Talk:Costa Concordia disaster/Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because to do so would be ridiculous. (Zach, America) --68.231.181.27 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted because, due to the scale of the disaster and the inevitable inquests and investigations that will follow, this should be made separate to the page on the boat itself. As present, I have simply copied and pasted the text from the Costa Concordia page and added some of my own too, but it's important to note that this is a far more suitable place to discuss the theorems, evidence, and details of the January 13 2012 disaster, rather than the ship's own Wikipedia entry. I expect further details will be added as they become known by Wikipedians.

In addition to this, by putting a 'Main Article' link to this disaster page on the ship's own Wikipedia page, I hope readers will be drawn to edit this page. --Andrewburdett (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should be a redirect to the relevant section on the main article page. It's usually only split off from the main page when that page gets too long. As it is, the main page is getting edited, but this page is not. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because this article is a work in progress and is being fixed) --24.160.70.59 (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because that's the way it's meant to be written.

• (As I nominated for CSD)
  
• No consensus has been obtained to merge details from Costa Concordia to a new page so this article simply duplicates information already available in the main article (which is not large, even with full details of the wreck).
  
• Two articles, one a duplicate, relating to a current event causes un-needed confusion to readers and un-necessary burden on experienced editors trying to maintain a coherent, bullshit-free article (always a challenge with a current event).
  ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because a redirect is NOT a reason for speedy deleteion thats the alternative. Although the name has to change and the disaster has to be lower case.--Lihaas (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because although this article was obviously hastily prepared and ins not up to the quality we know from Wikipedia, we shouldn't forget the Costa Concordia capsized not even 24 hours ago. This is a developing event, and relevant information is varied and questionable, as it is with all developing stories. This is a worth-while article, and it deserves a bit more than a subheading on the Costa Concordia main page.24.15.168.162 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Much as I detest aggressive deletion activities, the fact is that neither the Lusitania sinking nor the Andrea Doria disaster have separate articles, but are integrated with their "ship" articles. If those don't rate separate articles, it's hard to see how this does. I can see it either way, but there does appear to be an established standard in place already.Rep07 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I take your point, it is a current event so the article is warranted. Once the story goes stale, the information can be integrated into the ship's main article and this one replaced by an appropriate redirect. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Straightforward map

"Map of the Area Where the Italian Cruise Run Aground" from The New York Times. Goodvac (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on that chart appears shallow enough to ground an 8.5 meter draught. We still need to know where it hit what it hit before we can add any substantial map information. Selery (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

More recent sources seem to indicate that only 3 are known to have been killed. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/15/italy-ship-idUSL6E8CF01120120115 http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/?hpt=hp_t1 96.250.242.187 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• "Search Is On for Survivors From Italian Cruise Ship That Ran Aground"
• "Nations hunt for info on Italy cruise accident"
• "Captain arrested amid growing anger after Italian cruise ship runs aground"
• "Cruise Ship Capsizes Off Italy, at Least 3 Dead"
• "As Divers Search Cruise Ship, Reason for Crash Is Unclear"
• "Foundering of Italian cruise ship raises safety worries"
• "Captain who grounded Italian ship detained after 3 die; 2 rescued?"

Goodvac (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Either delete it or merge it.

...with the main Costa Concordia article. There's your two options. Its stupid to have more than one article. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You are welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion if you haven't already done so. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

6 dead, 42 injured, 2 rescued aboard

• "At least six people were killed" CNN per ANSA
• "Some 42 are reported injured, two of them seriously." IBT
• "Late on Saturday, two people were found alive trapped several decks below" BBC

Selery (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

At this time, only 3 confirmed dead. 36 still missing (Corriere.it).--Grifomaniacs (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that only confirmed deaths should be stated. The total can alway be changed as new information is reported by reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparing to the Titanic??

Really??

I think 1,507 people died on the R.M.S. Titanic, where here as of right now only 6 have been confirmed to have died. This is really more on par with the 1972 film The Poseidon Adventure. The six death while tragic, is nowhere near on par with the 1,507 from Titanic. This probably will go down as a Miracle on the sea. As this could have, and probably should have been much worse. It is also important to note that there are many similarities with the sinking of the Titanic's younger sister ship H.M.H.S. Britannic.--Subman758 (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Every ship is compared to Titanic now, no matter what the circumstances. :P --76.115.67.114 (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As at mid-day on 15 January, the confined death toll remains at 3, not at 6 or 8. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Passenger nationalities

Whilst this is not unique to this particular disaster, why is such an inane classification of that of passengers' nationalities unnecessarily used to break down the number of passengers on board? Is this a Wikipedia policy? I doubt it, but it seems to be a trend on the site.

How many people have blonde hair? How many enjoy playing croquet? How many love the smell of napalm in the morning? These categorizations are all as inconsequential and as trivial as the passengers' nationalities, yet this obtuse cataloguing stands as an extremely cynical and apathetic surplus when considering human life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.152.32 (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"largest passenger ship ever to sink"

Regarding this edit:

1. The ship hasn't sunk.
2. This article is actually from www.expertcruiser.com, which is of dubious reliability.
3. This is an unreliable forum post from 2002. Although the information therein may be found elsewhere, it would be synthesis to compare those tonnage values with that of Costa Concordia.

Until a reliable source states that the ship has sunk and "largest passenger ship to sink" is clearly articulated there, I don't believe this should be in the article. Goodvac (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• The ship is on the bottom, therefore it has indeed sunk. Just because parts of it are above water doesn't mean it hasn't sunk. The Battleships at Pearl Harbor were not fully submerged, would you say those ships did not sink??--Subman758 (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • High quality reliable sources are not using the term. Goodvac (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Please answer the question. Would you say the Battleships at Pearl Harbor did not sink? I don't think there is a more high quality source then a photo, and thousands of photos show, that it is sitting on the bottom.--Subman758 (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The question is immaterial to this discussion.
        The photo does not show it sitting on the bottom; even if it did, one cannot derive the term "sunk" from the photo. Wikipedia hinges upon reliable sources for content. Using original research to come to a conclusion that reliable sources do not state is unacceptable. Goodvac (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Common sense does not require a source ;) JonEastham (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
          • This appears to be a duplication of the debate on the "other" relevant page, here, with some posters insisting on not using the term sunk or wreck. My view is that as the ship is on the bottom and has no floatation ability, it is sunk. Anyway, IMO this highlights that the pages need to be merged or rationalised in some way, so as to avoid duplication. Fig (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it fair to say it's the largest passenger ship to wreck per WP:CALC based on e.g. List of shipwrecks? Selery (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wreck maybe but sunk no because it hasnt./ and probs cant undless it drifts further ut(Lihaas (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)).

Sunk... not sunk... the correct term is "has run aground" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.73.165 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd consider it sunk when it is resting on the bottom and would be unable to float, were the water level raised (or if she were towed to deeper water).Wzrd1 (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this, there is still no source for this assertion. It is synthesis to use unrelated sources to connect to Costa Concordia. Goodvac (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is a larger passenger shipwreck or that WP:CALC doesn't apply to the "greater than" operation over List of shipwrecks? Selery (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with "largest wreck" but the source has to go—(1) it's unreliable (2) it doesn't say "largest wreck". Any objections if I replace it with a source that lists the largest shipwrecks? Goodvac (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all! I've asked at WP:RDM#Is the Costa Concordia the largest passenger ship ever to sink? and they don't have anything better. Selery (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see this until now. I'll try to do some research to find a reliable source. Goodvac (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Updates: 3 rescued, 17 missing, 4 miles off course

• Reuters: "A South Korean honeymoon couple and an injured crewmember were plucked from a capsized Italian liner on Sunday, more than a day after it was wrecked, as rescue workers struggled to find any others still trapped on board."
• News Tribune: "Tuscany's regional president Enrico Rossi said that there were now six crew members and 11 passengers who haven't been located"
• Sky News: "the £372m cruise ship was sailing around four miles off course before it struck rocks"
• Daily Mail: Captain was drinking at the bar; name of First Mate.
• Lifeboat amateur video. Selery (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

15 now apparently, 2 found dead elderly people in the submerged restaurant.must have been harrowing knowing they cant get out quick and theyd be cruched (?) by upturned furniture.(Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)).

The BBC has a map at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16584591 showing the course followed, compared to a previous voyage, there is a significant difference in course. As for "harrowing", the couple may well have been injured or killed when the ship initially heeled over. I'll only add a personal hope that the oil can be recovered from the vessel with no leakage into the environment.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

time of initial contact with a reef

One thing I have been trying to find for over an hour is the time at which the initial impact occured. The article says the webcam stopped working at 20:31 GMT, but at that time the ship was almost already at its current resting place. The time of impact can be compared with the various GPS data that can be found on the net and will tell us where the ship was when it hit a rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.73.165 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Per http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4pVWYeplU&t=15s it would have had to be closer to 20:45 GMT. Perhaps the webcam only updates every 15 or 30 minutes to save bandwidth? We can check the other ships' webcams. Selery (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So it seems they really tried to pass between the small island and giglio island, and touched a rock doing so. I wonder if the tide was a factor 217.162.73.165 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

AIS information collected at the time of the accident shows the ships course, speed, location can be viewed at the www.marinetraffic.com website: http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?oldmmsi=247158500&zoom=10&olddate=1/13/2012%209:02:00%20PM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.151.21 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

the info on marinetraffic.com has a big data hole between 20:30 and 21:00! 217.162.73.165 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Gap in the Automatic Identification System data on the Martine Traffic website is between 20:37 and 20:53 - During these 16 minutes the ship travel approximately 2.5 nm (direct line between AIS data points) and dropped from 15.3knots to 2.9knots and changed heading from 280deg to 351deg. What is the Turning circle radius of a Concordia class?

• Yes, fairly useless time gap re AIS positions. The turning radius certainly depends on her speed at the time, and whether she has any bow thrusters or prop-wash directors. The best indication of time of hit will be found in the black box, and perhaps confirmed when someone photographs the big scrap on the remaining part of the reef.SteveO1951 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

MarineTraffic.com is a University operation that collects data on 37,000 ships from 850 volunteered shoreside recievers. Storing that much information at 10-20 minute intervals for more than a few day’s worth of ship movements is a lot of data. PhaseBreak (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wording of image caption

Correct me if I'm wrong, but below the image of the gash as Concordia rests, the caption says "The Costa Concordia on her port side showing a rock embedded in her damaged hull.". Is the vessel not on her starboard side here, showing the port side? 108.25.135.226 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact later in the article, the phrase "on her starboard side" is used. I'll make the change now, will say "... on her starboard side showing a rock embedded in the port side of her damaged hull." If anyone sees a better way to word that, feel free. 108.25.135.226 (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your observation and nautical terminology are entirely correct.SteveO1951 (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity

I’m sitting here watching Wikipedia’s reputation for objectivity collapse in a tizzy.

1. “off usual route” One does not need a citation to know that while road traffic between main points usually runs on the biggest roads, tour busses usually run via scenic outlooks along the way. The local Mayor as well as cited Town Councilor Antonio Belardo confirmed that this happened repeatedly for this ship and location. So the ship was on its own usual route. This is common in the cruise industry, circling Stromboli volcano is a nearby example.

2. “came too close” 300m is not too close for deliberate maneuvering of a 300m ship, no more than 1m is too close for a 15m tour bus to pass an object at road speeds.

3. “uncharted rock” If a tour bus drove through a scenic overlook every week the tires would track slightly differently each time. The trip could be done many times without incident. That doesn’t change the fact however that one trip the tires could track over a soft spot hidden under the pavement and cause the bus to hit and break through a guard rail. At the extreme a thrown passenger could be killed. Is the driver reckless in this case or is the hidden hazard just misfortune? I think Concordia was simply closely missing the rock at Giglio on the previous trips and no one ever knew it. A US submarine similarly ran head on into an uncharted undersea rock a few years ago. The serious nature of that incident didn’t change the fact that good diligence can still be overpowered by random misfortune.

The press is amateurishly smearing the captain here, Wikipedia’s objectivity should be identifying their remarks as such. Likewise arresting someone first and asking questions later is routine procedure in many countries.

4. “actual route” From the AIS video someone posted I note that Concordia stayed along the mainland coast from Civitavecchia and only crossed to Giglio after another northbound ship passed, it probably always crossed traffic in such a manner. It then headed towards the island and as it neared La Scole rocks it started a swing north to pass by the port. When it hit the uncharted rock off La Scole its motion slowed and it stopped just past the port. It then turned back and was beached against the rocks. This avoided the risk of sinking and left the ship as close to help as possible. Draw the ship's length on Google Earth and you’ll see that it couldn’t beach any closer to the harbour without disabling the port, which would be needed for mainland help.

I can also see here why discovering the seriousness of the incident and trying to mitigate it was more important than calling the coast guard in the first 15-25 minutes. PhaseBreak (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. 2: we have to wait on reading confirmation of this by witnesses, but if the ship passed, as I suspect, between Giglio Island and le Scole rocks, this leaves a distance of about 10 meters on each side of the ship and the rocks... yes, 10 meters, for a ship that's 300m in length. the 300m distance from the shore are a joke IMO. 217.162.73.165 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
2. 3: The transcription of the witness’s location must be weak. That spot would be too shallow and it’s too narrow for passing through at cruising speed. PhaseBreak (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The AIS video doesn't have the necessary time granularity to resolve these questions, but I think we're in agreement with the reliable sources. What specific edits are you proposing? Be bold and make them, and include sources for your insertions. Selery (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

1. 1: Thanks but I didn’t offer to write it more soundly, my reaction was directed at the posting of the miscellaneous edits already made, without them first having adequate soundness. PhaseBreak (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the US congress served the surviving crew of the HMS Titanic, preventing departure of the crew from US jurisdiction. So, there is historic basis for an arrest. As for maneuvering room you claim, there is a substantial difference between a bus and a ship, ships can be pushed laterally by water currents and waves, so that 1 meter notion is out the window. The ship appears to have come hard about, which shifted the center of gravity, due to the water below decks, that caused her to heel over and sink to the shallow bottom. A either a piece of good fortune or very good emergency planning on the part of the captain in securing the safety of the passengers and crew. The inquest will determine the facts of the matter, not speculation. That said, ships employ a radio operator, the radio operator is not to depart from the radio shack in a time of emergency, so a mayday call WOULD have been appropriate. Even money, the captain wished to avoid a mayday call, thinking he could make port and recover the vessel, not realizing how significant the damage truly was, which is easy enough to happen during an emergency on a large vessel.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

-Just because Congress detained the Titanic crew doesn’t mean the grandstanding Senator was right to do so. Check out whose jurisdiction the incident was first.

-A ship won’t be pushed 300m by waves in a moment but hydroplaning could make a bus skid 1m in a second. I’d rather stick with connecting the principles than the details of the examples.

-Regarding the turnabout, some previous posters were confused about the motions. I was just pointing out a simple way to connect the info at hand and suggesting that there are other ways to interpret the motives. My motive was to calm the issue.

-Speculation, yes I think I have illustrated that the there are other interpretations possible and therefore the interpretations previously posted should have been left out as speculation.

-Making port -I’ve been on two passenger ship that have grounded. In the first case it continued and went all the way to the next turnaround before fixing the damage. In the second it just went on its way.

-Maydays are for when he knows there is an emergency not for when he’s trying to find out. The overreaction and delays of officialdom for those cases that turn out to be nothing would be on his mind too. When you see smoke behind a child filled house do you call the fire department before or after looking to see if it’s just a barbeque?

-Ships have not had radio operators for several years. PhaseBreak (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia, by design, is supposed to rely on sources deemed reliable. That's the crux of WP:V. Give it time, and more accurate details will emerge, from later news sources, academic journals, and from the official accident reports. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, PhaseBreak. Everyone understands that this is not a history article, yet, but rather is an inexorable progression, changing hourly, toward that end. Not every uncertainty is "speculation" as you would have it. And your earliest post argued against phrases that were not in the article, but only in the Talk. Consider that Columbus insisted always that he reached Asia, though others insisted he had not. Shall be not report that Columbus reached "some" island and give its approximate position? Even today, scholars disagree at to what island Columbus first reached. Shall we not have a WP article about his landing point? I think we should. As a maturing article, WP is doing a good job of weeding out sentences that seem to have been discredited and of carefully presenting the facts, and statements of witnesses (the captain) and other key persons as to the impact point (there are only two competing views and they do not differ by much as to the position (be it le Scole itself or some submerged "uncharted" rock nearby). As the facts and positions become more certain, the article will continue to be a valuable resource to the public as a summary for what is "known", including significant disagreements, about this event.SteveO1951 (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think my thrust all along has been that some editors didn’t stop with reporting the likes of Columbus’s arrival, they pushed on with interpretations of his island that went way beyond objective facts. My concern particularly was with Wikpedia fanning public prejudice via unfounded rumors, more so while the issue is prominent. For example 99 years later the public still believes the initial reaction that RMS Titanic’s Capt. Smith was speeding when in fact his ship was incapable of running at more than 3/4’s the speed his competitor used the same week. Somewhat similarly there is an article here about the trial of a Samuel Insull that criticized his financial dealings and the article cites his biography to endorse the trial. I’ve read the biography, it asserts the opposite. These flaws arise faster than they can be corrected, I’m only an occasional volunteer here, I just wanted to slow this article down. PhaseBreak (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but let's together stop drawing parallels and get to what changes to the text are you actually proposing? Where, precisely, does the article, as now written, have the effect of "fanning public prejudice via unfounded rumors"? If it did so, but no longer does, then that is because concerned editors are constantly reviewing changes and "policing" them, as the warning states at the top of this "current events" article. If you want a parallel, WP is like the Occupy movement in that anyone can participate and change the text. Concerned, responsible persons like you, and others, just need to catch any inappropriate text and then ask for better cites, tweak the text, move it or just delete it or substitute for it, or add any responsible counter-view. If you are not comfortable with making changes, then you can suggest a change in Talk. You can even enter correctly formatting warnings that will show in the article as "disputed" or "citation needed" at appropriate places in the article. We will help you if you will make fairly specific (and concise as you can, please) suggestions. Thanks again, and I mean that.SteveO1951 (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It was reported in The Sun (of dubious reliability as a source) that the correct route was to pass south of the island, then turn to starboard, passing to the west of the island. If this is the case, I would expect it to be reported in other, more reliable, sources. Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Mjroots. I saw that, too, but by now most news reports are citing each other and that particular bit was not given a real source by the news report. In any case, please move any discussion of the route to the "Route" section, not here in "Objectivity".SteveO1951 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to acknowledge that with the latest information the case against the Captain is today shifting from speculation to firmer ground. I don’t know which pieces are truthful enough to go into the record at this time, they all seem to have evidentiary weaknesses about them because they are reporter’s interpretations of people and observations they have no expertise about. Even the Company says he was off the official route and then say separately that he was authorized to deviate from it. But in time we will get a sound story from the official inquiry. My thanks to those who are meanwhile trying to keep the article fitted together while its pieces keep changing. PhaseBreak (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

History circa 95 years after?

A comparison may be notable with the WWI austro-hungarian battleship "SMS Szent István" which rolled after being hit by torpedos from italian speedboats during a night-time raid in the Adriatic. 82.131.131.62 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't see the similarities with Szent István except that they were both in Italy, and they both listed.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

One is a cruise ship that hit a rock during peacetime. One is a gunship that was torpedoed during wartime, like so many other gunships in so many other wars. I really don't see your point. If they had both occurred off the coast of Giglio, that would be kind of interesting, but the Szent István went down in the Adriatic, well off the east coast of Italy, so it's not even the same sea as the Concordia. Moncrief (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Official statements and updates

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

Lede

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

Water depth at final resting place

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

Where can one see those nautical charts? Is there an online source? More to the point, are there public domain or otherwise freely licensed charts showing the location which would tend to confirm or deny the claim that the rock was unmarked? Or is it not as simple as that? I ask here merely as an interested reader; my knowledge of Italian nautical charts is so close to zero that I have no real opinions on whether or what we might do with one if we had one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

At present we have [1] marked 6 fathoms (11 meters) at the capsize final destination but 11 fathoms with two rocks between Isole le Scole in white (non-navigable), and [2] in which [3] seems to have a quite different profile (and is missing a rock) compared to the former. For reference, the ship had a 8.5 meter draught. Selery (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Chart obtained from a forum I'm a member of. Note obstr[uction] just to south east of Isole le Scola. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I cant read that. Could you consider uploading a crop to http://imgur.com or the like? Selery (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe you need to be a member. I'd rather not upload a crop for reasons of copyright. You should be able to view this from the BBC News website. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Chart from La Repubblica. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nautical chart from this blog Teofilo talk 14:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

I begin to believe the captain's version. IF there was a power failure which caused the interruption of AIS signals between 20:37 and 20:53, he certainly wouldn't have tried to pass through the needlehole with an electric system he couldn't rely on. After regaining power and control over the ship, they would most probably have set a course to resume their route. The damage on the hull seems to suggest the ship was turning right or drifting left when it happened, which is also congruent with a hard right turn to avoid the island. 217.162.73.165 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

meh - something doesn't add up. at 20:53, the ship was already well past Giglio Porto. IF it hit something at at 20:58, the impact took place north of Giglio Porto. *scratchhead* 217.162.73.165 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Would it be acceptable to replace "Initial collision" with "Damage" to be true to the source? I did that. Selery (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not use question marks like on this map ? Teofilo talk 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Süddeutsche Zeitung not a reliable source? The second map is attributed to marinetraffic.com, where they merely have the low resolution AIS data. It is no different than the AIS video. Selery (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think what f.SteveO1951 said above in "decent timeline" 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC) : AFP is not, of course, a primary source and it does not state the basis for the timeline applies to Sueddeutsche Zeitung too. Usually AFP and Suedeutsche are reliable sources, but when they merely speculate, we should just take their ideas as speculations. Teofilo talk 20:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We have no way to know whether it's speculation, but we are supposed to prefer secondary sources such as news outlets to primary sources per WP:PSTS. Also, there appears to be corroboration on [4]. Selery (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Der Spiegel, usually a reliable source, has a quite different trajectory map Teofilo talk 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing shallower than 50 fathoms on the charts for that course. Selery (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Cause

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

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

Captain "offered" to retrieve voyage data recorder

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

An aside: are you proficient in Italian? Would you be able to check if "On 15 January La Repubblica reported that the captain did not mention any mechanical problems but had stated that they were 300 metres (330 yd) from the rocks (i.e., about the length of the vessel) and that they hit a rock that was not marked on nautical charts. This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) south of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour. This turn shifted the centre of gravity to the starboard side of the ship, and it listed over to that side initially by about 20°, finally coming to rest in about 25 fathoms (150 ft; 46 m) of water at an angle of heel of about 80°" is verified by La Repubblica's "'La nave ha urtato uno scoglio' Il comandante: 'Non era sulla carta'"? There are concerns expressed about this at #le Scole. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm only Google Translate-proficient, sorry. Selery (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Goodvac (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We did get a response from an Italian-speaking editor who confirmed that the footnoted article by le Reubblica does not support the distances and tracks for the paragraph in which the footnote appears.SteveO1951 (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

More info not reported by other sources. Same as above—may cause BLP violations, so we should wait for better sources. Goodvac (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This too. [facepalm] Selery (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Saluting former captain ?

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

Corriere.tv was the source of the 'previous pass' video - Aug 2011 - for a local festival. Perhaps the 'current' captain was not the captain then ? This has now been picked-up by the BBC. They also show 'police divers photographing evidence at the rock she struck' ('looking for evidence' might be more NPOV, BBC!) - looks roughly compatible with #le Scole discussion above. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

repubblica.it has the letters in the original Italian, which Google understands better !

It seems the island was saluted by Concordia twice - in August and in 2008, both by a previous captain who had a friend on the island.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

quotidiano.net says the friend on the island is "storico comandante della Costa Crociere" which Google translates as 'historical commander of Costa Cruises' ! So they sometimes just said 'Hi' in passing ! Could be embarrassing... RS? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The friend's name matches a former Police Chief and Senate member (Nato Admiral, even!) - could be a political smear campaign ? Seems that article occurs in several places I'm not familiar with ... --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

dailymail.co.uk is digging deeper into what happened. Major UK paper - not impartial, reliability occasionally suspect !

lavika.it counters with a message from a senior Costa Crew Member (GSM=Guest Service Manager) who says "Non è vero che il Comandante è sceso per primo" - unfortunately Google gives the opposite translation 'It is true that the captain fell for the first' ! Why? ('Non è vero' = 'It is not true' correctly !)

I'm beginning to suspect the Captain had a doppel-ganger aboard - he abandoned ship early + late ; he was on the bridge + dining with beatiful women simultaneously !

It does emphasise we shouldn't rely on reported eye-witness statements - that old 'Primary Sources' thing. Or Google Translate. Especially WP:BLP, not to mention sub-judice.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

the article of the Daily Mail referenced above is full of bull, and mostly sensationalist. How relevant is it that the captain was with a beautiful woman in the dining room or how much his apartment costs? Such articles are a shame and worthy of the gutter press. The Daily Mail gets both the timeline wrong as well as the place where the impact occured. The "normal route" reported by the Daily Mail is wrong too. 217.162.73.165 (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Higher resolution Isole le Scole charts

Check this out: Go to http://www.charts.noaa.gov/NGAViewer/53135.shtml and zoom all the way in on le Scole, and look at how far East the furthest reef and blue unnavigable area extends. At least the length of the outcropping to the furthest reef, right? Then look at [5], [6], and [7] which all show a different but much smaller extent. Wow. Compare to Google Maps satellite picture. Selery (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Any idea what the red things south of the islets are ? And in the innermost channel ?

[8] What is the dotted circle south of the red push-pin - a marker-buoy ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Rescue efforts halted due to shifting

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

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

"Could not speak Italian or English"

From the article: "Some crew members were Italians but according to one passenger, most were Indians, Filipinos and Sri Lankans, many of whom could not speak Italian or English.[9]"

Based on an [Italian] passenger's testimony, apparently. Dubious because there are far more English speakers in Sri Lanka/India and the Philippines, than there are in Italy. Previous reviews of her sister ships Costa Romantica and Costa Pacifica, specifically state that while Italian was the language in signs and announcements of the ship and the Italian crewmembers, Filipino crewmembers spoke English.

I've removed it per this BBC article in which though a passenger complains that the crew did not speak English amongst themselves (it's a friggin' Italian ship), they did speak English.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. It seems incredibly unlikely that crew members "could not speak English" full stop. From my experience on an international cruise (admittedly not Costa, but one with very international clientele and crews), all crew members speak English to at least a mildly proficient degree. It's a prerequisite of employment, in fact. The thought that Filipino or Indian people, who must have English proficiency for all sorts of international jobs, would be hired by an international cruise liner operating in Europe speaking only, say, Hindi or Tagalog, is laughable and absurd. I imagine in a panicked situation, it appeared as though their English skills were lacking in precision, but I believe that "could not speak English" must be wrong without further qualifiers. Moncrief (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The claim that they did not speak Italian well (or at all) is probably true though.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt that. At any rate, I hope a better quote can be found to convey this idea. Moncrief (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Investigation - which agency?

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

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

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

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

• • If it is in the 12 mile limit to shore, then that country would be involved (i.e. Italy). Otherwise it would be the country whose flag is flown. Under no circumstances will the NTSB be investigating this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaldarade (talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Details about what's going to happen with the wreck

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

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

  See also: wp:founder. Alarbus (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • You're right. No objection now. You notice that I didn't remove "Sinking of the Costa Concordia" or "partially sank" from the article? I found a reliable source also. Take care, sir. Goodvac (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Effect on company shares

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

Yes, in my opinion.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a dual listed company, the NYSE opens in 20 minutes, I'm interested to see what happens there too. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

NYSE opens tomorow, so we can add that the. but for now we can add the current plunge(Lihaas (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)).

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

Me too, totally forgot about MLK day. Anyway, the NYSE code is CCL for Carnival Corporation. We'll see tomorrow. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No its not worth mentioning. By mentioning it you ascribe any change in price to the incident in question. There are any number of factors that could affect the stock price. We should try not to sound like CNBC and say we know what people were thinking when they bought or sold shares. I sold shares in a great company so I could buy a house. Hated doing it. The media said the price went down because the CFO quit that night. It was really because I had to buy a house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaldarade (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Under our verifiability policy we rely on what published sources say, and not what's actually the truth. That means that, in your scenario, we would have to go with what the media says, unless newer articles say otherwise and/or the media publishes a retraction. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2012

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

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

Influence

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

Maybe "Impact" or "Effects"? Selery (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Broader Impact on Cruise Industry". The term "Impact" certainly has other connotations in this event [smile]SteveO1951 (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

le Scole

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

• Details from an apparently reliable Turkish news source: http://www.seanews.com.tr/article/ACCIDENTS/74284/Costa-Concordia-accident-navigational-error [update: this chart disagrees, implying the collision occurred on the easternmost rock if the captain's distance statement is correct. Selery (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)]

• AIS navigational log video. Selery (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Thanks to those who know wiki standards and processes better than I. My expertise is in nautical charts and technical writing. It was I who first reported in "talk" as being in error the description of the ship's course stating that the reef was "north" of the harbour, I see that that "north" has now been changed to "south", as I suggested it ought. So, now that article reads "This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) south of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio." OK, that's good but, as the la Repubblica chart (the "carte nautiche" referred to in this discussion) shows, THE sole reef that is that distance SOUTH of the harbour is indeed "la scole". Therefore, the article necessarily implies that the reef is la scole; so why then do we repress the carte nautiche that clearly shows the la scole reef???? I had inserted footnotes to the la Repubblica article, and the carte nautiche, and the confirming Wall Street Journal "translation", but these have all been removed. That is far too timid an action and ought be reversed. That chart is highly important, especially at this time of high interest in the facts of the ship's course. The title of the la Repubblica chart says "le_scole", which is the group of rocks named on the nautical chart. That needs no translation into English. I take the WSJ translation to be a credible neutral public source so I'm not at all sure that it's a better course (no pun intended) to substitute a call for some one, self-accredited as Italian speaking, editor to subjectively verify. I prefer that, for now, the la Repubblica chart and the WSJ article "translation" be reinserted.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who have now inserted a chart showing le scole as the initial impact point.SteveO1951 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC World Service is reporting that the ship's black box has been recovered.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now inserted into the article "Costa Cruises confirmed that the course taken was "not a defined route for passing Giglio." I had inserted this yesterday but it was removed, although not removed was my parallel insertion of the statement of the "local official" re intentional deviation from normal course. Both statements are from the same Wall Street Journal article. The admission by the ship's operator is certainly important and is the most credible source possible on that point. Could anyone please discuss/explain before again removing the statement by Costa Cruises?SteveO1951 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Le Scole needlehole

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

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

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

I still dispute that the text I questioned above has been adequately cited. "Someone" took out my "citation needed" entries without discussing it here OR providing actual supporting links to the alleged facts (though my Italian skills ended in 8th grade). For example, the Orange County Register article cited certainly has nothing about the reef being 800 meters south of the port, or about the ship going another 1000 meters before turning around, etc. SHOW ME THE MONEY someone, please. This is important. Unless we hear from someone who can prove the basis, then I will take it out until we do.SteveO1951 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What was unclear about my edit? The text is sourced to La Repubblica's "'La nave ha urtato uno scoglio' Il comandante: 'Non era sulla carta'", and was originally added by Rich0908 (talk · contribs) in this edit. I've asked him to clarify where his additions came from. Goodvac (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Goodvac. We can work this out. I see that your edits were to the ending words of the sentences for which I had inserted "citation needed". I did not intend my request to be specific to those words but rather to apply to all of the alleged facts in the entire sentence(s). The paragraph has, if you parse the compound sentences, 9 full statements of fact before the first footnote. The original footnote simply said "Reuters News", and though I searched Reuters as well as I could, I found no support so I discussed that and entered "citation needed"s to ask for actual links. In response the footnote did drop the "Reuters" source and substituted Repubblica and OCRegister. I appreciated that but, again checking the links and trying to find specific text in the links to each of the 9 statements to which the links are given as support, I could not find any specific support. The Repubblica article is general and, for example, mentions "150 meters", and 70 and even (I recall) 105, but certainly I could find no reference therein to "800 meters" or 1000, or references to North or South. My Italian language training ended 40 years ago so I cannot "say" that the cite is wrong but this is the problem we get when a footnote is given at the end of 9 substantive statements of "fact", and that citation is in a language other that that of the Article. We certainly need to vet that citation and think about how to make it more clear to the reader. I just want (1) a clear demonstration here in Talk, for each of the 9 clauses, of the specific news text that supports it, and (2) a discussion of whether the "string cite" (which means placing two or more footnote citations together to support "en masse" a bunch of previous statements) ought not be better placed among the statements. That said, I also read the O C Register article cited and found that it is just a general article and does not support ANY of the 9 statements to which I assume (that's the problem with string cites) it is intended to apply. So, I came back to Talk to discusss that and ask again for better citations practice and ANY supporting credible source. Please know that I an not "playing gottcha" or making this personal. I appreciate everyone's efforts and none of us has all the skill in WP that we would like. You in particular have been very helpful re WP practice in ways that I am not competent to have done myself.SteveO1951 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Goodvac and Rich0908, the edit cite that Goodvac specified above to Rich0908 is not an edit of the text about which we are concerned here. To be clear, we are trying to find, and to properly express, valid support for each and every one of the elements of the article's text before the first footnote, which text is: "On 15 January La Repubblica reported that the captain did not mention any mechanical problems but had stated that they were 300 metres (330 yd) from the rocks (i.e., about the length of the vessel) and that they hit a rock that was not marked on nautical charts. This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) south of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour. This turn shifted the centre of gravity to the starboard side of the ship, and it listed over to that side initially by about 20°, finally coming to rest in about 25 fathoms (150 ft; 46 m) of water at an angle of heel of about 80°" Why is this important, rather than just an exercise? Because we have no direct proof (a photo of damaged reef) that le Scole was the impact point; editors such as PhaseBreak (talk · contribs) have discussed that the vessel's track, so far as can be determined, may well have been more westerly than northerly just prior to impact. Therefore, we cannot yet assume le Scole to the exclusion of some point on the main part of the island a bit North of le Scole (or even the "uncharted rock"). So credible statements of the distance between the impact reef and the harbour entrance would be a highly important point of fact. On the other hand, we must assure that the 800 meter reference is not merely an inference, or self-measurement, by a well-meaning WP editor.SteveO1951 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The mentioned 14 January La Reppublica article does not provide any other measurement than the public prosecutor, Francesco Verusio, saying "the ship was just 150 m away from the coast". Other distances or measurements should be referenced by other sources or deleted. Teofilo talk 01:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Teofilo. Your participation is quite valuable in this matter.SteveO1951 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Rich0908 has clarified where he got the information. Goodvac (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Rich0908 for both his work and his clarification, and Goodvac for coordinating. I'm not defensive here, at least I don't mean to be. I, as did Rich0908, had run to my charts and personal instruments and reached the same self-determined thinking that Rich0908 did, so we're all friends here. But we must have a citable source and not "too much" inferred narrative. I did not delete Rich's work because we DO need some facts here and I suspected he was mostly correct. So, may I propose a final "settlement" to our mutual efforts? With respect, I am going to move Rich's la Repubblica footnote "up" to the general first sentence, delete the OCRegister footnote (that article had "nothing new") and then the middle sentences that have Rich's self-measurements about the track will simply be unfootnoted as to source, and we can just relax until (soon) we get something citable to plug in there. Please let me know if you object to these actions.SteveO1951 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Feel free to make the change. Goodvac (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BBC video http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16585063 from Jan 16 shows the inflatable boat of police divers said to be taking underwater photos of the rocks just offshore of le scole. the BBC reporter then says "it hit the rocks there and then moved north..." That sure sounds as thought the police divers might have told him that they found the scrape marks on the rocks but we don't have any "official" report on that yet, or the photos... we will soon. That will be the key footnote we need.SteveO1951 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

It WAS le Scole reef! Police divers have photographed pieces of the hull 8 metres down off the end of le Scole reef. I added a new paragraph in the Shipwreck Section.SteveO1951 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. A new matter arose "at the 11th hour", before WP went dark. I dispute the editor who continues to 1) change the references from “Le Scole” to “le scole” on his premise that “le scole” means “shoal” and so cannot be a proper noun, and 2) change the word "reef" to "shoal". I explain below and invite (expect) discussion.

Whether or not his translation is right, he is simply wrong on the facts. Every nautical chart and every credible reference uses “Le Scole”. A few examples: 1. U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) 53135 “chart Porto Santo Stefano & approaches” http://www.charts.noaa.gov/NGAViewer/53135.shtml 2. The Italian Navy & The NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/17/world/europe/where-the-cruise-ship-crashed.html?ref=europe “The captain said the ship hit a reef that was not on the navigation charts. According to the Italian Navy, the reef was in an area known as Le Scole.” 3. A prominent travel information site for Isola del Giglio. http://www.giglioinfo.com/isola_del_giglio/giglio_isle_map.html Giglio Isle Travel Information for the Isola del Giglio, Tuscany, Italy 4. An Italian nautical chart http://www.pcn.minambiente.it/viewer/

That editor was also wrong in changing the reference from “reef” to “shoal” on the premise that that “shoal” is the closest to the original Italian word and means shallow water. He is wrong as to the English language use of “reef” and “shoal”. “Shoal” is primariy an adjective meaning shallow, but when used as a noun primarily indicates a sand bar or other alluvial silting. In contrast the word “reef” is primarily a noun meaning a groups of rocks or coral, above and/or below water level that are a hazard to ships. Check any dictionary.

Editors making changes have the burden of proof regarding the change.

Discuss here, please, before editing further. Thank you.SteveO1951 (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you addressing this to me? Goodvac (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, me. It appears I am wrong, and le Scole is the unique name of the point or the rocks or the reefy area or the entire thing. Speciate (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both very much, Gentlepersons. I apologize for the multiple footnotes that I just put up. I am sure that Speciate meant well. Unfortunately, at the time he made his changes it was literally the "11th hour" and WP was about to go dark and the changes caused me to get into an edit conflict (blast!) just as I was trying to post significant new news that wreckage was found at Le Scole and that the Captain had admitted that he had hit Le Scole. So, I had very little time to try to contact Speciate and open any discussion. I am happy that both of you have visited Talk and that all is well. I will reduce the footnotes now.SteveO1951 (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the facts no longer require intense discussion regarding whether Le Scole was the impact point (that is to say, this Talk section is pretty dead now), and because the Le Scole text of the Article in contained in the "Shipwreck" section of the Article, I have now created a "Shipwreck Section Discussion" Talk section so that we can all find the various subjects, including any new on Le Scole, that relate more broadly. If there is a better way to do this, please feel free to change what I have done. I will be fairly inactive from here out, so "be bold" and don't rely on my being here too often. thanks. SteveO1951 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Route of ship

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

That's correct. See the links in #le Scole above. She tried to come around to the harbor, I suspect, but there is no question she was at least without electrical power after striking the reef. Selery (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting it now. That explains why it listed to the opposite side of the gash which didn't make a lot of sense until you figure the turning force pushed it to the opposing side. I expect a diagram with a path marker will appear which will make it clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.187.103 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC) http://demata.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/rotta-costa-concordia.jpg

Yes, indeed, the ship's one week itinerary was a anti-clockwise route around the Western Med. So, starting from just North of Rome, she heads North through the Tuscan Archipelego to the first port of call in far North Italy. Therefore, all of her process on that route is northerly, and so she approached everything "from the South", at least until she reversed course after hitting the reef. SteveO1951 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I can’t put citations to this but I want to pass on my passenger observations about cruise ship routing so that editors and readers know some of the real world routing practices when they are interpreting the conflicting news statements we are getting. Two years ahead of a cruise the itinerary planners do their marketing work and the Company’s marine superintendent inputs his wisdom on the practicalities of the ports, the routes and the travel times. As a cruise segment nears he and his captains would be keeping up to date about sound route details to be followed, including newer tide tables and marine notices. On the day of leaving a port Carnival navigation officers (and presumably the other corporations) take that day’s marine information and make a “berth to berth” plan outlining every step and turn from dropping the lines at port one to being tied up at port two. This planning method is good because it means every detail gets noticed and agreed with amongst the Captain, Chief officer and the lesser officer who ground through the navigation calculations. Having made such a plan however..... it constantly gets changed on the fly. Weather forecasts change causing detours, other ships cross your path and at the destination the service from local pilotage authorities and port managers changes on a whim (it is outright lax at times).

Then there are the sightseeing detours, some brands within our big corporations take advantage of on the spot opportunities to show the guests something tourist worthy and also to do things of publicity value. I’ve already mentioned circling Stromboli if the weather permits. In another case a scenic detour was conducted because the local pilot agreed that it was a good idea. I once saw 2 ships wait “roadside” in a port because there was a fireworks show that night. And of course the circling of Alaskan glaciers is steered on the spot. Outside of the mass market 7 day Caribbean cruises these detours happen all the time. And they are not all steered by a preprogrammed GPS either, more often the Captain is out on the bridge wing “driving”. So while Captain Schettino’s driving is certainly up for scrutiny, the fact that he took the detour isn’t nearly as dubious because in practice Costa’s statements only apply up to the weeks and days before the cruise. PhaseBreak (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Coast Guard Demands Captain to Reboard Ship

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

Other English-language media have done the same, and with more completeness and fidelity to the original. For example, Time magazine: [10] Moncrief (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There may be copyright issues concerning either the original recording or the translation. Regardless of that, it'd be inappropriate to include the entire source material in this article, but excerpts may be suitable.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting we include the entire source material in the article! Moncrief (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Just some food for thought to those working behind the scenes here, particularly with the “leaked” coastguard audio tape:

• the coastguard captain is 140km away from the problem.
• what was the reason for mentioning up front that he was recording the conversation?
• if people are climbing down the bow at this time then the ship has already listed over. That means staying on the overturned bridge is impractical and moving about within the ship is impossible. Getting up on the hull side would require stopping the flow of passengers down the rope ladders.
• the next best thing and the greatest mobility is probably just where he was, alongside in a boat.
• when the coastguard wanted him to go to the bow he said there was another lifeboat in the way of doing that.

Subjective opinion: was the problem just too many cooks? That the coastguard’s junior local people where irritable over not finding the captain where they “deemed” he should be? The preceding tapes to the Livorno office would be interesting.

Even the venerable BBC is being problematic today, see a video titled “Costa Concordia crew wearing life vest 'just in case'”. They obviously haven’t spent much time on a ship because seeing a crew member with a life jacket is routine:

• if the alarm has already been raised he’s supposed to have his jacket on
• if there is to be any kind of crew exercise during his shift, he’ll take it to/from work with him
• if he is a sailor with a hazardous task to do around the edge of the deck he’ll wear a jacket
• with all that wear he could have been taking it to stores for renewal

and one of the simple ways to pack a lifejacket around is to wear it.

It is truly hard to find objective, subject knowledgeable news sources worth drawing from. PhaseBreak (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a legal requirement to inform parties being recorded up front. Selery (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Great Post,PhaseBreak. I was just thinking the same things listed in your first paragraph here, re the Coast Guard official not understanding that an 80 list means there is no place for the captain to "go" to that would be any better than being in a boat directing matters from there. I checked the article to make sure that we aren't talking about this in it. We're not, and that's good. What's he to do, stand on some railing on the ship and shout? The Coast Guard official expected the captain could go on board and then report how many men, children, women, and "persons needing assistance", and casualties there were, by category. We all know that was not at all possible.SteveO1951 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The captain of a ship does not abandon his sinking vessel. I live in Italy and understand the taped conversation. The Coast Guard captain was ordering Schettino to reboard the ship, provide the number of passengers-in particular women and children-and to assist in the evacuation. Schettino's responses were vague, incoherent, and showed that he was reluctant to take command of the rescue operation which as captain of the ship was his responsibility. In fact De Falco (the Coast Guard captain) asked him sarcastically if he wanted to go home!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I take it you’ve seen the pictures after the listing. Can you help the analysis by suggesting a way he could have boarded from where he was along the side of the ship and walked forward to the bow under those conditions? PhaseBreak (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously De Falco believed there was a way back on board otherwise Schettino wouldn't be under house arrest! This analysis is nothing but Original Research.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Schettino is being detained by arrest as a matter of routine because there was a fatal accident and the investigation of it is incomplete. That would have happened even if De Falco hadn’t been involved. PhaseBreak (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the transcript, a coast guard helicopter had already dropped rescue personel onto the ship's prow and De Falco wanted the captain to climb the pilot ladder to join them. The captain repeatedly refused saying he was coordinating the rescue from the lifeboat but after eventually telling De Falco he would comply with the order, he went ashore where he was asked again to board the ship. He then said he couldn't because it was dark and the ship was listing and he reportedly caught a taxi to an unknown destination. It is also claimed that the captain did not order abandon ship until after his junior officers did so against his orders. On the news this morning they said that the captain claimed he didn't deliberately leave the ship, but accidentally fell overboard and landed in the lifeboat. Wayne (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

These press additions are what was lacking in BBC’s story 2 days ago. Let’s hope there aren’t other omissions. I don’t think we’ve seen a transcript with all calls that night and their time stamps, the inquiry is what will bring the correct picture out. PhaseBreak (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Investigation(s)?

Since most English Wikipedia editors and readers who are unfamiliar with Italian civil and criminal law, could somebody clarify just who is investigating what? Are there parallel investigations, a board of inquest, police, prosecutors, judges, what? Who has jurisdiction, who is taking the lead? Do the Italians have a version of the NTSB? Speciate (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently a division of the Italian Coast Guard is in charge of the investigation into the accident itself. As is normal in these cases, such an investigation is independent of any criminal investigation by the Italian Police. An internal company investigation is almost certainly taking place too. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In-depth article about salvage

"Rock And A Hard Place: What To Do With Concordia" from NPR. Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

History 146 years after

A comparison of "Costa Concordia" and her captain could be made towards "Re d'Italia" and Admiral Persano. That adriatic ship was also holed and the coward leader also abandoned the vessel prematurely, causing a huge naval disaster (i.e. italians getting in turmoil and badly losing the Battle of Lissa (1866)). 82.131.210.163 (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to include such information in the article. Tupsumato (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No comparison unless outside, reliable sources, make that comparison. Per WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In the long history of ships and sailors and accidents, all kinds of things have happened to all kinds of ships. This comparison to an event 146 years ago has no place in this article. Moncrief (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Guess what? Schettino to Persano is already notable! You won't find any bigger and more reliable source in Italy than the "La Stampa":

http://www3.lastampa.it/lastampa-in-english/articolo/lstp/438769/

La Stampa in English, 18/01/2012

Latter-Day Lord Jim: The Demons That Will Follow Concordia Captain Schettino

...The Italian admiral Persano in 1866 lost the naval battle of Lissa against Austrian captain Wilhelm von Tegetthoff. He came back to Italy announcing a victory. But the news bulletins of the battle proved him wrong, describing the Italians retreat, the sinking of two armored ships and death of 620 of his men. The Austrians had only 38 casualties and did not lose any ships. You have to do your duty until the end. No one understood the reason of Persano's huge and useless lie. Everyone thought that if he had made such a mistake, he was trying to hide another one which was even bigger. We still cannot draw a final judgment on Francesco Schettino's biggest mistake... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.110.201 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we mention this?

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

Sure; probably in the to-be-written #Influence/Implications/Effects section mentioned above. Selery (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it would have been practical to mention it if the first reported story, of an electrical fault had been true. However seeing this accident was a direct result of the Captain's stupidity, and not an electrical fault, as was the case with the Carnival Splendor, I don't see how it is relevant other then the simple fact they are the same type of ship.--Subman758 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Evacuation and rescue efforts

What's the meaning of the sentence "Some passengers said that the Titanic theme My Heart Will Go On, of Céline Dion, was playing when the ship started going down." in the "Evacuation and rescue efforts" section? Is this a relevant information? I think this is kind of distracting and ridiculous for the reader. --57.66.108.39 (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Casualties Chart

The lead paragraph to this article indicates that there were 11 people killed and 21 are missing, however the Casualties Chart further down the article (beside the investigation section) which details the number of fatalities and missing by nationality has the total missing at 24.69.41.195.123 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)