Talk:MV Queen of the North

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

Split this Article?[edit]

Perhaps this article should be split into two -- the first article for a profile of the ship itself and its history before the sinking and a second article for the sinking and aftermath. Canuckle 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wouldnt have thought that really necessary, the ship is nowhere near as famous at the QE2 or similar ships, and its only become notable since its sinking --PrincessBrat 09:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New surfacing information[edit]

someone should mention that "Fourth Officer Carl Lilgert and deckhand Karen Bricker were on the bridge and didn't know how to dim the brightness on the global positioning system display to see better out the window, so they turned it off." -- http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/11/20/queen-north-affidavits.html I'm just not exactly sure where to fit it in. -- Khromatikos 07:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct form do we use "is" or "was"[edit]

I was in a little debate with myself if we should use "is" or "was" in the first paragraph, what form do we use -- Tawker 00:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we would use was, unless she is subsequently raised out of water and resumed service. SYSS Mouse 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering that sonar profiles and survivor accounts say the ship is in 2 peices its highly unlikely its going to float again, thanks for the swift reply -- Tawker 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entire article needs to be copyedited to generally put into past tense. Also it could be updated as to status and outcome of the various legal actions. Casey (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap![edit]

I was doing a report about this ship for school, and lo and behold! It sunk today! What are the odds? Holy shit!

And speaking of coincidence, the people from BC Ferries were going to the government today to ask for more money for ferries. I do believe they got the money. V.Malloy 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggest coincidence is that the money that was approved for BC Ferries, was for three vessels to replace this one.

It's so coincidental, that it's almost planned... *gasp*. Congrats on picking an awesome topic, heh. Kareeser|Talk! 17:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn you, Gordon Campbell!! <grin> Fishhead64 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of Wright Sound[edit]

From looking at a Canadian Hydrographic Service nautical chart of the Wright Sound area north of Gil Island, the most extreme depths I can find are in the 250 fathom range... this works out to roughly 450 metres, not 750 metres as the article quotes other media sources. Plasma east 04:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Oops, they accidentally said "meters" instead of feet I think, I just pulled my tivo's recording and I think thats what happened, I've been hearing 750 to 1200 ft, I'll update the article -- Tawker 01:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Pics? No Video?[edit]

Where are the pictures? Tons of people must have taken pictures of it going blubblub. How can there be not even one?regford 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It was in the middle of the night. How many pics do you expect to show up in pitch darkness?Galuple 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen one picture, on the news, and it wasn't a good one. But it was in the middle of the night, and while there was a community close by it didn't exactly sink close to any communities. And I doubt the people on the ferry thought to bring their cameras.
I put up the only picture I've seen of the sinking, had to screencap it from tv and fair use it, after a tonne of monitoring local media reports in Vancouver I have to conclude that that is the only picture -- Tawker 06:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


People *sleep* with their cameras. Modern digitals are very sensitive in low light. They see all your eye can. Paris Hilton thought it was too dark, but it wasn't. Everybody has at least one camera and the rescuers musta brought them too. The lights on board would show nicely, even in the rain, and also the tilting deck; there should be tons of pics from inside the ferry as well. There should be hundreds of pictures. Some dumb cruise ship has a fire, or the passengers get diarrhea and it's on CNN every 10 minutes. The QotN is/was a big deal, but no coverage. I quite liked the boat. Are the snappers holding out for cash, or is there a lid on this? Come on, there are pics of every scandal on this planet. And, surely, this is a whopper of a scandal!!!!(BTW,thanks to Tawker for the picture.)-- regford 17:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm in dispute over fair use on the one image we have, if anyone wants to weigh in feel free, I'm looking for a replacement image. -- Tawker 05:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am stupid, but only to a degree. When I want something I just ask Google. I go to Google Image Search, there is nothing, nada, zip. Of the 100 people on board, 50 owned digitals, 30 took them off the ship. I of course don't know this; they just always do. The rescuers all brought cameras with them; if you afford a boat then you can afford a camera. Where do I find pictures of this. There should be THOUSANDS of them, on blogs everywhere. If neither Wpedia nor Google can host or index the pics on an ongoing or current event, then we must ask ourselves if we must seek elsewhere for timeliness. If so, where.? regford 19:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google's Image Search is rarely updated. I remember reading an interview about it earlier this year and it was stated that they were updated quarterly or so. Yahoo's image search is slightly better. In any case, just because it's in GIS doesn't make it copyright-free. Better to see what the gov't releases, as that would qualify under Fair Use. --Kickstart70·Talk 20:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kickstart, nice to see a fellow Mefi over here. Anyway, today's Vancouver Sun has an article in which a local businessman (who was on the ship) has partnered with CanWestGlobal to sell copies of the photos he took. It's a fundraiser for Hartley Bay. So perhaps this is part of the reason for the pictures being suppressed. --Westendgirl 07:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You too :) Strange...I'm not sure why Hartley Bay needs the help, rather than the widely dispersed families *shrug* --Kickstart70·Talk 19:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the funds are for gas for the rescue boat that they just got (the ship's rescue boat was donated to the community by BC Ferries) - eventually I think we might be able to use them, I just don't want to try and fair use rationale images that are clearly being used for charity. I'll try and find his email address and ask him if he would consider licensing under gfdl eventually -- Tawker 07:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the missing couple went back to the car deck to get their video or camera, and ran out of time. Or maybe they went for a pet. There are always pets on board,I would think. On a separate line of speculation, I read in some source that no longer would crew quarters be below the water line. I disagree. Perhaps the greater the seniority, the close to Davy Jone's locker they should rest their heads. Think of it as a subtle safety incentive. That's mean of me of course. But if it had been any chance of an equipment failure then accusatory fingers would have long ago been pointed that way. It was a great boat. Only fools could have sunk it. regford 21:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are other problems. The CBC photo gallery shows trees, water and mountains and the village of Hartley, which we can see to be uninhabited since no individual graces the photos. Odd. Also the captain of the QotN has no name, presumably having lost it in the sinking. The other officers also lost their names, like Peter Pan lost his shadow. Am I nuts, or is it unusual for such thing to be unGoogleable? (oops!! I finally found the captain, but will leave this as an exercise for the reader.) The TSB has a video of the ship underwater, the logo visible, but is that all that they could film? I certainly believed it was on the bottom, didn't need confirmation of that, although now I am having to wonder about alien abduction!!!!! Of course they couldn't find the two missing people: pray tell how you do that in a just-smashed boat with its interior highly unstable, do you just zoom around inside? Anyway, just to rant a little more: these inland channels are narrow and not windy unless the conditions at the moment are right at the right angle to funnel through, which can happen at any time of the year. It would not be a surprising condition to encounter; and the ferry does not own the channel- there are other boats of many sizes chugging up and down the coast and you detect them from the bridge by a combination of radar, eyesight, radio monitoring, GPS, etc. If indeed they weren't watching for the landforms, then it seems unlikely that they were watching for other boats, which is kind of important when you is a big faerie bopping at 19 knots and ain't got no parachute to cut momentum if a poky motorsailer pops up. Aw well, it does seem clear they knew the evacuation routines. Well,that's my rant, one good use for talk pages, and I better watch my mouth since I live in BC. regford 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exact coordinates[edit]

There are questions on the exact location of the grounding. Where do the coordinates provided in the article come from? They appear to just be from the route on the map, nearest Gil Island. However, there are no charted rocks anywhere in Wright Sound. 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The location is approximate - there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer as of yet. I've updated the link to reflect a map graphic published in the 23 March 2006 edition of the Vancouver Sun. --Ckatz 06:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two other ferries that travel the northern B.C. routes[edit]

The article should mention the "Queen of Chilliwack" and the "Queen of Prince Rupert" as the other two long-distance ferries on those routes. And that they have to somehow pick up the slack. The coastal and island communities depend on the ferries for everything from food to medicines to transport -- there are almost no roads there. [1] [2] [3]. -- Mareklug talk (who travelled on the Queen of Chilliwack with his rental car in summer of 1997 from Port Hardy to Bella Coola Magical Mystery Tour of Summer 1997) 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


The Queen of Prince Rupert will be coming out of refit early to handle the traffic, although that vessel is older and somewhat smaller than the Queen of the North. The Queen of Chilliwack is the other ship, but it typically serves the Central Coast of BC, not the North Coast as the QPR does and the Queen of the North did.

Previous incidents[edit]

I suggest the "Previous incidents" section describing the incident of a different ship on a different route is not really suitable for an article titled "Queen of the North". This topic is covered well under the "Accidents" section of the BC Ferries article, so a link to previous incidents might be more suitable. --Ds13 18:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article. CBC News in their main article included a quotation from the CEO about the two collisions, so I cited that. Stearnsbrian 02:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might need to change that, though. They're now saying that it's quite likely that the two missing passengers are dead. Don't know how confident he is in the fleet now.206.116.247.65 02:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BC Ferries president was on CBC radio this evening...BCF has requested 40 minutes of video from CBCTV after numbers of crew and passengers are claiming adamantly that they saw the couple on land and other boats after the crash. Still sounds like a decent possibility that something else happened to them. --Kickstart70·Talk 03:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to change this. Although two passengers seem to have disappeared, the CEO still said that nobody died. At best, we may need to qualify the quotation.Stearnsbrian 03:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software[edit]

Apparently new navigation software was in use. Has this same software been installed on the other ferries the company owns? Toby Douglass 14:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFIAK each class of ship has a unique system of control software, I'll see what I can find though the only way to find the info might be OR which makes it un wikipediable -- Tawker 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move page?[edit]

M/V al-Salam Boccaccio 98 has "M/V" in the page title. Should this too? --Grocer 17:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does M/V mean? There is a link to the ship prefix page, but this prefix isn't listed. Also, BC Ferries doesn't seem to use any prefixes for their ships, so maybe we should follow their lead? Stearnsbrian 20:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MV means Marine Vessel.Anarchist42 20:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard BC Ferries use Motor Vessel in their on board safety announcments though nothing on the website etc -- Tawker 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually M/V does not mean Marine Vessel. It means either Motor Vessel or Merchant Vessel. The first meaning is listed on the Ship prefix page linked to from the article's "M/V" link -- it just does not have a slash in the table where it is listed with all the other prefixes (though the introduction's text does say that a slash is optionally used). The second meaning (Merchant Vessel) is listed here: Glossary of U.S. Naval Abbreviations. Incidentally, both are listed in Wikipedia's disambiguation article MV. -- Mareklug talk 08:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CEO's comment[edit]

On June 30, 2005, the Queen of Oak Bay lost power while docking due to a missing cotter pin[8], crashing into a marina and 22 pleasure craft. Although this is the second accident within a year, the CEO of BC Ferries, before it was speculated that two passengers died, expressed confidence in the fleet, saying that "In both cases, nobody really got hurt badly and no one got killed"[9].

I added a comment to this paragraph noting that the CEO's comment is blinkered, to say the least, because a sinking ship is an inherently dangerous place where people are likely to be killed or injured and that to express confidence as the CEO has done is to miss the point.

This comment has been removed on the basis of POV.

I aver this isn't a POV comment because it's absolutely true. If say an Airbus crashed and was destroyed, but no one was hurt, and the CEO of Airbus S.A.S. said "I have confidence in the plane, because no one was hurt or killed", we'd all look at him as if he was mad - and rightly so.

What would be even more significant would be if this comment was made the day after the event before any investigation as to the cause of the crash - as has happened here!

Accordindly, the CEO's response is essentially to spin the issue. This is directly relevant to the event and as such bears comment.

Toby Douglass 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced David Hahn's quote with one from Gordon Campbell, in the hope of getting us around the POV/NPOV issue. The CEO's quote is too easily taken out of context, especially since it was made prior to the realization that there may still be passengers on board the ship.
As well, I don't think that an encyclopedia is a place to pass judgement on the CEO's statement (or anyone's, for that matter). If it becomes an issue with the public, then yes, reexamine the issue, but as of yet there is no controversy. --Ckatz 10:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need other people ("issue with the public") to notice whitewash for us to acknowledge it as whitewash? and is it not sadly the case that the public (which is partially to say, the press) are unlikely to display an interest if there had been no deaths or injury, thus themselves missing the point? I recall Ford some years ago attempting to whitewash safety concerns with some of their tyres; is this behaviour considered irrelevent to the subject? should we only mention there were safety issues and that the tyres were recalled? in fact, to do so would be to distort the event, since it naturally leads to reader to assume Ford behaved properly when this did not occur. There is a similar issue here; to report whitewash without comment is properly tantamount to misrepresentation of the event.
In fact, the new comment is just as bad as the original; The response by BC Ferries officials such as CEO David Hahn, has been that this was a catastrophic event, but that the emergency response by the crew is evidence of the safety of ferry travel. If an airplane crashes and the crew work well to evacuate the passengers, is this evidence of the safety of air travel? Hahn's statement is disingenuous. Toby Douglass 12:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"She", not "it"[edit]

For future reference, please keep in mind that when referring to a ship one should use the pronoun "she", not "it".

Is that modern usage? --Grocer 07:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not the poster, in my experience working as a dockmaster on the Pacific coast of Canada -- absolutely. Only the most inexperienced green boaters use 'it', it seems. --Kickstart70·Talk 15:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think named ships use "she" while unnamed ship use "it". As new (big one) ships are named and christiened (which has a religious background) so it uses special grammar rule. SYSS Mouse 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

I have a few more screencaps of the ship on the bottom and one more (worse in quality IMHO) shot of it sinking, I'm concerned we might be breaking fair use doctorine if we use multiple pictures. Any opinions? -- Tawker 02:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_ferry-photo20060328.html?ref=rss is a link that has a nice still photo of the one. -- Tawker 05:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy: Transportation Safety Board of Canada - does Canada copyright the works of government bodies? --Grocer 19:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it's likely that CBC has altered the image for website copy, so it can't be used in this context. --Kickstart70·Talk 19:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, I've posted a link to the TSB video in the links section. Why can't the TSB make their website easier to search!! -- Tawker 08:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kato[edit]

Alex Kato definitely didn't build the Queen of the North what kind of idiot put that in? Where is Ramadani Island?

Sex?[edit]

I noticed that rumours spread of sex on the bridge of the "Queen of the North" at the time of the sinking. Granted, this may be stupid gossip spread about by the tabloids back in 2007, but was there any substance to those rumours? 198.151.130.69 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should at least refer to the rumours as they are certainly relevant to the incident. There doesn't seem to be any refutation of this being a possible cause for 2 people being totally unaware of the turn being missed - especially since this was in a narrow passage with precise turns required.Tony (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rescue by Gitga'ata/Harley Bay people[edit]

This section reads as though the vessels dispatched were the ones rescuing the passenger, more than the people of Harley Bay who who were the rescuers; even though they're mentioned the emphasis here is on the military eqpt dispatched....none arrived on teh scene until long after everyone was rescued and in Hartley Bay:

"A large number of small fishing and recreational vessels from Hartley Bay were the first on the scene to answer the distress call, arriving in a fleet of small watercraft in the dead of night to pick up survivors. Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Victoria tasked Canadian Coast Guard vessels CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier, CCGC Point Henry, CCGS W.E. Ricker, CCGC Kitimat II and the CCGS Vector, along with 2 CH-149 Cormorant helicopters and 1 CC-115 Buffalo aircraft from the 442 Transport and Rescue Squadron at CFB Comox to the scene of the sinking."

It should state on the end of that when all those dispatched got there; the people of Hartley Bay deserve more credit here.....I remember also a news reporter asking one of the Hartley Bay women, in the gym converted into a shelter, "what did you do for them?" and the woman replied, kind of stunned as if it were common sense and how could anyone not get what she softly replied "we comforted them".....that can't go in the article, but for a small, impoverished community to set off in rough water in the middle of the night and take in people when they could barely afford to feed themselves was a big part of this story.Skookum1 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

suggesting sat-map instead of RD location map[edit]

the location map for Hartley Bay really isn't illustrative of what the area is like; a satellite map of the local area of the coast would be more useful/illustrative....depending on scale could show the specific point on Gil Island where the sinking happened, and the location of Hartley Bay as well. I'll see who i can find to make and license a sat map, if someone here is capable of that please do.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on MV Queen of the North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MV Queen of the North. 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) 02:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MV_Queen_of_the_North&oldid=1209281621"