Talk:2012 Indian Ocean migrant boat disaster

Misleading article title

It is misleading, almost mischievous, to call this incident a Christmas Island disaster. Sure, the boat may have been heading there, but the incident has been variously described as happening 200 km / 110 n.m. from the island. The 2010 incident happened on the coast of C.I., but this sinking is far away from the island. No-one would accept the sinking of the Titanic being titled 1912 New York ship disaster. This article is similarly mistitled. The article would be much more appropriately titled 2012 Indian Ocean boat disaster or similar. WWGB (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, change it. It was a title of convenience only. If you can think of a better title, move the article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree - just remember its location... Indian Ocean is a big place - proximity and context is important for geographically challenged readers and editors SatuSuro 03:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WWGB, this has nothing to do with Australia and happened nowhere near Christmas Island, it happened in Indonesian waters so should be named 2012 Indonesia Boat Disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.192.240 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Still no good - the title is still misleading (of sorts) there are boat tragedies in Indonesian waters regularly, and there is nothing to isolate this one from others apart from the very general date.

I really think that the claim this has nothing to do with Australia is a bit problematic - WWGB didnt say that for a start - it is foreign nationals attempting to reach Australian waters... who perished in Indonesian waters south of Java...If Australian authorities gave it a SIEV number it would have better context... SatuSuro 10:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 asylum seeker boat disaster or 2012 Indian Ocean boat disaster or something brief like Tampa affair, perhaps Christmas Island asylum seeker incident?

"disaster" is POV

I suggest that the word "disaster" is non-neutral and should not be used in the article title. (Likewise for the "see also" articles.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Related question: should this article be listed in List of accidents and disasters by death toll and/or List of maritime disasters? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

So - you want to include this article in a "disaster" list but using the term "disaster" in the article title is POV? A little contradictory, no? Mattinbgn (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

absurd - if 90 + deaths is not a disaster, what is it, an accident? There is a whole WikiProject Mitch - try telling them they are POV - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DISASTER and a portal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Disasters SatuSuro 13:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That "whole WikiProject" includes WP:WikiProject_Disaster_management#Naming_convention, which suggests a naming convention that does not include the word "disaster". One reason for this, quoting Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disaster_management/Naming is that it "takes the word 'disaster' or 'incident', etc, out of the title, and just says what it is" - ie without implicitly "judging" the severity of the incident. (eg "Sinking of the RMS Titanic" is neutral - despite the loss of life.) Note that only 2 out of 4 references describe it as a "disaster". Mitch Ames (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If that is your attitude to death, no point even making further comment SatuSuro 00:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• IMO, "disaster" is an accurate description of the event and therefore neutral. Yes, the article should be added to the two lists mentioned above if it has not already been added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Illegal immigration

Since some of the arrivals may be genuine refugees who will granted asylum seeker status which is different to an illegal immigrant, then the Category:Illegal immigration to Australia doesn't belong. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To be sure. But surely, those facts are determined after the initial situation - which is one of illegal immigration. Zumwalte (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the doctrine of a presumption of innocence apply? - Shiftchange (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)