Talk:MS Norman Atlantic

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

Was it over capacity for vehicles?[edit]

The ship is listed as having a capacity of 200 vehicles yet the text says it had 222. Was it 11% over capacity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.139.132 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not. 200 lorries take up a lot more space than 200 Smart cars. It will all come out in the official report of the investigation into the accident. Mjroots (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read ship length of 186 metres, beam 84 feet, capacity of 850 passengers and 2,286 lane metres. Lets call a lane as 8 feet wide, gives ship a 10 lane width, - if square that only gives 1860 lane metres. (so there must be a second vehicle deck) If 200 vehicles, if all vehicles were 10 metres long, that would take 2000 lane metres. Ok - most common cars - call then 6 metres(~ 18 feet). typical American tractor trailer - trailer alone is 48 feet,. 16 metres. Ok - I have set up the math problem - you finish it, show work. Q.E.D. Wfoj3 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

split-off_December_2014_accident[edit]

No consensus on splitting the article, largely because several editors do not feel there is enough content to warrant a split. The last suggestion by OpenFuture (simply renaming the article to that of the incident) may have some merit. Number 57 15:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest that the accident be split off into a separate article, and that a summary be left in this article. The way the article is written, the nominal topic, the ship, is not the actual topic, as the accident forms the majority of the article, so would be more appropriately named as an accident article, with the ship information instead being relegated to a background section. A solution to this problem is to split off the 2014 December accident into a separate article, until everything is resolved, and see afterwards if we need to merge them together again or not. The Costa Concordia disaster is a separate article from Costa Concordia. And our Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 article is at the accident name, not the airplane name -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. The Costa Concordia article was split due to WP:SIZE issues. We are nowhere near that yet. Not saying we can't split in the future, but this proposal is premature. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Half of the article's body right now is this one event, we need more balanced coverage of the overall history of the ship. (Adding tag) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Already eight confirmed deaths which is quite significant. Granted there have been many other ferry disasters with a much higher death toll that did not have their own article. But this one seems significant due to the area in which it occurred; and the fact that it was a passenger ferry rather than a migrant boat; in which high death tolls are much more common. Corresponds with the pages Costa Concordia disaster and Moby Prince disaster. Undescribed (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree with Underscribed, with 8 deaths and as some sources said 38 missed, unfortunatley is a significant event and we should create another article only for the shipwreck. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Mjroots, 8 deaths is rather a mediocre incident and the Norman Atlantic article is relatively small so far, so the disaster perfectly fits into it. Brandmeistertalk 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now It's a bit spooky that the minimal article was created only four days before the fire, but at the moment there's not enough material about the disaster as opposed to the ship herself that merits splitting. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The article is too small to be split per WP:SIZE. Why not propose renaming then? --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Knowledgekid87 and Undescribed. The creation of two separate articles about logically distinct topics (a ship vs an event) will also allow their correct representation in Wikidata, which is currently impossible. --DarTar (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; the article is currently under 5k in prose. It is under the 40kb-level, so splitting it off may impact this article and affect my DYK nomination. --George Ho (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Size isn't the only reason to split an article. We are not a paper encyclopedia, we don't have to keep everything on one page. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your hiding this discussion by deleting the split tag is very unhelpful. The discussion is already open, and already has opinions lodged. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does splitting the content adhere to WP:SPLIT? --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read that page? It's right in the first intro paragraph. And under procedure, it says to use the split template, which you deleted. Your deleting the split template does not follow SPLIT. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now The incident is relatively minor but like MV Estonia the rescue has the capability to change maritime law which assumes rescue takes place in benign conditions. -See Rear Admiral John Lang comments. I regard the accident as already much more noteworthy than the ship but there is much more investigation required. JRPG (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks increasingly likely that the incident is not the relatively minor incident originally described. JRPG (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There are still people who remain unaccounted for after the accident, I think it would be best to split the article in two articles, one about the ferry and one about the accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EileenSanda (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even Greece says 18 people are still missing; which is the lowest number of missing people I can find in any source. Assuming that all those people are dead that would leave a death toll of 29 which is still significant. If Italy's total of 98 missing verifies that would be a toll of 109 people; which is definitely article-worthy by itself. Most likely the final toll will fall somewhere between the two figures. Also keep in mind that although fires on ferry ships are fairly common, large and deadly ones like this are very rare. I can only think of one recent incident where a large death toll was caused by a ship fire alone; and did not involve a collision or sinking, and occurred in the same general area as this one; the MS Scandinavian Star fire in 1990 (158 killed). Undescribed (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The section detailing the accident is quite lengthy, as Knowledgekid87 said, and that, along with at least 11 dead with the expectations of the death toll rising, plus the investigations and media coverage, seems to necessitate an article of its own. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The ship in itself is not notable, only the accident is. Instead of splitting, the article can be renamed. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renaming the article to be about the fire is also acceptable to me. It was part of the rationale presented in the split proposal (rewriting the article to move ship-related information to "Background", and renaming the article), but I thought it more controversial than just splitting the article in two, hence the split proposal instead of a rename. I am the nominator. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Is" or "Was?"[edit]

If this ship is a total loss, is it appropriate to go to the past tense? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense for now. We don't (yet) know whether it will be scrapped or repaired. 07:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. As no self respecting passenger would book on this infamous ship even if repaired, it is almost certain to be scrapped but wp:crystal applies. JRPG (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like no one ever travelled on the MS Scandinavian Star again but they did travel on Regal Voyager? Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it might well be repaired and refitted. Not a total hull loss by any means. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accident map[edit]

Right now accident map is under infobox and it is disconnected from accident description section. Maybe someone more experienced with layout can do smthng with this?

--91.189.59.198 (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of Telegraph letters page[edit]

Could someone kindly archive the Telegraph letters page with Rear Admiral John Lang's letter please? I will learn by their example! JRPG (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought the source for the quote, being a newspaper letter, was useful detail. But apparently it's contrary to MoS to "clutter articles with information best left to the references.". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First victim[edit]

The first victim recovered is not who they said it was. The body was not recognized by the man's son, as reported on numerous Italian papers; one paper says that the person's documents also do not confirm the Greek man. "Non è lui" (http://bari.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/12/29/news/norman_-103974424/); "Giallo sul cadavere all'obitorio di Brindisi. I documenti non sono quelli di Gheorgiu Douli." (http://www.quotidianodipuglia.it/brindisi/traghetto_nave_mare_fiamme_canale_otranto_salento_soccorsi/notizie/1089645.shtml)--Valmataro (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems BBC might be mistaken then. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will all become clear in the next few days, WP:NORUSH. Mjroots (talk)

What is the correct beam of the ship?[edit]

The description and the general characteristics sections seem to differ. Spdhall (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Per source in description. Mjroots (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total number of persons aboard[edit]

There is confusion over the accurate count of persons aboard (passengers + crew). The manifest total was 478 persons, but according to BBC reports there are discrepancies between the identities of some of the survivors landed and the persons listed on the manifest, leading to a belief that the actual number aboard at the time of the fire was 499. If only 427 survivors (at the present count) have been taken off, and 11 people are dead (excluding the 2 men killed in attempts to salvage the ship, as these 2 were presumably not aboard at the time of the fire), that means only 438 are accounted for, leaving some 61 unaccounted. Even if the manifest total was correct, that still leaves 40 unaccounted. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANEK, on 29 December 2014, reported 475 persons. (English press release: http://web.anek.gr/portal/page/portal/ANEK_prod/Corporate_Information/News?mFrom=0&mTo=12). --Valmataro (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there remain many contradictory claims from the various media sources. By the way, and as a separate enquiry, is someone starting an article on the Blue Sky M incident, the Moldovan cargo ship/human trafficking vessel with 970 immigrants on board brought into the Italian port of Gallipoli (Apulia) this week? Rif Winfield (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rif Winfield: there's no reason why somebody can't start the MV Blue Sky M article. Her IMO is 7510690 (hint, hint). Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have many other priorities; I was trying to stimulate someone else to initiate this; it might also be useful to include details of the Ezadeen - the second vessel seized off Italy this week. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, have notified WP:SHIPS, maybe someone will oblige. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time of the fire.[edit]

There may be a problem with the statement: "A fire broke out on the car deck just before 6:00 am local time, half an hour after leaving port of Igoumenitsa, Greece, an intermediate stop, when she was 44 nautical miles (81 km) northwest of the island of Corfu, 33 nautical miles (61 km) northwest of the island of Othonoi." The maximum speed of the ferry was about 24 knots. Half an hour after leaving port she could have been only about 12 miles northwest of Corfu. RFB (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed there may be a problem, but we go with the sources for now. A possibility is that 6:00 is UTC, not local, which is a two hour difference. It will all become clear in the fullness of time. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible claim[edit]

"A fire broke out on the car deck just before 6:00 am local time, half an hour after leaving port of Igoumenitsa, Greece, an intermediate stop, when she was 44 nautical miles (81 km) northwest of the island of Corfu, "

It would seem to be impossible for this ship to be 44 nautical miles northwest of Corfu, in only half an hour after leaving Igoumenitsa. How fast is it ?Lathamibird (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone has already asked that question somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greek sources and assets involved in SAR ops.[edit]

Hi there from the Italian Wikipedia and happy new year to everyone! I wonder if somebody can help me to draft a list of the whole Greek assets alerted for the rescue attempts using this Greek sources: [1],[2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; As you can see there are files such press kit and file *.ppt to be used as valuable and useful sources from the Hellenic Coast Guard to improve the page! Than IMHO the voice should also specify that the Norman Atlantic was replacing the oldest Ierapetra L. ferry for the same route due to another fire occurred In the evening of Nov 29, 2014 [9] [10] [11]). Thank you in advance for your help. --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Norman Atlantic was replacing the Hellenic Spirit on the Patras-Ancona route. The Ierapetra had been idle in Brindisi for a month before it caught fire. (I can't imagine that ANEK would ever have used that old ferry for the overnight route to Ancona -- customers would not have been happy!).--Valmataro (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, we shouldn't say that Norman Atlantic was replacing any vessel unless we have a source that says so. Mjroots (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expand "Description"?[edit]

We should know more about the cruise ship before the fire incident. How were the rooms and the cooking, for example? --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vessel is a Ferry, not a Cruise ship. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MS Norman Atlantic → MS Norman Atlantic fire – Or MS Norman Atlantic disaster? Which is more prominent, the ferry itself or the fire disaster of the ferry? Regardless, extra precision is discouraged; whether the proposal is too precise is your decision. [EDIT: I'm abstaining.] --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per the Split Discussion (The way the article is written, the nominal topic, the ship, is not the actual topic, as the accident forms the majority of the article, so would be more appropriately named as an accident article, with the ship information instead being relegated to a background section), the article is mostly about the fire/disaster, and most of the notability accrues from that event, not the rest of the ship's history. Without a split, the topic of the article is therefore the fire, and the rest of the ship's history is merely background material, due to the content of the article as it is currently written. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the article is renamed to a format "ship name fire" or "ship name disaster", I recommend dropping the prefix "MS" as in Costa Concordia disaster and Rena oil spill. Tupsumato (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted proposal to your pleasure. --George Ho (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's no reason why the ship shouldn't have an article. It's large enough. And details of disasters suffered by ships are usually included in their article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Necrothesp: if it's not large enough to split, the name should remain MS Norman Atlantic. --Nomentz (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a minor incident. WP:SPLIT does not depend on size only. It makes provisions for splitting due to content and balanace. As we're not splitting the article, the ship is not the primary focus of this article, therefore it is misnamed; the fire is the primary focus of this article. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - same reasons as my earlier comments. The solution to the perceived problem is to expand other sections of the article so that the fire section is not as dominant. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Necrothesp's reasoning. Concerns can be handled by a redirect from Norman Atlantic fire and Norman Atlantic disaster. The article discusses other aspects besides the fire, and the title should reflect that. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Death toll[edit]

On the first days of February 2015, Italian newspapers are saying that 10 (dieci, not 12) persons died directly from the burning ship plus the two Albanian tugboat operators; 18 persons (not 19) are now listed as missing. The change is due to finding a body on deck 4 of the boat.

http://www.lastampa.it/2015/02/03/italia/cronache/traghetto-437lrIRaF0xqbRYvPJzXVN/premium.html

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/02/02/norman-atlantic-trovato-cadavere-era-bordo-tir-ponte-4/1391880/

http://www.trasportoeuropa.it/index.php/home/archvio/14-marittimo/12068-trovato-un-corpo-nel-garage-della-norman-atlantic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valmataro (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sister ships[edit]

NORMAN ASTURIAS[1] is also a sister ship. I made an edit but it was removed--probably my fault--I am a total novice so probably did it incorrectly. 123ert678lop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.101.14 (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the addition because it was not supported by the website used to reference the other sister ships. By "sister ship", we mean another vessel of similar design, contstruction and proportions, not necessarily another ship operated by the same company.
That said, we have an article on Norman Asturias, and she does look similar to Norman Atlantic, so you may well be correct. Will see what I can find out. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Ferry Site gives Dimonios as her sister ship. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I gave you a link to the Google page83.49.101.14 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P270 class: Étretat (former Norman Voyager), Scottish Viking and Norman Atlantic --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Byt he way as you can see on it.wiki and/or comparing the silohuettes on the disgner website this project is quite similar to previous and the next ones. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So where are we now.? How does Norman Asturias get added to "sister ships"?~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.101.14 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC) What is the procedure? Do I add Norman Asturias to the sister ships again and have you delete it again or what? Why are you so averse to this edit?~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.235.148 (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse to the addition. In fact I made it myself but someone appears to have removed it from the text, but not the infobox. So, if there are no objections, I suggest that the sister ships should be listed as per my previous edit. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Norman+Atlantic+Norman+Asturias+sister+ships&biw=1024&bih=641&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=V1TaVMOeIIKAUai5hPAH&ved=0CDMQsAQ~~~~

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MS Norman Atlantic. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MS Norman Atlantic. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MS Norman Atlantic. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapped[edit]

She's being scrapped right now: https://www.instagram.com/p/B1tKWaBAXhP/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.36.89.35 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism[edit]

This page is horribly cluttered with outdated recentism, especially regarding the death toll. It seems like everyone has added the latest rumour and left the old figures in place, such that it's difficult to work out the final figure. The page is less an encyclopedia entry and more a compendium on minute-by-minute updates. It's going to take a lot of work to repair. Patrick Neylan (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a large number of edits to address this. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fire cause is clear (generator), NOT an Afghan immigrant[edit]

There were 47 refrigerator trucks on board and only 44 electric hookups. 3 trucks had running generators, which is contrary to policy. One of the diesel generators created a spark which ignited a fire. A crew member deployed the drenchers for deck 3 rather than deck 4 because of a confusing numbering system, therefore there was no sprinkler system dousing the flames. The deck 4 fire raged on unimpeded and was made much worse due to strong winds from a winter storm. An "illegal Afghan immigrant" was not to blame. I believe this unsubstantiated claim should be removed because it stokes division and racism and has no merit. 2601:18D:8C81:4AE0:1847:6919:A558:8A82 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is not unsubstantiated, and not stated as definite, but as a possible cause. It stays, unless it can be shown that it was not a possible cause. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is likely that the generator caused the fire, but the article is simply noting other causes were suggested. "Stoking division and racism" are not reasons for changing an article even were this a likely outcome of one line in a little read article in an encyclopedia of millions of articles. MarcGarver (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MS_Norman_Atlantic&oldid=1213139270"