Talk:MV Danny F II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MMSI Number[edit]

I've added the MMSI Number to the infobox, but the source needs to be archived. I'm not sure how to do this, is there an editor who can help? Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty numbers mismatch?[edit]

carrying six passengers, 77 crew,makes 83 people total but 38 of the people on board were rescued and 4 died makes 42 people accounted for. What happened with the remaining 41? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barvinok (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the "current event" tag. Those details will become apparant in the fullness of time. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mahmoud Deletion[edit]

As there is no evidence that this ship was actually involved, the info coming from IP 62.84.81.183 as their ONE and ONLY edit, and indications that the Al Mahmoud was off Italy, a long way from Lebanon, is there any reason this "The Syrian ship Al Mahmoud Orient was among the rescue team" should not be removed? It seems like vandalism to me--220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the info is unverifiable then it should go. Mjroots (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo Value[edit]

Anyone wish to work up an estimate of the value of livestock cargo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.34.103 (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we don't do estimates. If the info is reported by a reliable source we can incorporate it into the article with a reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Mjroots. Is there a place to discuss the reasoning behind that decision? It seems like logical and valuable information for Wikipedia to contain. Also, it seems that for cargo such as livestock for which there is a known stock value, it is not so much reporting as simple mathematics; i.e. if 1 cow = $200.00, 10000 cattle = $2,000,000.00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.34.103 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind my comments is one of our core policies - verification, backed up by no original research. It can be frustrating at times knowing that something is true but being unable to find a verifiable source for the fact. Something we have to learn to live with. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand verifiability. I suppose then this may be a special case scenario as livestock are publicly traded. For example, if we had a source saying that 'x' number of shares of Google stock were sold, would it be considered original research to quote the value per share of (GOOG) as 'y' at the time of the sale and do the mathematics ourselves? "the value of the stock sold therefore is 'x*y.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.34.103 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible, of course, that I simply do not understand agriculture trading. 70.188.34.103 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it wouldn't be useful to include it in this article - purely as a general point - livestock cargoes are usually valued on the basis of total cargo weight. (e.g. a total of "x" tonnes at an agreed sale price of say, "y" US dollars per kilogramme). However, the actual figure is always liable to some change, during the voyage, depending broadly on whether the livestock total gains, or loses, weight while aboard the ship. In addition there would usually be an "insured value" for the cargo (provided, of course, that the shipowner has insured it). All of these figures are commercially confidential. The numbers of livestock quoted as being aboard the Danny FII seems large for that ship - though that could mean that those particular cattle and sheep were much smaller than average. (NB. As a very approximate indication, an "average" steer would weigh about 350 KG and an "average" sheep would weigh in at about 35 KG.) Norloch (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The high number of livestock could also indicate that overcrowding took place, with little regard being paid to the conditions the livestock were transported in. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots might be correct - but it would be a guaranteed way to lose money, if there really was "overcrowding with little regard being paid to conditions". It's an unavoidable fact that mistreated livestock always (repeat always) deteriorate rapidly in overcrowded, neglectful conditions. There really is nothing to be gained from it, because the hard nosed importers of livestock will only ever accept animals which are delivered in prime condition. ( No disrespect meant to the importers of livestock but, whatever their nationality, they do tend to be very uncompromising and demanding individuals.) Both shipowners and crews on livestock carriers know very well that sub-standard animals get rejected and that particular nightmare is something which they try to avoid at all costs. Norloch (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but some countries do have higher standards than others. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement regarding variable standards and as I noted above - Mjroots might well be correct in his assertions. The obvious pitfalls associated with livestock overcrowding will be apparent to rational folk but - as we know from revelations in the banking industry - there are always some who will take irrational risks ( particularly when the main risk is to other peoples' money.) It's possible that similar things occur within the livestock industry but it must be rare, because it is a sure way to lose lots of money. Humans may be relatively easy to fool - animals are much less gullible. Norloch (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MV Danny F II. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

surviver Ahmad Harb[edit]

I am writing this after 12 years of surviving the Danny f2 tragedy; I was one of the lucky people how survived after being in the sea for 12 hours suffering and waiting for the death to come! I was 2end officer during this time, but acting as chief officer…. a lot of memory I have on this ship it was like home to me, I spent 22 months on it, I was planning to sign off in Lebanon after three days from the disaster time… me Jhon Miloy Garry any other friend who died. cap.harb@me.com

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MV_Danny_F_II&oldid=1213140149"