Talk:2021 Suez Canal obstruction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021 (2)

Please remove

mandates that when a ship goes through the canal, it is boarded by an Egyptian "Suez crew", including 

and add

requires ships traversing the canal to be boarded by an Egyptian "Suez crew", including

The wording sounds awkward; "mandates that...it is boarded" just doesn't sound right. 64.203.186.88 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021 (3)

Please remove

requires ships traversing the canal to be boarded by an Egyptian "Suez crew", including

and add

requires a ship traversing the canal to be boarded by an Egyptian "Suez crew", including

I don't know what I was thinking with the previous proposal; I made it sound like there's one crew that serves all ships, and the sentence now shifts from "ships" to "ship" jarringly. 64.203.186.88 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done by ScottishFinnishRadish. It didn't jar with me, obviously. But that's grammatically more correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Technical error in page

Ref 16:

Cite error: The named reference SuezExpansion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

142.120.87.115 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed by a bot. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Separate article?

cui bono - there are no accidents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.25.59 (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Does this really need to be a separate article? I feel like it should just be part of the Ever Given article, since the article's not very long and that ship isn't really notable for anything else anyway. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 08:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd just give it a day or two until it's no longer a current event (hopefully), then merge it in. Also, if it's going to stay, I'd change the title to something like March 2021 Suez Canal obstruction, because somebody with no knowledge of the topic will probably just recognise Ever Given as two common English words, not a vessel name, which makes the title really hard to parse. Just my 2 cents... EditorInTheRye (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

we should probably just link a bunch of live news articles talking about it, and then delete the page when this has ended Partylizzard (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, the implications of the blockage goes beyond Ever Given and is creating a potential shipping crisis given the importance of the event. In addition, most people would not recognize the event by just the ship's name. Finally, the crisis is on-going and is generating a lot of attention thus would justify its own article. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I admit that I brought up this discussion when the article was still very short. Now that this topic has gotten much more substantial, and there have been major economic impacts, I say we can probably keep this article at least for the time being. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 08:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the future implications of this obstruction. If there is no significant effects of this event, and it is not a cause to a larger far reaching event then it should be merged. It this is just one of the many obstructions that have happened before (which do not have their own articles) then it should be recognized as not notable. Bedrockbob (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Which "many obstructions that have happened before" are they exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

An obstruction like this, which has caused much impact on global economy has never happened before. This should be definetely exist as a seperate article. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Geolocation

A photo on source #8 led to easy geolocation on the following coordinates: 30° 0'54.44"N 32°34'48.74"E. It's just that I'm not savvy on how to put the coordinates into the article properly, so perhaps someone more wiki-savvy may think them a useful addition213.127.59.167 (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Done! EditorInTheRye (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!213.127.59.167 (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

References

"Rudely-shaped course"

It seems we have the good old Daily Mail to partly thank for this: "Captain sailed mega-ship in the shape of a penis before getting the vessel stuck...": [1]. Possibly not very encyclopaedic? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless the phallic shape was deliberate and somehow led to the incident occurring (say, the captain did it as a joke, then tried to rush through the canal to make up for lost time), it shouldn't be here. The article describes it as "innocent, but terrible luck", likely meaning it just happened and didn't have anything to do with the grounding. More "haha, penis" than encyclopedic, let alone newsworthy. AdoTang (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

See also discussed on the page about the vessel itself: Talk:Ever_Given#Is_this_phallic_AIS_track_credible_enough_to_be_added?. I'm not convinced it's actually intended to be a drawing, to be honest. EditorInTheRye (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Cargo Ships and waiting patterns, but it is quite odd that they would do this very specific course in this very specific shape in the first place. Looking at the speed the vessel was traveling at and how tightly it was turning (for a massive cargo ship) I don't think this was just the ship drifting. There is a large amount of coverage on it, so it might be worthy of inclusion. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that coverage does exist for this, but I question what this adds to the reader's experience (with the exception of a crude giggle). Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the coverage simply Daily Mail pointing out that they think something looks like a dick, though? If so, it's nothing more than WP:OR that will fail WP:RS. Do add something when there's an interview with somebody from the shipping trade ruling out boring explanations like testing the rudder, or drift while anchored. EditorInTheRye (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm pleased to say mine isn't that shape. One could almost have sympathy for the Daily Mail hack, if theirs is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Size isn't everything, dearie. But in this case it seems that width may be a more important issue. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

VesselFinder which is focused on data and press releases also reports the "controversial track". 1 Snopes quotes VICE in confirming that such a path was taken, but says it's probably not intentional. 2 Still seems worth noting as an unusual detail, though. Rauisuchian (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I can hardly believe that anyone is taking this fluff seriously - it's the normal type of pattern for a ship having to circle and/or drift while waiting for something to happen - in this case the arrival of the pilot and formation of the northbound convoy. Idle AIS watcher with twitter account noticed something as important as the mis-shapen carrot I had the other day, Daily Mail twitter watchers are delighted to spice up the their article a bit - and away it goes around the ether, picking up some half-respactable sources on the way. Does that make it encyclopaedic? Davidships (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

ok so an honest user perspective from someone who came here to check the veracity of the supposed shape of the path lol is that a verifiably true picture of the course would be as useful as mentioning it for what it may appear to be. i came here because i didn't know if the sources i saw were true/didn't want to click on them and don't know where they keep shipping records yknow? i want to know the path i was shown was true. so i think a picture of the path from a verifiable source would be best. or who knows if this goes on long enough, maybe there will need to be a social media reaction section 168.91.193.160 (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If we do include it, I would expect it would be handled in the minimum viable way, without caving into social media fluff. I'm still against it, but if i had to, something along the lines of: "news outlets and users of AIS tracking websites speculated that the vessel was engaging in GPS drawing prior to entering the canal, but this was later disproven as being a coincidental pattern resulting from (reasons) (insert reliable and rational source here)". Let's not stoop to mentioning the supposed penis. If people want to see it, let it be a silly prize for the people who read references. EditorInTheRye (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

While it does appear like a fun trivia, I believe it should be mentioned in passing if only to refute (or support? :)) conspiracy theory of the incident being intentional. I do think it's a conspiracy theory rather than a fact at this stage, but I do see some relatively credible news sources mentioning it, using "unusual path" as the basis. The article IMO should at least state that this actually did happen, possibly give context of other ship's waiting patterns usually being somewhat similar (if so?), while also state that there is (is not) any indication of a foul play. --Yurik (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This seems entirely a coincidence, the Daily Fail notwithstanding... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Alternative to the Suez Canal, the Cape Route has been used when passage through Suez is refused, or by Capesize ships

However, the AIS track inside the canal is notable to show how the ship struggled to steer. FleetMon 3D, Reddit summary by marine salvage professional, VesselFinder 10-20s with tugs and convoy. Which is best? TGCP (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

r u sure, it is a penis? it looks like a big huge rear end to me... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2021

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Do Not Move, closing discussion under WP:SNOWBALL Newystats (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 Suez Canal obstruction → 2021 Suez Canal blockage – Per WP:COMMONNAME, most reliable sources refer to the Suez Canal being blocked (or some variant of the verb "block" or the nominalization of the verb to "blockage") [2]. I see some references to "mishap" or "stuck" but this would be too informal. No sources refer to this incident as an "obstruction". 142.114.203.221 (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that the main Suez Canal article has "2021 Ever Given grounding" as the sub-section heading. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I forgot to change that when this article was renamed to 2021 Suez Canal obstruction. AdoTang (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Very minor point - "blockage" is one letter away from "blockade", which is also something maritime that prevents ships from getting to places, but this definitely shouldn't be confused with. Obstruction helps anyone reading the title too quickly or has the two terms confused, I guess?. Indifferent to the move otherwise EditorInTheRye (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Support (mild). Chumpih. (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chumpih do you have any thoughts about why? It's close to the stage where the Wikipedia:Snowball clause can be applied, so someone who hasn't commented here yet could close the discussion and get the horrible looking banner off a front page article. Uses x (talk • {{reply to|Uses x}} • contribs) 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion. I prefer 'blockage' since it's more absolute than 'obstruction', and I don't see the similarity to 'blockade' as an issue. That said, it's probably OK as it stands. Chumpih. (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Plenty of news sources and experts describe it as an obstruction. The Associated Press, CBC, Popular Mechanics (a technical source), PBS, etc. Here's the explicit search term. Uses x (talk • {{reply to|Uses x}} • contribs) 20:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. There is an obstruction which is causing a blockage. Blockage is close to blockade which is something very different and that has previous occurred. 82.13.25.149 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose — per above, wouldn't want the confusion between "blockage" and "blockade". Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 20:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Robidy (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same stuff as above, plus the fact that this article's already changed names like, twice so far. AdoTang (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons already stated, and because both titles mean the same thing, so why change it? - Calicodragon (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, sounds like something to do with drains. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, as both are appropriate terms but "obstruction" is already here so why not just roll with it? ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral Both terms are approriate but i don't see it to be moved for now. 36.77.93.241 (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seatrade-maritime

Good source here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, looks useful "Sherine Naggar, head of the Naggar Group of companies and a marine engineer by education said that Ever Given's height makes container removal difficult and unlikely, and a large amount of ballast water would need to remain onboard to stop the vessel from capsizing." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect French interwiki

Hi, The French interwiki is https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_du_canal_de_Suez_en_2021 (as shown in wikidata) however whats appears on the left of the en wiki page is: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ever_Given#%C3%89chouement_dans_le_canal_de_Suez Anyone knows what the problem could be? --Celinea33 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Celinea33: It was a local IW link that I have now removed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Crouch, Swale:! --Celinea33 (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

20000 containers?

The article states 20,000 containers, but the link to the Golden Class ship explains that it has a capacity of just over 20,000 "twenty foot equivalent units" meaning it would be 20,000 containers *if* they were all the little ones; half that if they were all big ones. I think the big ones are most common. 70.122.214.126 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC) (John)

70.122.214.126, this source states "It was carrying 20,000 shipping containers loaded with goods when it ran aground." If you can find a reliable source to refute this, feel free to update the information. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 00:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Added a hyperlink

I created a hyperlink for the "US$" part of the "Economic Impact" section. If you disagree with these changes, please let me know. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Lloydslist says that over 200 ships are in the backlog instead of merely over 150.

https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL1136246/Suez-blockage-extends-as-salvors-fail-to-free-Ever-Given

I don't know much about wiki editing so I'll leave it to you guys to assess. 2A02:C7D:B747:2500:CC4E:9AE5:3F82:53C9 (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Done! Akbermamps 02:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Replace the archive link for reference 26

Hello, I am proposing that the archive link for reference 26 be replaced with this link, as the copy available on said archive does not have a paywall. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That source doesn't say what the article says it does - we can delete the text in the article, so reference 26 would go away! 86.132.18.212 (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

Good morning

A ship is an 'it' and not a 'she'. A ship and any other vehicle is an object and not a woman, and a woman is a not an object.

I request 'she' is changed to 'it' throughout the text or that I can do this. If this request is refused, please give the reason why.

Thank you. 2A00:23C5:AD8F:9C01:4861:FC74:874A:316A (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: There is a tradition of referring to ships as "she". Wikipedia uses this on many articles, and allows either gender-neutral or feminine pronouns to be used (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Pronouns), but there's no point in switching it back and forth. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 08:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

But the ship's page uses 'it' - it's inconsistent...--138.246.3.137 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

As long as it is consistent on a certain article, it's completely fine. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The ship's article originally referred to the ship as "the ship". The first pronoun was "it" here. Then it was changed to "she" here, reverted to "it" here and finally to "she" here. And now I'm going to proceed to change it back to "it" in the ship article as per first usage. However, as HueMan1 said, as long as it's consistent within the article either is ok (although I wouldn't oppose changing it to be consistent between articles about the same topic). Tupsumato (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

it's called metaphorical gender and it's a language category, not objectification. Death used to be male, btw:) [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.191.164 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Number of queued ships

WaPo says 156 total ships are stuck on both sides, a pretty specific number, but we say 200. Thoughts? Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 13:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Associated Press is reporting at least 237 ships. 142.114.203.221 (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, the numbers are so varied. I suppose we should keep it as it is then unless a clear consensus emerges among the sources. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 14:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

There are bound to be varying estimates, and each of those changing over time - and no doubt differing criteria for inclusion (for example does it include ships which haven't reached the stationary part of the queue yet). Suggest use a range, with a couple of estimates from good maritime sources - and then roll them forward as estimates are revised (two-day old ones are worthless now). Davidships (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

CNN is also reporting at least 237 ships. I'm not sure where The Washington Post got their number from, and I can't really see how it's mentioned in the WaPo article because I'm getting stuck behind a pay wall when I try to click the link. 142.114.203.221 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Picture of excavator?

I think readers would better understand it with this image: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edskiash (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a copyrighted image. If someone is in the area they can feel free to snap their own image and upload it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

UK torpedo

Did I hear correctly that the Brits may use a few Spearfish to break up this barge and let sea traffic resume? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

looks like that was posted by a parody account. That would be incredibly unlikely. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, could you make do with a couple of hand-grenades and a smoke-flare? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Title

2021 Suez Canal blockage is far more common. The followings are Google News hit counts of "Past week". "blockage" overwhelms " obstruction".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Suez Canal blockage": 49,600
• "Suez Canal obstruction": 1

• Suez Canal "blockage": 141,000
• Suez Canal "obstruction": 10

There was already a move request made here, which community consensus then decided that the page should not be moved. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. "Suez Canal blockage" is the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME. The previous requested move shouldn't have been SNOW closed and the oppose votes there are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Phoenix7777, please convert this section into a new Requested Move. enjoyer|talk 04:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

EST

I propose that Egypt Standard Time be spelled out; I first thought it meant the US Eastern Standard Time. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

EST does hyperlink to the Egyptian standard time article, but I personally don't see anything wrong with spelling that out a bit more. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:TIMEZONE, I think it should say Egypt Standard Time. 142.114.203.221 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Also per MOS:ABBR, we should only use sourceable abbreviations. I can't find any source that refers to Egypt Standard Time as "EST" - it is not even abbreviated as such on Egypt Standard Time. 142.114.203.221 (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

According to this source, Egypt Standard Time is abbreviated as EGY. I will make these changes soon. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've undone them. No objection to the "EST"->"EGY" change, but you also hit a whole lot of words with "-est" suffixes, such as "largest"->"largEGY". --Carnildo (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it. Sorry. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Partly refloated

I did not add this because only a single source mentions it

    A report on 27 March 2021 indicated that the vessel had been "partly refloated" ... from the aft side, vessel rudder ... now is free". "TSuez Canal container ship partly refloated, authorities line up plans to clear traffic jam, says letter". Retrieved 27 March 2021.    

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

According to The Guardian it was "partly refloated" 3 days ago? [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm late, but that was inaccurate info. I think the article details this or detailed it, but basically, there was a report from GAC that claimed it was refloated, but GAC's Egypt office clarified later that it was inaccurate. Clearly, Ever Given is still stuck there, so... AdoTang (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Background

The background section seems in danger of becoming more detailed than the events it is referring to e.g. the section about the grounding of MSC Fabiola is the same size as the reference on the ships page and has no dedicated page, nor does it have any significant commonality with current events. I was going to trim it unless there are objections Robidy (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Update, Washington Post

Hopes for blocked Suez Canal hinge on rising tide potentially freeing ship

   On Saturday morning, 10 tugs were still helping to free the vessel, said Leth Agencies, noting unconfirmed reports by Egyptian media outlets that the ship’s propeller and rudder had been released by the salvage operations, which includes a specialized suction dredger capable of shifting 70,600 cubic feet of sand every hour.

  On Friday night, the ship’s Japanese owner, Shoei Kisen, injected a bit of hope by suggesting that tidal movements on Saturday looked favorable enough for another attempt to refloat the Ever Given. Yukito Higaki, the company’s president, told reporters in western Japan that the ongoing dredging of the banks and sea floor to refloat the ship could be assisted by a high tide, which would raise the water in the canal and potentially push the ship upward. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/suez-canal-ship-crisis-ever-given-stuck/2021/03/27/890cfb88-8e5b-11eb-a33e-da28941cb9ac_story.html  

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Could additional info be added to the "Global economic impact" section?

See this archive. There is info here about piracy concerns over ships having to detour over the Horns of Africa. Could this be added in some way to the article? Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I can see how this would be perinate information, but with the canal now open and the obstruction resolved, I don't believe this would be perinate to this article. It could be relevant to the Suez Canal article as this is always a potential side-effect should future obstructions or other issues occur to the canal. Jurisdicta (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hydrodynamics

Interesting articles here (if you have access) and here about what might have caused the apparent loss of control and subsequent grounding. Worthwhile additions if you have access to that. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The article now says "The bank effect has been cited as a possible contributing factor of the incident" with four refs. The refs indeed mention the bank effect as an existing phenomen (that is: in general), but none states let alone proves that it was a causing effect re the Ever Given. So I added ^{{{speculation-inline}}}. The sentence might as well be removed. -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This seems enough of a subject matter expert that he can be cited for his opinion, especially if it is reported in multiple different sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Even this expert (Lataire, Ghent Uni, now ref #33) does not use actual data from the situation. He only recites generic hydraulic phenomenoms. The bank effect is only a hypothesis, not an explanation. (while the heavy wind cause is confirmed). The "bank effect" explanation should be removed. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"The heavy wind cause is confirmed"? Since when? Source for that? This expert actually does use data from the situation, if you've read what is written in the article and in the sources cited (I've commented some of them since I haven't read them and haven't checked whether anything else can be added). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"... when it was caught in a sandstorm" etc. says the article. But hey, User:RandomCanadian, if you want to be this agressive on a talkpage, go ahead. Just understand that it does not make you getting it right, ok? -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources I have do not say that heavy wind was the sole cause of the incident; hence why I was asking for a source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: was the sole cause? sole cause said who??? -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can state a cause at this stage beyond speculation, hence I changed the caused to TBC. perhaps nothing both as possible contributing factors? Imagine if we had to decide on the insurance liabilities :) Robidy (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it as the source cited is classed as unreliable and I've been unable to find anyone taking the apparent AP article and using it anywhere, source is under Republic TV (but domain was republicworld and AP was listed in citation). WP:RSP Robidy (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Robidy: it's not about defining causes. But at least we know the sandstorm was present, and so can be noted correctly. My objection to bank effect is, that there is not indication that it was relevant. And the Ghent expert does not say that, corectly. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we agree, the bank effect is interesting but as you say I can't see any clear evidence from sources to say it occurred, just that it's a theory. Robidy (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Expanded, reworded, clarified. FWIW, the following sources were present in the article but unused, so I've moved them here:

Sources

"Why we shouldn't blame the pilot of the container ship stuck in Suez Canal". National Post. Archived from the original on 27 March 2021. Retrieved 2021-03-27. Ruiz, Costas Paris and Roque (2021-03-24). "How One of the World's Largest Container Ships Can Get Stuck in the Suez Canal". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on 27 March 2021. Retrieved 2021-03-27. "The financial institution impact and the massive boat blocking the Suez". Shepherd of the Hills Gazette. 2021-03-25. Archived from the original on 27 March 2021. Retrieved 2021-03-27.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I have removed this non-specific paragraph [6]. There is no need or reason to add generic info. We do not add e.g. generic ship steering effects. Or canal bottom depths effect. -DePiep (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

If you`ve read the cited source you will see it clearly isn't just 'generic info'. Re-instated. And with the CSA head saying weather wasn't the only or main reason, this seems particularly relevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The bank effect is noticable in this simplified CNN simulation. TGCP (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Explicitly says it's a non-scientific simplification and that proximity to banks is not taken into account. Anyway the SCA said they're about to release results of their investigation (within the next two days) so we should wait on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Insurance

Had a quick look at this, not really read much about shipping insurance for a few years. I suspect this will be the bit that gets way more complex than floating the ship given the number of insurers likely involved. Is this for Global Economic impact or is it's own section better? Robidy (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robidy: It could foreseeably be a subsection there. For the time being there's not enough content to justify that, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is Manshiyet Rugola a redlink?

I've seen, while reading about the article, that this village is redlink, when there is literally NO sources i have seen when I looked it up. Only 14 results, even! Should we unredlink it or something like that? heya. this is a random post from someone who plays NationStates. Here, a link. Rc453632 My user page. Also, I did this with four tildes, or these wobblers. 01:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rc453632: I'll go ahead and remove that. You might want to consider trimming your signature a bit (that other information can go on your user page)? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, looking at Google Search, I suspect that Manshiyet Rugola is "notable" only because of this incident, and so does not warrant any article of its own. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)