Talk:2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck

Infobox
The infobox has not been nominated for deletion. See the discussion. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merger then. Either way, it's tagged, adds nothing to the article and if this article ever made main page, we wouldn't want the merger tag there.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But the merger is for merging something else into the event infobox. In other words, it's not like it's suggested there's something wrong with the infobox itself (well except for that it can perhaps cover stuff currently covered by other templates). So this seems to be a fairly poor rationale to me. I don't get why people are so nuts about a notice that something is happening, the nature of wikipedia is that readers should expect that and it's not like this is suggesting there's anything wrong with the content itself, but if you really care that much the notice can I believe be hidden. The 'it add's nothing' argument seems to be the typical 'infoboxes are bad/no they're note' debate. The infobox doesn't and shouldn't add anything new to the article, just as a WP:LEDE generally shouldn't, however some people feel they are useful in summarising the article so that readers can more easily obtain key points at a glance. You may not agree with this view, something you're entitled to, but it doesn't seem a good reason to remove an infobox without consensus. I believe there is some messy arbcom case which has some bearing on when infoboxes can be added and when they can be removed, and it seems that the infoboxes were added by people who didn't do much else for the article, on the other hand as a new article it seems a legitimate step in the article development so I don't know if there's a good claim to be made that they shouldn't have added the infoboxes in good faith in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Importance
Why is this article considered "low-importance" in Wiki Project Shipwreck? It will probably end up having ten times the fatalities of the Costa Concordia which is considered high-importance. It's also part of a much larger pattern of shipwrecks of migrants in the early 21st century, perhaps second only to the SIEV X disaster. Judging by your criteria, this should be high-importance, especially given the historical significance. Bruxism (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

These incidents appear to have triggered a change in policy. The EU started funding Sudan, including the Bashir-regime, to block refugees from Ethiopia ad Somalia. In this particular incident the survivor stories tell the level of brain drain in the countries of origin. To local standard these refugees were very wealthy, comparable to millionaires. To add insult to damage trafficking organizations face decades of indulgence in EU prisons, while in this particular case the EU previously had denied the captain to stay. Also Italia started a mud flinging contest, putting their own personnel involved on trial. Plenty of reasons to never tell these stories again.77.173.226.152 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It may well be that the Shipwreck importance level should be revised, and it may happen as the article develops (I am not a member of that project, so not clear how that functions). But it is not a simple question of Fatalities=Importance, there is a much wider range of considerations than that. Davidships (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We could examine the possibility that the difference consists of two matters of social bias: 1) In this case, the casualties were darker-skinned 2) In this case, the casualties were "migrants", suggesting "immigrants" (of course every immigrant to somewhere is also an emigrant from somewhere, hence "migrant"), a category of people that many people the world over love to hate, as a social scapegoat for all ills. Hence an unspoken (and condemnable) idea of "They were dark-skinned immigrants; who cares?". Well, this answers your question as to "why", but what you gave already should be quite sufficient to change the importance level of one or the other, in order to be more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.19.232 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 4 October 2013


 * 1) They were crossing the Italian border illegally. 2) They were overcrowding the ship significantly. 3) They put their ship on fire on purpose. 4) The ship itself wasn't a significant technical achievement and have no historical value (unlike Costa Concordia, the largest Italian cruise ship). 5) Value of the ship was ~1000 times lower then value of Costa Concordia 6) There were (2009, 2011) and there will be many accidents like that if Italians will keep the borders open for illegal immigrants. This shipwreck is not especially significant. Sad but true. But all the reasons what you see is that "they were black". I think you are racist. Piotr Jurkiewicz (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) "They were crossing the Italian border illegally" - even if true (it seems to be an assumption on your part), why would this make it less important? 2) "they were overcrowding the ship significantly" - again, would the Costa Concordia have been less important if it had been overcrowded? If anything, this makes it more important. 3) "They put their ship on fire on purpose" - no, they put a blanket on fire on purpose, and the rest of the ship caught fire. If negligence had played a part in the Costa Concodia wreck, would it make it less important? Oh wait, it did, and it made it MORE important, not less. 4) "The ship itself wasn't a significant technical achievement" - I'll give you this one, but I don't think as a standalone reason this is enough, since so many people dying is generally considered an important event. The lack of notoriety of the ship itseld would be the reason the ship is not named, that's all 5) "The value of the ship is 1000 times lower" - that would be why its worth is not discussed. What we're discussing here is why the lives in question were valued lower. "I think you are racist" - thanks for your opinion on my personal character. If we're sharing opinions, I think you're the kind of bigot I was talking about. You may notice that I referred to the racist point of view as "condemnable". Kindly read what people actually write before responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.19.232 (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As a shipwreck it is definitely "low "importance, but as a social issue it certainly can be "medium" or even "high" importance. Morgengave (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the reason why this isn't a significant shipwreck is because the ship itself was not special in any significant way. I am from Italy and immigrants cross the Italian border illegally through Lampedusa pretty often, such that there is a immigrant reception center on the island and its almost always overcrowded. I do however see it as a huge social tragedy that shouldn't be disregarded but it has less to do with ships than other social issues such as immigration and deportation. Mvertu2 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

5) This is something important that was missed in the article: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-12-15/news/lampedusa-tragedy-a-case-of-political-bravado-gone-wrong-3465871382/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.11.81.101 (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Title
Most newspapers make reference to "Lampedusa", not Med sea. 219.73.122.176 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. See below. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 Mediterranean Sea migrant shipwreck → 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck – The shipwreck occurred within a quarter mile of the island of Lampedusa. Most sources - for example, , , , , - make use of the name Lampedusa in headlines and summaries. Other shipwrecks in apparently similar circumstances (2009 Mediterranean Sea migrant shipwreck, 2011 Mediterranean Sea migrant shipwreck) took place much further out at sea, and in one case (May 2007 Malta migrant shipwreck) the article uses the name of the island even though the wreck was at a much greater distance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC) PS: We now have a second migrant shipwreck - - on 11 October, in which at least 27 and possibly 50 have died, 120 km off Lampedusa. This second shipwreck may also require a separate article. This strengthens the argument for the 3 October shipwreck to be described as the 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck, as it took place immediately off the island's coast and not in the middle of the sea. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is very confusing and so the move is getting urgent. Can someone please intervene ASAP? 219.79.91.36 (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are supporting a change of name, you need to say so in this thread. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support - Did it sound like I was objecting? Come on... 219.79.91.36 (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per location of event and cited RS. Davidships (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Statistics of victims
I suggest including statistics of the victims. Below I have written statistics based on the official survivors list published by the Italian Immigration on October 4th 2013. I propose to include the following statistics based on that document.

"On October 4 2013, the Republicca daily news paper, published a list of survivors of the tragedy compiled by the immigration office of Italy ( http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/2013/cronaca/sopravvissuti_lampedusa.pdf ). According to the document 152 of the survivors were from Eritrea and one was from Tunisia. Only five of the survivors were females. The average age of the survivors was 22 with the youngest being 11 years old and the oldest 48."

I also suggest amending the 155 to 153 survivors elsewhere in this entry, since other sources cited only give estimates. As of yet I was unable to find official statistics of the victims that's sad. However according to survivors' story, victims were overwhelmingly from Eritrea (example interview of survivor with Assenna radio, also reported at Awate.com, an Eritrean diaspora news site). SamuelN77 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014170757/http://www.wdrb.com/story/23619837/italian-migrant-death-toll-reaches-at-least-194 to http://www.wdrb.com/story/23619837/italian-migrant-death-toll-reaches-at-least-194

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Case against 2 Italian officers for manslaughter
Neil Camilleri: 11 October 2013 tragedy: Italian prosecutors seek manslaughter charges for two Italian officers. Independent --5glogger (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)