Talk:MV Arctic Sea

What does this phrase have to do with anything?
"Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to NATO said on August 17 that false information was deliberately supplied to the media so that they would not be able "to calculate the true actions of the Russian forces".[13]"

Anyone else wondering why this is in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.216.245 (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Marinetraffic original research
Analysis of the AIS transponder signal (according the record on MarineTraffic.com ) indicates: [8]


 * 1. The ship was undergoing abnormal movements during more then 24 hours on July 24th and 25th.
 * 2. It was possibly stopped around 2:00 in the night on July 24th, 2009.
 * 3. Ship was for 2 hours in dreif towards south east, probably due to west wind but quite doubtfully due to the stoppage of engine as the distance it passed west-southwest-west is around 8mi (13km). No singal from AIS transponder
 * 4. Around 4am it started 2 hours dreif backwards to the north-east till 6am, remarkably it is the area used for northbound traffic. Whether it was possibly moving backwards bound to another ship, or by itself, this changes of the course are rather strange
 * 5. Around 6.18 to 6.30 am July 24th, it sharply turned around and started moving to it its previous direction, southwest-south bound
 * 6. At 10am the ship was stopped again as it slid unexpectedly south-east (due to wind?). The AIS transponder was probably off from 10.00 till 16.00 as there was no data recieved, except strange orientaition of the ship in the middle of this period as course 305 oriented northwest )
 * 7. After 16:00 it was again stopped almost for 2 hours, and slightly dreifed northbound till 20:00
 * 8. AIS Transponder was probably turned off again till 2:00am on July 25th as there is no data available for this part of the movement during almost 6 hours at night south of Torhamn - Karlskrona.
 * 9. During daytime on July 25th, the Arctic Sea underwent two more stoppages with characteristic backward dreif to east (possibly due to wind).

This whole thing seems to be original research. To source doesn't say this. For example, how are movements on 24 and 25 July "abnormal"? Offliner (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As on today the 15 of agust, ill got a alarm warning from marinetraffic.com that the ship was sending a ais postioning signal for 40minuts and was around 300miles out of the coast of france(Position Recorded on: Aug 15 2009 8:25AM (UTC) Lon/Lat: -6.757967 / 46.093201 Speed/Course: 10.3 kn / 214° Vessel's track shown for that day) Why ill do nobody hear aboaut this ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.156.208 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian crew?
Not sure why places say crew is Russian. According to a web forum post by a person who did the cargo loading in Pietersari they had some Russians, some Philippinos and a young Swedish boy as well. And used English to communicate among themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.20.30 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you link us? JosiahHenderson (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Josiah, I believe the person is referring to this post: http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/21360-where-mv-arctic-sea.html  94.254.76.173 (talk)

Malta Maritime Authority
I have to question the listing of Finland as the "Port of Registry" for the Arctic Sea. At least I do if this is meant to indicate the flag state or the ship registry rather than the last port of call or the home port. All the news articles that I have read refer to the ship as a Maltese ship or something similar. And the Malta Maritime Authority has a number of press releases about the ship's disappearance.

Press Release 1 Press Release 2 Press Release 3 Press Release 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.0.58 (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I listed it as Maltese originally; someone changed it to Finland. I'll change it back. Óðinn (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the broken links from before and remembered to sign this time. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline?
Perhaps this article could use a timeline (or a separate article with a timeline linked to this). The times of alledged incidents and content of offical and media statements are not consistent. Reporting was started a WEEK after the alledged first incident when AIS signal was already shut down, and especially the Swedish and Finnish police and media continued the story about the vessel being enroute to destination normally, until 3.8. at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.18.192 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some theories?
There is something really fishy about this whole arctic sea business. Is there any theory that has been offered by knowledgeable/reliable source to explain the recent (august 09) events? Please provide links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.213.93 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to some theories, the boat was also carrying weapons and drugs. It was to rendezvous with a cartel (maybe mexican, but not certain), and all of this was a joint operation by many governments, to stop that cargo from being delivered. If true or not, is uncertain. I cannot find any citations or quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.247.57 (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, there are many crazy conspiracy theories floating around in the international media, as is usual when Russia is involved in something. For example, former Estonian military commander says the ship was probably carrying cruise missiles: . Not sure if we should include this in the article though. Offliner (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's appropriate. Kouts seems to indeed be a genuine former Estonian commander and EU rapporteur. Not sure I agree with him, but it's note-worthy. JosiahHenderson (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Added.) JosiahHenderson (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The ship never disappeared
Maltese authorities have stated the the movements of the Arctic Sea were always known. They were hidden from the public, but all authorities knew where the ship was the whole time. It was always tracked. The ship did not disappear.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090818/local/arctic-sea-never-disappeared —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.247.57 (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

theft
perhaps it just to hype sth against 'piracy' :/ get the pic in somalia or anywhere, more and more it appears it is just a usual theft of a medium or small sized vessel and an attempt to conceal it's identity. there are many precedents and also of russian ships. Though it happened a lot more before '91 ofcourse. it is the perfect target for that. if circumstances unknown to me would indicate nucleair traffic wich is the next best fear, ofcourse there can be reason to be conspicious, and in the actual procedes surprising percentages of nucleair fuels etc. have traditionally disappeared everywhere. fortunately the russian marine is one of the assets quitte capable of retrieving some of that, under any circumstances;) just like us.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad Point of View
I'm not an expert on WP policies, so perhaps someone can cite some. Aside from the information in the box at top right, the whole article is concerned with the hijacking. The only text not concerning the hijacking is two beginning sentences: "The MV Arctic Sea is a merchant vessel cargo ship that was reported as missing between late July and mid August 2009 en route from Finland to Algeria. It is owned by the Malta-based company Arctic Sea Ltd. and is operated by Solchart Management AB of Helsinki, Finland." Wouldn't it be more appropriate to move the article to a more fitting title due to its point of view, such as "2009 MV Arctic Sea Hijacking"? Otherwise the article should be more focused on the ship, and include its past history, or styled after the MV Maersk Alabama article with the hijacking/incident spun off as a separate article. IBstupid (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that this article only discusses the hijacking incident, but I wouldn't rename it, since the hijacking is the only thing the ship is notable for. Offliner (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the article has a "bad point of view" just because nothing else worth mentioning has happened to the ship. – Zntrip 02:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories section
I have removed this section because most of these theories are just unsubstantiated speculations. The confusion will probably dissipate after the investigation is conducted and the crew starts talking to the media. – Zntrip 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I think we should be careful about including this kind of stuff. Especially since the article does not contain much info about the investigation yet, so the conspiracy theory section would be too large in comparison to official info (undue weight.) Offliner (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea. The "stuff" is out there and itis being widely discussed (not only by tabloids).68.148.115.210 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think it's worth mentioning. The only worthwhile thing the section says is that the incident is unusual, which I think is made clear in other parts of the article. The quote by the Estonian guy is just ridiculous. 1) Cruise missiles are standard on destroyers and don't mean a thing, and 2) of course Russia's naval response is greater than its involvement in Somalia because Russian citizens and property are involved. The bottom line is, there is no reason to post everyone's opinions regarding the matter, and we should stick to facts rather than speculation. – Zntrip 07:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some reactions to the speculation: . Offliner (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that regardless of how little we agree with allegations of conspiracy, these allegations are still notable. Would we be averse to restoring the section including the Russian government response? (Thanks, Offliner] A Russian gov't rep. says basically what Zntrip said. This seems to me to be a good way to avoid misinformation while still making the article as full as possible. So say we all? JosiahHenderson (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If we were to mention any speculation, I think it should be titled "alternate theories" or something like that. The theories should also be more widely reported, which would exclude the Estonian official's comment. – Zntrip 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think "Allegations of conspiracy" is inappropriate, but "Alternate Theories" or just "Speculation" are fine too. And Kouts' comment IS very widely reported. Here's the Reuters' article: Reuters is credible; do I have the go ahead to restore the section and expand it to include the Russian comment under the title "Alternate Theories"? JosiahHenderson (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You can go ahead and restore the section. – Zntrip 20:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

International law
The way this "By the evening of August 18, no crew member had contacted their families, and requests of information and identities of their detained citizens by Estonian and Latvian authorities remained unanswered. However, according to international law, persons arrested in international waters are tried according to the laws of the arresting country, and diplomatic agreements between Russia and the Baltic countries state that the arresting country has three days to notify the detainee's country." is phrased seems to strongly imply illegality on someone's part. This implication should either be removed or (if it comes from the source) be explicitly attributed to the source.--Boson (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. – Zntrip 06:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you giving to much credibility
to a conspiracy theory? Some estonian military officer says the ship was carrying missiles to Iran, and that is worth a dedicated section? Have you not really thought about the possibility that all this is propaganda? Estonians, do not like russians, the whole west does not like russians... And they certainly don't like the sale of S-300 batteries to Iran...

It doesn't make any sense... The iranians have already paid for the anti-ballistic missiles... Why would russian authorities hide them on a ship? Second, the russian president only gave the order to bring the ship, when help was asked by the company that owned it... If the Arctic Sea was carrying missiles, why didn't the russian authorities acted immediately, instead of waiting for a help request made by a private company?

The conspiracy theory about missiles makes no sense. In fact, the rumours about drugs and weapons are far more credible, but it's not mentioned in a section.

Wikipedia seems to be losing its standards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.182.38 (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you are right that this is nonsense, but it is notable propaganda. JosiahHenderson (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Estonian naval official apparently doesn't have to bother with trivialities like geography. Obviously, it's much easier to hide missiles under lumber in Finland, drag them through the whole Europe, unload them in Algeria and then carry them (on Camels, I guess) through half of Africa and Asia then to quietly move them through the Caspian Sea. Does wikipedia have to bother with every single moron with a cool sounding position that opened his mouth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.55.71 (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Admiral Kouts mentioned missiles in cargo as one (not the only one) way to explain the rather strange course of events. Kouts did not mention Iran at all in this context. The "destination Iran" stream of misquotes originates from Russian state-sponsored media, obviously in order to score some cheap propaganda bpoints by ridiculing Admiral Kouts' knowledge of geography, and the whole current political leadership of Estonia by implication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.253.109 (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Admiral Kouts
Admiral Kouts was the rapporteur for the Assembly of Western European Union/European Security and Defence Assembly report on the "Role of the EU in combating Piracy" in June 2009, and is NOT the EU rapporteur for Anti-piracy. Admiral Kouts is a member of the Finnish Estonian Parliament and member of the Delegation to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and the Assembly of WEU. You can also verify his official bio. He has no EU portfolio. The multiple press sources are indeed wrong, as there is NO EU rapporteur for Anti-Piracy. The story originated from Time magazine that misidentified his title and oversimplified it; it was then copied onto UPI, interfax, ABC news, NYTimes, etc... The press also describes his post as a European parliamentarian, a top EU official, and even a NATO official. Only a Norvegian source mentions (correctly) the WEU. There is no official source, nor will you find any because the position simply does not exist. There is no EU document/webpage, nor any other official document that mentions such a title. I have thus re-reversed the edit. --Scotchorama (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Would that be okay if I compact his title as, say, 'AWEU piracy rapporteur'? To put it like a 'rapporteur for a report ...' sounds awkward - a rapporteur is someone who produces a report for a commission or a symposium of some sort. Maybe we simply replace 'EU' with 'AWEU' while keeping the short title as it was before?129.128.45.126 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

All correct, except one thing -- Admiral Kõuts being member of the Estonian parliament (not Finnish). Cheers, 3 Löwi (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! Got confused after reading the articles... Estonia, of course!--Scotchorama (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Missiles
This is an interesting article http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090906/local/arctic-sea-carried-arms-for-iran-newspaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.97.148 (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Source of previous link:
 * * 06. Septembet 2009, Mark Franchetti ja Uzi Mahnaimi, Times Online, The Sunday Times Missing channel pirate ship carried Russian arms for Iran
 * * 08. September 2009, Tony Halpin, Times Online Russia denies that Arctic Sea cargo ship was carrying missiles to Iran
 * Suwa (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Current location
Where is the ship now? Has it been taken back to Russia? 194.72.35.118 (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090908/local/maltese-officials-to-inspect-arctic-sea Maltese officials will be invited to take part in an inspection of the MV Arctic Sea when it arrives in Novorossiisk, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said today. Hcobb (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

On Voitenko, Kononenko and NPOV
This one is basically for Ellol.


 * How's what Voitenko thinks about the cost of living in those cities relevant to the article? It looks like you're trying to discredit him, taking his words out of context. Whatever happened to "report but not assess"?


 * The mere fact that somebody said something does not warrant a mentioning in Wikipedia. Such an extended discussion of Kononenko's satire is at variance with NPOV.

All in all, the section on speculation has no stopping growing in size. I plead with contributors to improve other sections rather than bicker over what should be considered notable rumors.129.128.45.126 (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cable leak
There is some information in this which could possibly be added to the article. SmartSE (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on MV Arctic Sea. 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/20090814211258/http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14230049&PageNum=0 to http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14230049&PageNum=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821154509/http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/krp/home.nsf/headlineseng/B288269616CCEB1AC22576130035C8FF?opendocument to http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/krp/home.nsf/headlineseng/B288269616CCEB1AC22576130035C8FF?opendocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722042012/http://uudised.err.ee/index.php?06174674 to http://uudised.err.ee/index.php?06174674
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409132143/http://www.assembly-weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2009/2037.php to http://www.assembly-weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2009/2037.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902005245/http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=International&articleid=a1251398009 to http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=International&articleid=a1251398009

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) 00:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)