afd ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This is a no-brainer. Capt. Phillips' life does not merit a wikipedia page based on anything other than this pirate incident, and the pirate incident has its own article. Merge the Phillips article. Vidor (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, just to write my opinion explicitly. Since we have 3 articles at the moment and the ship's article includes coverage other than the pirate article, all 3 should be merged to this one. The captain currently has no notability outside the event. With time, this may change and then a separate article may be in place but not now. --Tone 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Outside of the hijacking, Phillips isn't notable, so I concur that a merge is appropriate as per WP:BLP1E. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support No notability outside hijacking, WP:BLP1E. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:BLP1E also says that a person can have an article if they have done something historical. So tell me with a straight face that surviving the first pirate attack on an American vessel in 300 years isn't notable. Rgoodermote  01:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, where are you getting 300 years? With even just a moments WP research I'm able to find US flagged ships captured by pirates in the late 1780s and 90s. Heck, 300 years ago, Captain Blackbeard was still terrorizing the seas! APL (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • CNN. Rgoodermote  23:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support for all the above reasons. He would not be individually notable if not for this event.--MartinezMD (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support unless he is notable for things besides this one event. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Another example of well meaning editors getting too excited by a recent event. Per APL, we don't need and shouldn't have an article on the captain Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support But wait for the news cycle to calm down. Combine here after a few weeks. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support unless additional coverage focuses on him, rather than his part in the hijacking. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Paul Gately (2009-04-14). "Mass. Maritime may see application boost after pirate saga". Daily News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2009-04-15. The admiral [Richard Gurnon] said MMA has been besieged for interview requests by national news organizations in the wake of the dramatic Navy rescue of Maersk Alabama skipper Richard Phillips in the Indian Ocean on Easter.
  • "Capt. Richard Phillips knows pirates". Los Angeles Times. 2009-04-09. Archived from the original on 2009-04-15. The Maersk Alabama's captain and his second in command, Shane Murphy, studied anti-piracy tactics at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.
  • I believe these two quotes erode the assertion that Phillips is known only for "one event". Geo Swan (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support the two different pages seem sort of redundant, as the hijacking article has much the same information as the ship's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.55.2 (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Classic WP:1E. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. 59.167.56.186 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support or even delete the Phillips article per WP:1E. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Clear WP:BLP1E, imo. I can't find any evidence that he is notable beyond the hijacking. Allventon (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• STRONG SUPPORT - Hate the effing fact that the beautiful and talented Alexis Grace's article got deleted while this Average Joe gets to keep his article. Come on, there are over 200 Filipinos out there being hostage by the pirates and none of them have their own article. Sometimes, I think Americans are too egotistic for their own good, and yes, i watch American Idol.--23prootie (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Take away the hijacking and there is nothing else notable enough to merit the captain having his own encyclopedia article. Should he go on in the future to have other notable events in his life, I would support unmerging.--MartinezMD (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose because Phillips was a key player in an event that has changed Piracy in Somalia. And no consensus was the result of the discussion to delete his article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Phillips_(captain). It will most likely be the same result in a merger discussion. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's only been over a day since he was released. Therefore, we can't declare at this point that his capture has "changed Piracy in Somalia". Based on that, I do not believe that that reasoning is valid. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose because information about himself and his personal life, not necessarily related to his captivity and rescue, are important and would belong in the article under his name. Marshie71 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Important for what purpose? Do other aspects of his life meet the criterion for notability? APL (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, his story may grow. But I guess his role in the situation can be included in the MV Maersk Alabama article. Marshie71 (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I believe those favoring a merge are overlooking several of the most important features that make the wikipedia powerful. So long as the articles remain distinct readers have the choice of putting one or two of the articles on their watchlist, and not the other(s). The articles are on three distinct topics and it is a grave disservice to readers to force them to check new material added to the merged article that they know are on topics they aren't interested in. The other powerful features merge fans are overlooking is the power of the wikipedia's bi-directional linking. Links on the plain old world-wide-web are uni-directional. There is no reliable, satisfactory way to know what other pages link to a plain old WWW page. But the wikipedia provides a convenient and easy to use mechanism to learn what other article link to the current article. Although some contributors overlook the usefulness of this feature, it can be extremely useful. And, when those who favor merging get their way, the power of this feature is squandered. Articles should be about just one topic, not a loose constellation of related topics. When a reader looks at an article, and finds it doesn't answer the questions they want, they can click on "what links here". When one looks at the list, one should be able to assume that the article that link to this article are connected to the topic one is interested in. But when the mergists win their way, and they shoe-horn multiple topics into larger, undisciplined articles, one can no longer count on the "what links here" turning up useful results. When an article has been shoehorned to contain multiple topics some of the links to the article will be due to the other topics. Geo Swan (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment : None of your arguments are specific to this article, or to Captain Phillips. What you are arguing for is a reversal of a long-standing policy, this is not the place to make such arguments. APL (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • My comments here are as specific to this article as your are. I dispute that I am arguing for a "reversal of a long-standing policy". I dispute your interpretation of BLP1E. I encourage you to address the points other wikipedia contributors are trying to make in a respectful, substantive manner. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry if I offended, but your argument seemed to be an essay on the general advantages of Wikipedia over print media as far as multiple articles on related topics. Presumably the authors of BIO1E and ONEEVENT were aware of the way Wikipedia works. However, to answer your specific objection, everyone who looks up Cpt. Phillips will be looking for information on the one single event that he is famous for. There is no purpose in spreading that information around (or worse:duplicating it.) Your idea that following the reverse links back will find you interesting related articles doesn't work in this situation because there is only one story to tell, filling the "what links here" list with a bunch of near-duplicate articles is counter productive. (ie: The Cpt Phillips article can't contain too much of the non-famous aspect of the Cpt's life, because that would violate BLP's policy on non-public figures, but the famous aspect is right here already.) APL (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
        • My correspondent asserts a personal opinion, as if it were a fact, namely: "...everyone who looks up Captain Phillips will be looking for information on the one single event that he is famous for." Please remember, the wikipedia is not paper, and there is absolutely zero justification for artificially confining our readers within the same bounds as a paper encyclopedia. My correspondent overlooks that readers may wish to look up all survivors of pirate attacks, who distinguished themselves by their heroism, while having zero interest in in the actual pirate incidents. Alternatively readers may wish to study all recent pirate attacks, ignoring all information about survivors, victims or heroes. In a paper encyclopedia it is easier to find related information when they are on nearby (paper) pages, rather than in different volumes. But the opposite is true with a hyperlinked encyclopedia, where following a hyperlink is faster and easier than scrolling or searching within an omnibus article. There are going to be readers who are interested in countainer ships in general, or the Maersk fleet, in general, and have zero interest in the 2009 pirate capture, or in Captain Phillips. It is a grave disservice to those readers to shoehorn all three topics into a single article. It seems to me you have yet to offer a real single justification for this merging. Geo Swan (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
        • My correspondent asserts, as if it were a fact, "...in this situation because there is only one story to tell." I have pointed out several possible stories readers might be interested in researching. I am not trying to be offensive, but there is no more tactful way to say this. Please consider that your personal opinion that there is only one story to tell reflects an unfortunate failure of imagination on your part. Geo Swan (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
        • My correspondent seems to be asserting that an article on Captain Phillips can't contain the widely reported biographical details of Captain Phillips life without violating BLP's policy on non-public figures. Sorry, please don't claim that he is not a public figure. Geo Swan (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: Stop using WP:ONEEVENT, it states that a person can have their own article if they have done something historic and I am 100% sure that if you survive the first pirate attack on an American vessel in 300 years you have done something historical, so by merging this article you'll have to do the same to articles like Bill Gates or Jimmy Wales. Also, just adding content to this page is going to end with it all being broken apart AGAIN. Rgoodermote  01:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please, your comparison of the notability of a little known ship captain to the richest man in the world is beyond absurd. You will see, as this story fades, people will realize that having an article dedicated to Phillips is completely unnecessary on the grounds of WP:ONEEVENT. If you don't realize that now, fine, but I believe eventually this will be undeniable. I guess time will tell. --Torsodog^Talk 03:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, this argument is void since it means that all the other crewmen (that also survived the pirate attack) also deserve their articles and this is clearly not the case. --Tone 09:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

300 years is also an exaggeration. Before 1794 the USA lacked a navy and a number of ships were captured by the Barbary pirates. APL (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I got the 300 year thing off CNN. Second, the world's richest man? Neither Bill Gates or Wales are that rich....especially Wales. I give on this, only because...this is asinine to continue and this is getting under my skin. If I continue I'm bound to break some policy (Odds are it'll be WP:POINT). 23:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c) Really? Hah. CNN can't do their research properly then. Perhaps they meant to say 200 years, I think that might be true, I can't immediately find a counter-example. By the way, Bill Gates was the world's richest man for several years, even if he isn't any longer. (Sorry for dragging this further off-topic.) APL (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

<undent> So you guys know, Jessica McClure, is also a violation of WP:ONEVENT, because apparently she is only known for getting stuck in a well. How that is historic I will never know. She is in the same wagon as our captain here. Once headline news and now, just a no body. So why does she deserve and article and not say...this man? Rgoodermote  23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument; simply because other articles exist that may also not meet the criteria (though personally, I think that one does) doesn't mean this one must. (also, please see Bill Gates; he is indeed the world's richest man). -kotra (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I was just pointing out my disdain (I'm full aware I did wrong in using this as a way to point that out and I am truly sorry for that) for WP:ONEEVENT. Seeing it coming up several times now and all of the times used improperly (I.E. now)...and I am probably going to nom Robert_Williams_(robot_fatality) for deletion under WP:ONEEVENT, ironically..anyways, enough of me ranting, best to just leave this be and walk away before I get in trouble. (When did he become richest? Last time I checked...I forgot his name..hosted the Apprentice..was..no need to answer this). Rgoodermote  01:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose- The gentleman has enough notability independent of the original hijacking, that covering him seperately is warranted. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose- Too bad nobody is saying what every American is thinking; THIS is the man who we need in 2009 to be the President of the United States of America (whether he wants the job or not)! Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

In fact, there are 3 articles about all this, Maersk Alabama hijacking basically retells the same story. Curiously, the ship was involved in some fraud scheme in 2004 so it shows notability for more than one event. Still, I believe the issue with 3 articles should be fixed, one is probably enough (this one). --Tone 22:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, I believe the issue with 3 articles should be fixed, one is probably enough (this one). I have to agree; the ITN on the front page directly links to this page, and not the other page "about" the Hijacking. Didn't also the MV Faina also directly link to the ships page rather than the a incident page?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems we are leaning towards merging the captain's article. Given the fact, that there is opposition to merging the hijacking article to this one, I believe that it is more reasonable to merge the captain's article there. Any opinions? --Tone 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If the captain's article is merged anywhere, it should indeed be with the hijacking article rather than this article. --Torsodog^Talk 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Captain to Ship article merger is no concensus and should be brought up at a later date. And the hijacking to ship article merger is oppossed. Now somebody should formally propose the hijacking article get merged with the ship article and/or the Captain article get merged with the hijacking article. And then we can properly discuss them. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we have quite a strong consensus that the article should be merged somewhere. The question is now only where to and the since the hijacking article exists, it seems a better option. I am planning to perform the merge later today. --Tone 07:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to just merge articles without a proper proposal, to include an infobox and discussion. This wasn't done correctly for the Captain to Hijacking article merger. The merger should be undone, so we can discuss it properly. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Was a consensus to merge achieved?

Merge proponents repeated the claim that Phillips was (1) not notable prior to the hijacking; and (2) only known for "one event". I agree he was not notable prior to the hijacking. But the "one event" claim is not really defensible.

The President of his alma mater, the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, has been quoted as saying he is (1) swamped by requests for interviews because Phillips studied there; (2) expects requests for enrollment to go way up, because Phillips studied there. I added this to the article, and someone else, possibly a merge proponent started to remove it. These are two additional separate events.

Today, an article about the book and movie deals open to those whose heroism brings them to public attention mentions both Phillips, Chesley Sullenberger, and "Octomom" Nadya Suleman. (Sullenberger recently signed a $3.2 million book deal.) Phillips's new fame, and the opportuniies it opens for him, is a separate event from the hijacking. It is material that merits coverage on the wikipedia that would be wildly inappropriate to place in the article on the hijacking.

"The amount he can make on his life rights deal depends on the leverage he has, and how many different producers are trying to get the property," explains Renee Tab, literary manager and producer at Artist Talent Management. "It can start at literally a free option, and go up to hundreds of thousands of dollars."

The individual who effected this redirect has written above: "I believe that we have quite a strong consensus that the article should be merged somewhere." Excuse me, but doesn't arriving at a consensus require collegial discussion, where those involved actually read and respond to the arguments advanced by those they disagree with? Granted, more participants supported "merge" than supported discrete articles. But I suggest it is a mistake to characterize this as arriving at a consensus, when the majority simply ignored the arguments of the minority. Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I like to think I am open-minded, or at least I strive to be. Looking at the "oppose" votes, I don't see an actual argument other than them wanting him to have his own article. Where is the notability outside this event??--MartinezMD (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Pirate

According to this article, the 4th pirate was on the USS Bainbridge for the purpose of negotiating. According to the article Richard Phillips (captain), the 4th pirate was on the Bainbridge because he was seeking medical attention.

Can this discrepancy be resolved? Wanderer57 (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe both are true. Phizzy 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read no less than 3 different versions of pirate #4: 1. He was seeking medical attention; 2. He was bargaining/negotiating; 3. He was surrendering and had no intention of going back to the life boat (prior to the shooting). I also read 2 different versions of who he is (relative to the pirates): 1. that he was just a teenage member of the gang 2. that he was the leader.

Can we get a little clarity here? Some of these details could significantly influence the degree of prosecution and conviction he could get. I imagine with time we'll know more, but it would be nice not to have conflicting information. --MartinezMD (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maersk vs. Mærsk

This article should actually be named "MV Mærsk Alabama". æ is a special letter. --bender235 (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in the English-language. We could redirect it to this article though.--MartinezMD (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? WP:MOS say: By and large, Wikipedia uses œ and æ to represent the Anglo-Saxon ligature. Also think of Encyclopædia Britannica. --bender235 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia, with 26 standard letters in use. The letter æ is not a part of the standard English language.--192.77.126.50 (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can get pretty stupid about names and letters. Go check out the article on Rudolf Hoess. Vidor (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NCCN states: Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. In that case, it would be "Maersk". --Torsodog^Talk 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at a picture of the ship's stern (on CNN's frontpage while it lasts), and it is written "Maersk", without the ligature.--MartinezMD (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Maersk Alabama hijacking to MV Maersk Alabama

Feel free to state your position on the merger proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Support

• Support because the incidents are supposed to be within the ship's article. Like the South China Sea incident is within the USNS Impeccable article. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I too have been swayed. We are now in 100% agreement to oppose this merger. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, the same reason as above. And for the captain as well. --Tone 15:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

On the second thought, hijacking itself has now generated enough coverage. Just don't make it a precedent. I see most of the content has been moved there already. Still, the hijacking section in this article could be trimmed more since it is in another article now. --Tone 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT. Although, I prefer it he other way around. The Merks Alabama article is nothing more than a stub barring the piracy information as 80% of the article is about the so-called incident, whatever happened I don't really care since nobody died and there were no celebrities. There is no need to keep a separate article on the ship since beyond this incident, it will NEVER again gain notability, barring, of course, an oil spill, which I pray will NOT happen. Three articles about a minor incident is not needed unlike very important historical topics like American Idol. Please watch the show.--23prootie (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How does this article not represent a worldview? Please explain why you have added the template, or I am going to remove it. Thanks. --Torsodog^Talk 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is written based on American bias, as if the rest of the cares whatever happens to the ship. The article is not nescessary and I'm still bitter about Alexis Grace.--23prootie (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed two of the tags are you have not presented a valid argument as to why they should be added. Please give a real reason if you wish to add them again. --Torsodog^Talk 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Per WP:Crystal and WP:ONEEVENT, the article seems to be waiting for future events to keep it afloat. --23prootie (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose there are many incidents that are not included within the article of ships. A similar incident where a small boat from a ship was captured,the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel has an article seperate from the HMS Cornwall (F99). Another example would be the USS Hartford and USS New Orleans collision. There were many vessels involved in the Maersk hijacking not simply the Maersk, i think that it would be misleading to leave the information not occuring on the freighter in this article.

XavierGreen (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment The scale of that incident is enormous compared to this article. That was a political and military confrontation that could have led to war between two sovereign states unlike this one which was about police action by the US against criminals. Besides a cargo ship versus a warship. Apples and oranges.--23prootie (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I proposed creating the Maersk Alabama hijacking page and I still strongly believe that it is a significant enough event to have its own page. Also, this way more information can be added about the hijacking and the related events without making the MV Maersk Alabama less cluttered and dominated by information about the hijacking Marshie71 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, I believe that this is significant and deserves its own article, which is why it is here in the first place. Besides, then the MV Maersk Alabama article would be so long it would have to be broken up. TARTARUS ^talk 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The incident is clearly more notable than the ship, and encompasses many people and elements beyond the ship itself. -- SCZenz (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the merge is deeply ill-advised and is a dis-service to readers. The ship and the hijacking are two separate topics. So long as the two articles remain distinct readers can choose to place one, and not the other, on their watch lists. Geo Swan (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose:Above. Rgoodermote  01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The hijacking is notable enough to warrant its own article. I have edited this article to focus more on its subject, the Maersk Alabama. Please add all subsequent information/reactions about the hijacking to Maersk Alabama hijacking. --Torsodog^Talk 04:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If anything the highjacking info on this page should be summerized and shortened. It is afterall not the main article for this information. As per the support comment above, IN the article not THE article. --Wilson (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose- The ship itself would likely have been notable (correct me if I'm wrong) before the hijacking. To put the information on the hijacking only in the article on the ship would give the hijacking an undue weight in that article. Keeping it as its own article, with a summary of the hijacking in the ship's article, would be a better way of handling it. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose- ship is notable enough to have its own article. Hijacking and conclusion thereof justifies separate article. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• COMMENT: All the "oppose"'s here are merely "no" votes and do not really carry any weight. The only reason why it is notable is because of the incident, and without it this is merely an article of trivia about a cargo ship. There is no need for two articles when information can be placed in one.--23prootie (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Support This article should be deleted and the hijacking article left to stand. Vidor (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Both articles should exist. Both are very obviously notable. --Torsodog^Talk 03:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Torsodog. Both articles should remain as separate articles. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha. If you read the two articles, you will see that they are both similar, except the hijacking is much better...--23prootie (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is highly doubtful that this ship would have merited an article if it weren't for the hijacking. And in fact it didn't have one. Vidor (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The ship would have been notable enough for an article, it's just that it hadn't been written before the hijacking. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The "Oppose" people here have stated that the ship is notable but the only reason they give is about the incident, which falls under WP:ONEEVENT. nly one article is needed, two is redundant.--23prootie (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The ship had the previous million-dollar scam, so there was more albeit lesser in scope. I like the way the articles are now - one for the ship, another for the hijacking with the captain enrolled there. --MartinezMD (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur there are two differnt incidents involving the Alabama making it not fall under WP:ONEEVENT. XavierGreen (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The ship is notable enough to have its own article, even without the hijacking. A discussion on ship notability here will show the views of a number of WP:SHIPS members. Mjroots (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is noted above (this discussion is fractured into many sections) and already in the article about the million-dollar scam it was already involved in. So it isn't a one-trick pony. --MartinezMD (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pirate response

I've heard people say that pirate leaders were threatening retaliation for the shootings. Are their reliable sources for this, and should it be included in the article? TastyCakes (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well i dont want to add it because it might frighten readers about what pirates might do later to the americans.--Trulystand700 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Was that a serious comment? ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 03:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Somali pirates vow revenge over comrades' killings. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any idiot with an AK47 'vowing revenge' against the US navy can be quoted on WP. RaseaC (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire piracy issue is "some idiot(s) with AK-47s" so, I don't see why not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is good that the pirate is mentioned in this article. With a little luck a Marine will read this article, remember the name of the "angry pirate" and shoot him in the head at first sigth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.80.40 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Blow by blow account

At last there is a news article that gives a blow by blow of the entire episode, rather than just enigmatic snatches of information: here at the WSJ. Rwflammang (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good article. Thanks. Used it as source for minor additions/references in Wikipedia Maersk Alabama hijacking article Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

Name of Captured Pirate

Is Abdulwali Muse.

More Questions re the piracy

QUOTING our article:

They decided to leave the ship, and took Phillips with them to a lifeboat. The crew later used "brute force" to retake control of the ship, and overpowered one of the pirates,

IF the pirates left the ship, why was "brute force" later required to take control of the ship?

. . . .

Again QUOTING the article:

The lifeboat carried nine days of food rations.

I wonder how important this detail is. Also how accurate it is. Nine days of food rations for how many people? I understand this was a large lifeboat. Nine days of food rations for 50 people would amount to about three months worth for five people.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as relevance to the article I don't disagree with you. As far as accuracy... The International Maritime Organization's SOLAS convention requires all lifeboats carried by Merchant Vessels to carry 9 days of rations for each person which the lifeboat has a capacity to carry. Being a U.S. Coast Guard Certified Lifeboatman, I have tasted these rations and you can hardly call them food. They taste like cardboard and essentially just contain enough energy to sustain a human life. After munching on those things for four days the pirates probably welcomed the Navy Seals bullets to the head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugboat069 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger of this article with that of Captain Phillips

The merger had NO consensus. Those who advocate the merger have the burden of proof as per WP policy.99.35.227.203 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm really, really tired of arguing this, so I'm probably going to take this article off my watch list after this, but have a look at Phillips' article. It clearly falls under WP:1E. His role as a hostage is the only remotely notable part of the article. The "Personal life" section is complete drivel, and the two sentences about his career could easily be merged into the hijacking article. Either way, I'm taking this off my watch list, so if anyone would like to contact me about this matter, feel free to leave a message at my talk page. --Torsodog^Talk 03:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Second hijack (attempted)

CNN reporting at 05:00 CST that the ship was attacked by Somali pirates again, this time unsuccessfully. Jparenti (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

noted for...

"...and a second, unsuccessful hijacking attempt later that year.[7]" What about the other three attacks (described in the article)? Maybe the ship is noted for the first attack and the repeated attacks?211.225.33.104 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Distance from Somali coast

In the section 'April 2009 attempted pirate seizure', the article implies that the ship was closer to the Somali coast than recommended. This is correct, but possibly unfair, considering that both the last port it left (Djibouti) and its destination (Mombasa), were closer to the Somali coast than this recommendation. It could have kept the recommended distance at that point, but it is debatable whether it would be reasonable to expect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBLambe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MV Maersk Alabama. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090101124607/http://containerinfo.co.ohost.de:80/vessel_9164263.html to http://containerinfo.co.ohost.de/vessel_9164263.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MV Maersk Alabama. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090411004547/http://www.npr.org:80/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102902163 to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102902163

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MV Tygra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413145503/http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97FNAS80&show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97FNAS80&show_article=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)