Talk:Flag of convenience

Re section: Ratification of maritime conventions

I have made the headings in the graph (showing which countries have not ratified which conventions) into wikilinks, as I found it quite difficult to find the links to the articles about the conventions mentioned in the header of this graph, and I would like to alleviate others of that problem. CybergothiChé (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Americo-Liberian?

Why is Charles Taylor called Americo-Liberian Warlord? 80.4.19.128 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I wiki-linked Americo-Liberian in the article, so people can click on it to learn more about the term. As far as the warlord part, that term seems to be widely used when referring to him, for example in the following article: "Justice at last?". The Economist. 2007-05-31. Retrieved 2007-08-05. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Table "Non-ratification of International Conventions"

At least to me, the table is ambiguous. Does "yes" mean that a convention was ratified or, as the caption suggests, not ratified? How can this be made clearer? 2003:55:8C03:F383:401E:ADB4:A5C3:6394 (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a valid point. Would this be less ambiguous? Davidships (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good solution. I updated the article. 217.239.23.103 (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - deleting table from here now. Davidships (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead edit

I have removed the following recent edit from the Lead, but bring it here for consideration. Other flags of convenience include United Kingdom (through the Red Ensign group), Singapore and Netherlands.
While recognising that it is cited to a RS (though incompletely), this material does not appear in the article itself. The source was published in 1981, but the addition is written as if it is current, and it also lacks explanation or context. I have not been able to access the source, but would be surprised if Carlisle wrote that the UK did anything of this nature "through the UK Red Ensign Group" (actually, just "Red Ensign Group", of which the UK is one member). Perhaps Notthebestusername could clarify? Davidships (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger with List of flags of convenience

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. —Madrenergic^talk 10:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose merging List of flags of convenience into this article. The list in question is very short, with just 35 entries and some associated statistics, and is very closely-associated with the topic of this article. It was previously split off when it was much lengthier and bloated, but after it was cleaned up last year it has been much shorter and would be more suitable as an embedded list rather than a standalone list. I am of the opinion that having the list as part of the article would be of benefit to the readers' convenience, rather than forcing them go through an additional step of clicking away just to see a short page. Also, as the only subarticle of this article, it feels slightly uneven that this article is able to comprehensively cover every aspect of this topic except for the list of the 35 flags of convenience. —Madrenergic^talk 23:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No objection, assuming the combined length of article is OK, provided it is made clear (as it does at present) that the list is the creation of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF), as the current(?) basis for their 70-year campaign against FOCs. Davidships (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I intend to include that as well. After all, it's pretty relevant to a significant portion of what this article is about as well. In fact, I think this article discusses it in far superior detail compared to the minimal prose on the list. —Madrenergic^talk 19:01, 8 January 2019 (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.

Article links for country-flags in 'Extent of use' table

I attempted to redirect the table of the 35 flags of convenience to the specific transport-related articles of each country (ex - Transport in Panama, instead of simply Panama), however the change was reverted. Madrenergic's edit summary argued: flag registration has nothing to do with the transport of a particular country - in fact this article is about ships that register under a country but do not directly participate in that country's transport; lastly it is not convention in ship articles to wikilink ships' flags to "Transport in X country" articles

This is not correct. To the contrary, flag registration has to do with a country's merchant marine, which is often outlined in more detail within its own section of a given "Transport in" article. Convention or not, there is more use for linking to these pages here, rather than to the country's general article as the {{flag}} template does. Farolif (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. What you were doing was piping a link to "Transport in X country" under the label country's name as a label next to the country's flag. Namely, {{flagicon|Malta}} [[Transport in Malta|Malta]] as opposed to the convention, which is to simply render it as {{flag|Malta}}. This produces Malta (with a hidden piped link to Transport in Malta), rather than Malta (which links plainly to Malta).

There are several problems with this new practice you are trying to introduce and why we do not use it in Wikipedia:

1. The issues about flags of convenience intersect many aspects of a country, including "Human rights in X country", "Economy of X country", and "Politics of X country", well beyond simply "Transport in X country". It is simplistic to reduce it only one dimension and funnel readers to that aspect alone.
2. A merchant marine is merely the fleet of merchant ships registered to a country. As this very article has described, ships flying flags of convenience often contribute little to the transport or freight of the flag state itself, so it is at best only tangentially related to the article you are attempting to link it to. Many of the "Transport in X country" articles you were linking to had either minimal to no discussion about the merchant marine apart from a huge bunch of statistics dumped on them without context or analysis which is not how the article should be structured anyway.
3. It is a stylistic faux paus and highly inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia to link to a subtopic of a country next to its flag icon within a list, rather than the country itself. For example, note how entries in List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by system of government link directly to the country, rather than "Economy of X country" or "Politics of X country", respectively, even though those articles are far more focused and have a stronger case for linking to the subtopic than this one.
4. Finally, and probably most importantly, piping links to a "Transport in X country" under a link that merely states the country's name is misleading to readers. This is called an WP:EASTEREGG and is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Readers who click on a link that says "Malta" would expect a link to article on the country of Malta, not a subtopic about the specific transportation systems of that country including its road networks and airports.

I hope this explanation helps. —Madrenergic^talk 15:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed "Terrorism" scetion

This section seem to be very un-noteworthy. If the bill had passed, or even been voted on, maybe, but no.:

• "===Terrorism===

In 2002 in the United States, Democratic senator John Breaux of Louisiana proposed a bill to prevent U.S. shipowners from using foreign flags, ostensibly as a counter-terrorism measure."
All sorts of bills get proposed in the US Congress, just being another one is not noteworthy. Carptrash (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree - it was a low-level political initiative that attracted little support and disappeared. Davidships (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2019

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: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Flag of convenience → Open Register – While better known to the public, the term "Flag of Convenience" is not neutral and is considered pejorative in the maritime industry as there are many good, morally valid reasons for choosing such a register beyond mere 'convenience'. The ITF uses it, but ITF is an advocacy organisation, which, for all its good work, cannot be considered neutral (and would not describe itself as such). The wider maritime industry uses the term "Open Register", as does the IMO, which, as the UN body regulating the industry, can be considered neutral and is incontestably official.

References

Patrick Neylan (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: The uppercase "R" is certainly not appropriate, since this is not a proper noun. The proposed title would also seem to change the topic of the title from the practice of flag choice to the registry service that allows such choices. It is also not clear that it is very WP:RECOGNIZABLE for most readers. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per clear WP:COMMONNAME, as seen on this Google Ngram. Only shipowners who use it may consider the term pejorative (for obvious reasons). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant Oppose: I do not see this as 'change of topic' - in this context flag=register (a French-flag ship is the same as a French-registered ship) - both titles are looking at the same thing - a ship-register that can be chosen by non-nationals. But FoC has come to be used pejoratively, as the article notes, and demonised by POV use. Although more recognisable to the general public, and more used by RS, FoC is not a neutral term, so not ideal for an article title. Open register is neutral and its official use is not in doubt. However WP:POVNAMING is clear that where the subject is mainly known by a single common name, even if non-neutral, that should be used. Davidships (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Flag of Convenience is the phrase in general use and specific, open register is used for many other things. Lyndaship (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: The current term is widely recognised by the non-specialist reader. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Vast preponderance of academic research on the subject uses flag of convenience (including UN publications). For period since 2015, Google scholar shows 1,080 hits for specific "flag of convenience" shipping search, whereas an "open register" shipping search produces 77. FWIW "flag of convenience" appears repeatedly in news bulletins of the IMO - it's hardly so prejudicial that the IMO cannot mention it.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The name (FoC) was not originally pejorative, that's a bolt on. In any event many good reasons already given here, and I would suggest if it were changed to the title your suggesting the readership numbers would crash. OR as a title might mean something within the industry, but it can hardly be called descriptive and specific. Better left as a re-direct. Broichmore (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2019 (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.

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs.
• There is a "update needed" banner from 2023 for the "Extent of use" section. There seems to be information from 2023 in the text, so is this resolved?
• A "Criticism" section is discouraged on Wikipedia because it is not WP:NPOV. This should be reformatted as a commentary section or something similar, and maybe some text moved to other sections.
• There is a large "Further reading" section that should be used in the article as inline citations or removed.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Port State Control" section - too large, could be shortened to one sentence saying what is PSC and what is the connection with the flags of registry. Table presented here is not relevant. Cited FOC-s in the table represent very small percentage of total FOC and world tonnages (abt. 1.5% of the world tonnage - UNCTAD.). As per Shipping Industry Flag State Performance Table published by ICS all big FOC registries are performing pretty well in regard to PSC in 2024 (and international safety and environmental conventions respectively). For example Panama has long standing policy in this regard - you can see MMC-380. Liberia and Marshal Islands both representing 30% of the world tonnage are in the white lists of all major MoU-s including USCG Qualship 21. Pl71 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pl71: Thanks for updating the article. There is still uncited text throughout the article. Are you willing to provide citations for them? Z1720 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is at times example of WP:OVERKILL. What it needs is good editing and rewriting. FOC has over 100 years of history and I would say, there is some progress. Different FOC-s, different open registers, and different second registers. All evolved in some way through the years. An excellent article here. Pl71 (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pl71: Would you like to bring this to WP:GAR? I think you will be able to explain the article's concerns more effectively than me. Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

My experience with Wikipedia is not so big. But if you (or someone else) do this feel free to use my remarks here. Pl71 (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Flags of convenience and Class organizations

This topic is not mentioned here, except one vague note saying:

To counteract class hopping, in 2009 the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) established a Transfer of Class Agreement (TOCA).

This statement is not linked at all with the surrounding context. And looks very strange.

On the other hand: each Administration (of the flag) has the right to delegate its rights regarding certification (SOLAS, MARPOL) to a recognized organization (Class). IMHO many flag of convenience administrations choose sub-standard organizations (definitely not IACS members) for a variety of reasons. As a result you have sub-standard Administration and sub-standard Class in many cases. Of course this is not general rule - for example Deepwater Horizon was classed by American Bureau of Shipping at the time of the incident. Pl71 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Flag of convenience

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Taking into account PI71's comments too, consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There is some uncited text, including entire paragraphs. There are lots of sources listed in "Further reading" that should be considered included in the article. Pl71 has stated that the "Port State Control" section is too long with irrelevant information, and other examples of WP:OVERKILL. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2024 (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.