Talk:Al-Baraqua II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al-Baraqua II article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale
Vernet's Shipwreck This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

Contents

[edit] similar incidents

wasnt there an egyptian ferry that sank and like a thousand people died in february? also, didnt a saudi ferry sink on the other side of the peninsula not too long ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 21:09, April 10, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "disaster"?

Is the word "disaster" really NPOV? It implies something bad has happened. I'm sure most people will agree it is a disaster, but it's not so much a disaster for, say, people who had enemies on board the ferry, or people who believe that the human race should be culled.

I suggest the word "incident" instead, as that's neutral. But since I'm likely to get opposition i'm not going to make the move yet.  -- Run!  17:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the title is not neutral. How about 2006 Djibouti ferry accident? I'd go with incident as you suggested, but that seems slightly more ambiguous. KI 19:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, accident seems more appropriate. I don't think anyone will object to that. I'll do the move.  -- Run!  20:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Although the original comment is one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard (ie culling), disaster means; An occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress; a catastrophe. --Dem 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The human race has also caused widespread destruction and distress. Doesn't make it a disaster. Or does it? Depends on one's POV.  -- Run!  11:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suspend all ferries

why don't they just suspend all ferries until theyy find out what is causing all of the ferries to drown. it would be much safe for many people. and it would provide some sense of closure for the relatives of the people who have died in that general area. what is the official count for the number of deaths that have happened there? around 50,000? that is not good. i seriously suggest that theyeither shut them down or find out what is going on,because this cannot continue.

what are you talking about? There weren't 50000 people on the ferry.  -- Run!  23:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article name

All the other recent ferry disasters have had the name of the ship as the article name. Should this one too? --Grocer 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)