Talk:Sinking of MV Sewol/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Danwon High School

Danwon High School is currently a red-link. We have it in Korean Wikipedia. I can't see it getting a page in English Wikipedia. Suggestions?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Corresponding article in Korean Wikipedia

is [1].

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Location of the accident on the map is not correct

Please edit with the citation. --Cheol (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done- amended to those at top of article.--Kiwipat (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ship capacity

There are several reports on the ship's capacity.

Hto0501 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Merged Sewol sinking article: merge proposal

Sewol sinking just seems to be the less-dominant article on the same topic, with a lot of the same information. Strongly proposing to merge the content/sources as applicable & redirect that title, while preserving its edit history. --CrunchySkies (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Extremely strong support per nom, no need to have 2 articles about the same thing. Jinkinson talk to me 19:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Strong support Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge completed / redirect set -- Tawker (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Why was it moved to disaster? Bit POV since most sources are not calling it that yet..(Lihaas (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)).
I didn't move it to disaster, it looks like whomever did that move reverted it though -- Tawker (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Unclear

"The ship has since made two round-trips from Incheon to Jeju."

The ferry began operating in Korea over a year ago, so it seems unlikely it has only made two trips in this time. Presumably this is not its regular route.

"The safety of the passengers is guaranteed by the Republic of Korea Coast Guard."

This would seem to be associated with regulatory responsibility for the safety of the ship, but could somebody please confirm this. Thank you. Bellemora (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

How much time did it take for the ship to sink?

What is the time the ship start to sink and what is the time it end to sink? How fast was to the ship turn 180 degress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.123.22.166 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

whats up with the only picture being from americans?

add some more please, also why must it be always coming from america? Everytime i see some article espacially new they are heavily biased towards america, showing americans always the good guys helping. Its extremly biased and should be considered propaganda, the picture you posted looks eapsially very professional like its posted from their departments and organisations. This is korean accident, how is that there are no korean pictures first?--Crossswords (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It has to do with copyright law and licensing, by law all work by the US Military is public domain and we can use the images under Wikipedia's policy. Korean images produced by the Korean military and media are copyrighted by the Korean government or the private photographer to took them and are not released under a free license. If someone is able to capture images first hand and release them under a free license we'd be more than happy to put them on the page! In short, it's not an attempt at bias, it's just copyright fun.... -- Tawker (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We're actively looking for pictures that we're allowed to use (we can't just copy pics from other websites or newspapers, it's not legal). If you know of any photos we can use, particularly from Korean sources, then please add them, or place a note here and someone else will add them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Rescued = injured?

The current article says "Injuries 175" and when I went to change that it says "represents the number of those rescued, many of them in hypothermia and shock after capsizing" but the amount of people rescued does not equal to the amount of injuries. I understand some are in hypothermia and shock, but not all. The number of injuries currently is inaccurate. ShawntheGod (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 Good point. Fixed. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

temperature water

Article says "freezing". At 34°N in the subtropics? Srsly? 46.114.128.22 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The reports say 12 degrees Celsius. Usually, in science cold water is about 16-18 degrees Celsius, lukewarm about 37 degrees Celsius. Just take the temperature at home and see for yourself. But it's not just about the temperature alone, the time a body spends in the water is most important to survival. After all it's about how fast water cools the body. As you can see in this survival probability diagram [2] at the temperature given average people will be in danger beyond one hour. But here we got mostly asian teenagers. Mightyname (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Timeline for events

A simple timeline of events would help this articles (See this [3].

  • 8.58am - Ship sends distress signal.
  • 9.30am - Ship tilt 60degs to side
  • 10am - first helicopters get to ship
  • 10-10.23am - Rescuers start to search for passengers from the overturned side of the vessel
  • 10.23am - only bottom of ship is visible
  • 11.20am - ship completely sinks

Other things to add to the timeline, when did the first boats get to the ferry? when was the declaration to abandon sink declared? When did the captain get off the ship? -MarsRover (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO number wrong?

In the info box the IMO number is 91052005 but I believe the correct number is → IMO number: 9105205 2602:306:CE73:C8B0:1DA:9212:BA9:44EF (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be correct. Somebody has already fixed it. 220 of Borg 05:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources in Korean?

This is an English Wikipedia, surely sources should be in English and not Korean, right? ShawntheGod (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:RSUE, non-English sources are allowed, even though English sources are preferred. Also, since this was a Korean event, I thought that Korean sources would have better detail about the event. KJ «Click Here» 02:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Sewol.jpg

The file File:Sewol.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Sewol.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

gcaptain.com blacklisted

For some reason gcaptain.com was blacklisted despite being a maritime news site supposedly for professionals. So I linked to a different newsite referring to it. Mightyname (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning can be found here. Apparently, it was blacklisted because the owner of the blog linked it to Wikipedia too many times even after being warned. Perhaps we could lift the ban now that gCaptain has established itself as a relatively reliable source of maritime news and hopefully the blog owner is a bit less enthusiastic about posting it to Wikipedia. Tupsumato (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Why photo gone? (photo was of US Marines preparing rescue boats)

I notice the second photo - which was of US marines preparing rescue boats - has gone. Is this intentional?

If so then what's the reason?

I see this criticism of the photo Talk:2014_South_Korean_ferry_capsizing#whats_up_with_the_only_picture_being_from_americans.3F which is a reasonable criticism to make, but in the absence of any other photos relating to the disaster itself (rather than the ship before the disaster), isn't this photo better than nothing?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no reason to exclude that picture from the article. --Seonsaengnim (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed As there are no objections, I've fixed the image (which had been added back in by another editor but had broken wikitext). I've left it where the other editor put it, under the 'foreign response' section, as that seems an appropriate place for it. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Updates

Google docs post about the incident, being updated everyday with some sources (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HzeexgeXZpxFPA-vRRX9UQVLa7y0U_51hP9ujQ_s5q0) -- Digipoke (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering any sources on the investigation concerning the Ship's modification that added 2 more passenger deck floors? Might not be NPOV but seems quite a few crew members have reflected to their head-office on how the ship have become quite unstable after the modifications.

"100th passenger ship lost since 2002"

According to gCaptain, Sewol was the 100th passenger ship lost since 2002. Has any other website reported anything along these lines, perhaps with a list of passenger ships lost during the past 12 years? Tupsumato (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find any other, but the number is reasonable. Lloyd's Register has a list of 100,000 ships lost since 1978 around the British Isle.[4] According, to a documentation about ships lost due to freak waves, today the rate of ships lost world wide is two per week. Mightyname (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
While there have been some high-profile losses in recent years (such as couple of large passenger ferries), I can't help to be afraid that the figure also includes vessels that the general public would not refer to as "passenger ships" (such as those relatively small African vessels carrying hundreds of people across the lakes). Thus, I would like to see a list of lost vessels and the circumstances around their sinking before making such statements in Wikipedia based on just one article. Tupsumato (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Turning the article into full prose?

Hello! I have come to this article and I've noticed the section "Rescue operations" had a template above it, requesting help to turn the list into prose, since the list presented there would be better in prose. However, with no apparent reason for that (the list seems very good to me, and presents well the information), and with no discussion about the subject in this talk page, I chose to remove it, since I didn't agree with it, stating my reason and asking anyone who disagreed with me to begin a discussion in the talk page in the edit summary ("I don't think there's any need for this list to be turned into prose, since it presents info pretty well, and there'd be no improvement with prose. If you believe otherwise, begin a discussion in the talk page").

However, shortly thereafter, the user Lihaas re-added that template in this edit, again without providing a reason. I looked up and noticed that was the same user who had initially added that template for no reason, in this edit. I've removed it again. It transpires, however, that this very same user had done the same thing in the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 in a section with a table which I found very useful, but with no reason, and with no discussion. In that case, I posted a message on the article's talk page (which can now be read here) describing the event, opposing myself to that possibility, presenting my reasons, and requesting further opinions. I also added a message at the user's talk page, asking them to manifest their opinion on the talk page section I had started, but they didn't say anything. No-one seemed to support the prose idea, so the template was removed, and I think it hasn't yet been added again.

Personally, I think the information is better presented with that list rather than it would be in prose. It's more easily checkable and more accessible, I believe. I also think that it will be a more useful list as days pass and new developments appear. It's easier to locate what you want in a list which is organised per days, rather than in the midst of a huge paragraph. I see no improvement with prose. So I've come here to oppose this possibility. But what do you think? Please share your comments so we can reach a consensus! Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 15:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about graphic of ship turning over

Based on this graphic from the Straits Times:

Will it be good for this article to have a similar graphic of the capsizing done by a Wikipedian? Or should we wait for the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal to make its report so we can use the KMST's data? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be better to await the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal report, as it would have details that are not readily apparent due to the unavailability of data. We've had similar issues with other articles on disasters, where information was conflicting and editing was incessant, only to finally get accurate information after the investigation.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the sea depth known at the location? Is the ship resting at all on the sea floor or capsized and floating?

Is the sea depth known at the location? Is the ship resting at all on the sea floor or capsized and floating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.202.180 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that at this point it has completely (or almost completely) sunk below the water and is at least partially resting on the seafloor. Undescribed (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I've found on NOAA's site, the vessel is in 20-30 meters of water.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming of article should be MV Sewol

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

See discussion below at #Requested move. Mkdwtalk 00:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Consistent with the description of other maritime accidents in WP the ship's name should be the name of the article and the critical event is part of the vessel's history. Ekem (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Extremely strong support That would definitely be most appropriate as the vast majority of major maritime disasters do not need a separate page on the disaster itself as it is usually redundant. For instance; the MS Estonia and SS Sultana do not have a separate page on the disaster itself. Undescribed (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Extremely strong opposition. The article is about a news event/disaster, not an article about a ship. The name of the ship is almost irrelevant (no-one will remember it). The key elements in the title should be "South Korea", "ferry", "sinking" or "disaster" and possibly "2014". WWGB (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support It is about a ship and its accident and demise and not about a natural catastrophe or a book/novel/movie title. Nobody will remember it after a while not just the ships name, but when people do talk about it its name most certainly will come up. And mostly this is brought up by media or other professionals who most certainly will recall the ship's name. That's when people look it up again. As to remembering, people will not remember any specifics after a while whether it's the area or region or ship name. Any other specifics like country name or year name are too ambiguous. There's no point to increase confusion. Mightyname (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. Once the rescue operation and the subsequent investigation are over, Sewol will be just another ferry that sank with a loss of three-figure number of lives. Just like MS Estonia, the sinking is just an event in the ship's career and should be treated as such when it comes to structuring the article in Wikipedia. Tupsumato (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2014 (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.

I support this as well, the lemma should be "MV Sewol". Simplicius (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:SNOW and WP:PRECISE. (Bold closure as participant) Mkdwtalk 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 South Korean ferry capsizing → Sinking of the MV Sewol – A more sensible title. Also fits nicely with Sinking of the RMS Titanic and Sinking of the RMS Lusitania. The page shouldn't be renamed "MV Sewol" mainly because the subject of the article is obviously the sinking itself, not the ship. Alternatively, the article can be moved to MV Sewol disaster or simply Sewol disaster. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 03:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Most English-speaking readers will not remember the name of the ship, and will certainly not search for Sewol. Per my comments in the above section, the current title is adequate, with the exception of the awkward gerund "capsizing". WWGB (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't use a definite article with a prefix... Tupsumato (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Granted this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but RazorEye's reference to Titanic and Lusitania seems apt. @WWGB - re "will certainly not search for Sewol" - What will they search for though? In a couple years, how many English speakers will remember the name Costa Concordia? Should Costa Concordia disaster be moved to "2012 Italian Ship screw up"? NickCT (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Cautious support as preferable to current title, but I would actually prefer "MV Sewol" or "South Korean ferry Sewol". We already have articles on HMS Iolaire and MV Princess Victoria, ships which both sank with heavy casualties, even though the most important thing about them is that they did sink, and it is doubtful if we would have Wikipedia articles about them if they had not sank. PatGallacher (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I think in this event, the actual sinking is going to be considerably more notable than the ship itself, which may not be the case in some other instances. NickCT (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I won't make a big issue at this stage, but I note that in the 2 cases I quoted above the sinking was considerably more notable than the ship itself, as the worst sinking of a British ship in peacetime since the Titanic, and the worst sinking in UK waters since WW2. PatGallacher (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Perhaps some unconscious geographic or language WP:Bias in the idea that readers will not know or will not search for the name of the ship. RazorEye's logic makes sense to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sinking of the MV Sewol sounds much better than ferry capsizing, and this article should focus on the incident, not the ship's history. --Seonsaengnim (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's also an existing the pattern of "<year> <location> <type> disaster" (eg. 2014 Lake Albert boat disaster, 2010 West Bengal ferry sinking) Why not rename this "2014 South Korean ferry disaster"? The ferry itself is not that notable to be in the title. And will make finding the article harder. --MarsRover (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that if the name of the ferry is included in the article title, we could perhaps omit the year because this was the first time and will likely be the last time Sewol sank. Such disambiguation is not needed. Tupsumato (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Those are also low traffic articles that are nearly start articles and arguably poorly named as well. More well written and larger precedent setting articles should be used like the Titanic. Mkdwtalk 17:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong support both of the accidents mentioned above occurred in highly undeveloped countries where the name of the ship is not rationally applicable because of the high frequency of maritime disasters occurring in these regions. "Sinking of the MV Sewol" also sounds much better. Undescribed (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ...except that it combines the prefix with a definite article. It should be either "Sinking of the Sewol" or "Sinking of MV Sewol". Tupsumato (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "MV" stands for "Motor Vessel", which makes the sentence "Sinking of the Motor Vessel "Sewol" entirely grammatically correct. walk victor falk talk 09:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I know what MV stands for and that, if opened, combining the prefix with a definite article makes sense. However, This stylistic guide and this Wikipedia naming convention are against this. Furthermore, the article name can be considered as the first introduction of the vessel, in which case using a definite article would be grammatically wrong in that way as well. Hence, Sinking of MV Sewol would be IMHO the best option. Tupsumato (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In that case, wouldn't it be most appropriate to name the page "2014 Gwanmae Island ferry capsizing" as at least that refers to a specific location within a country in which the accident occurred nearest to; as do the articles you mentioned above? Calling it "2014 South Korea ferry capsizing" would be like calling an accident "2014 Philippines ferry capsizing." 72.87.103.201 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRECISE and similar articles like Sinking of the RMS Titanic. Brandmeistertalk 08:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Encyclopedic and wp:precise title consistent with similar articles. The redirect will still be there for people searching "Korea", "ferry", "capsizing", etc. walk victor falk talk 09:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but with exclusion of definite article. The Lake Albert, West Bengal and Sokchi examples above are not really relevant as the vessels had no names (or at least they don't appear in the articles), and Lamma Island was a collision between two named vessels, which would give a very clumsy result - only the Staten Island example is really relevant. Another variation for the WP:OSE list is Herald of Free Enterprise disaster (not that I favour it particularly).Davidships (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. In addition, the Staten Island ferry was a crash rather than a sinking and it would not sound right to call the article the "Crash of the Andrew J. Barberi." Another option is also the "Sewol disaster" format, which would correspond with the Herald of Free Enterprise, as well as the Costa Concordia mentioned below. 72.87.103.201 (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as similar naming convention has been followed in other shipping disasters. However, the definite article should be dropped. Tupsumato (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article is factually incomplete since the vessel has in fact sank. Further the title is relatively ambiguous right now as it indicates it could cover a number of events not only the most famous. Mkdwtalk 21:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As per WP:PRECISE. But, I'm not sure how to reconcile that with WP:NCEVENTS. I guess one is policy, and one is guideline. Sancho 23:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moving as proposed. The ship has now submerged completely, so this no longer merely a "capsizing," but a true sinking. Many other editors here have pointed out that any redirects needed to guide people to a "2014" disaster of this type in "South Korea" already exist or can be made, so that should not be an issue. The issue is what to name articles on disasters of this type, a ship sinking, and we have other precedents described by other editors here to refer to for that. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Recommend snow closure Due to the fact that this article is highly in the public eye and the amount of traffic it is receiving, I propose this be snow closed as opposed to waiting the 7 day RFC process. It's clear that waiting would only be a formality. Mkdwtalk 17:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRECISE. Yogwi21talk 06:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (even with definite article) — Yes, it should be moved. If the ship has a name, why not using it in the article? Maybe no-one will remember the name of the ship, but that's not really a good reason... Following that, what about "1912 British ship disaster" for the Sinking of the RMS Titanic? Does it sound good? I think we should treat things by their names. The definite article "the" is also acceptable in my opinion, since we refer to ships with that article in current speech. We talk about "the Titanic" (don't we?), and the page about its sinking has the definite article. I strongly support the idea of changing the name of the article into Sinking of the MV Sewol (obviously, with italics on the word "Sewol", since it's the name of the ship). -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 15:27, 21 April 2014 (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.

The title: "2014 South Korean ferry capsizing" sounds very non-native English

Can we have more native English speakers working on this article please? The title for starters should be "disaster" not "capsizing" because that is just one of several factors that have occurred in this tragedy. It started with a collision, then capsized and finally sank. A native speaker would use a noun with plurality not a singular noun to describe such an event.

Likewise there is too much passive voice. Example:

"About 20 kilometres (12 mi) off the southwest coast, the ferry began to list badly as it headed for Jeju"

This sounds like middle school English. All articles should be written in an active voice: Example:

The ferry, which was heading to Jeju, began to list badly about 20 kilometres (12 mi) off the south west coast of South Korea.

I know this tragedy is unfolding as we speak but can we at least have people who can write in clear and concise English. This is not being finicky, it's just about pragmatism because most of the crap grammar will be replaced eventually. So whose time is being wasted here? 86.180.231.169 (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

um...your example of "too much passive voice" has NONE!

and your rewrite of the sentence sounds worse than the original. lose "heading to" altogether; "on its way to" is the correct expression there. 209.172.25.49 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's moving too fast to worry about the grammar of text that will get replaced every few hours. It will get easier as cites migrate to English-language sources. English speakers who also read Korean well would be needed (online auto-translations are particularly incomprehensible with Korean). Meanwhile you remain free to edit. Davidships (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It indeed does sound quite awkward, there are currently minor disputes on whether this incident should be referred to as 'The Jindo Ferry sinking Incident' or 'The Sewol Ferry Sinking Incident'. I'm seeing a lot of broadcasting networks referring it as 'The Jindo Ferry Sinking incident' but most people insist it should be referred to as the other. 182.252.156.76 (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The title should be moved to just Sewol (ferry) like many other ship incidents articles.--93.137.223.55 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to copyedit. Some of the info translated from Korean is not in perfectly clear and concise English - we welcome it anyway. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hanja name

Is Sewol's Hanja name appropriate in the lead? It seems that this script has a relatively narrow usage, mostly in old historical documents. Brandmeistertalk 18:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm so used to seeing the Hanja next to the Hangul that I hadn't even noticed, but since this is the English wiki, Hanja probably doesn't add much to the viewer's understanding. That said, it doesn't take up much room or create confusion, so I say just leave it. ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
It should be in the ship section instead of the lead. There should be no hanja or hangul in the lead, since this topic does not have a native Korean name, being solely a descriptive title (as evidenced by the options presented in the requested move) Hanja/Hangul can be used as necessary in the rest of the article, but is not necessary in the lead, since there is no definitive Korean name for this topic. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Number of deaths

The currently known number of deaths is only shown in the infobox - nowhere in the article! 75.41.109.190 (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Overloaded, crew not trained in safety procedures

The Wall Street Journal is claiming that the ship carrying three times too much weight of cargo, and that the ferry's owners had spent hardly any money on crew safety training last year. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Capsizing section → messages portion is misleading

"During the capsizing, it was at first believed that passengers trapped in the vessel were able to send text messages to friends and family as the vessel sank.[33] However, subsequent investigations by the Cyber Terror Response Center reported that survivors had not used their phones from noon on the 16th to 10 am on the 17th and determined that all reported text messages were fake.[34]" → Some of the text messages sent "during the capsize" were real. Only those sent after 12 noon on April 16th were fake. The way it's written makes it seem that all text messages were fake, and they weren't. Suggest rewrite. ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, after the accident, there were text messages on the web allegedly written by the students who were still in the ship. The messages quickly went viral, but it was later determined that all messages publicized online were fake. There are messages sent over online services and their veracity wasn't determined as of the time of publishing of that article. KJ «Click Here» 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Reworded article for clarification. ArishiaNishi (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear whether the text messages being reported by the BBC are real or fake. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are fake. KJ «Click Here» 13:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So the news stories were based on a false blog post? The later news stories make it sound like there was an elaborate hoax and that fake messages were sent to families. Perhaps the journalists don't want to admit that they screwed up and crowd sourced their stories. Two from one (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
From my understanding of the text messages, what happened was that text messages allegedly sent from students from inside the ships were published online. The content of the messages claimed that the senders were students who were trapped in the ship, but the postings were anonymous and the sources couldn't be immediately confirmed. Later, investigations by the cyber police determined that the text messages couldn't possibly have been sent. KJ «Click Here» 13:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Turn direction

The ship sank when it made a sharp turn to the right, not the left. It capsized to the port (left) side. 192.165.214.193 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Good catch.ㅎㅎㅎ ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of memorials

I've taken some today and uploaded to commons:Category:Memorial for the victims of the sinking of the MV Sewol. Please help categorize them properly, describe, and select most appopriate ones for inclusion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be helpful to label the photos, at least with a location, even if the significance of each is not yet known to you? Davidships (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I have done so through categories. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Korean words for sudden turn

From the continuous editing, it looks like there's a minor controversy concerning one of the theories of the cause, the sudden-turn theory. The Korean and Hanja words (Korean: 변침; Hanja: 變針) have been repeatedly removed then added by various editors. Should the characters be added? Personally, I wanted to post the characters since that's what the theory is referred to in Korean (especially in the media). Any thoughts? KJ «Click Here» 23:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Is your reason simply "I wanted to post the characters since that's what the theory is referred to in Korean (especially in the media)."?
Please explain more why the Korean word is necessary for the English translation "turn" or "veer", preferably citing the relevant policies or guidelines. A native name is usually included when the English name is a transliteration of the native name per W:EN and So on.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's any policies and guidelines that applies explicitly applies to this case. If I had to cite a policy, I would argue WP:RSUE, since the sources for this theory are all in Korean, and the Korean terms are necessary to verify that other sources are about the same theory (and not similar ones). Also, I can't find any confirmed English names for this theory, so the phrase in Korean will be necessary to specify the exact theory. KJ «Click Here» 03:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to jump into this discussion, but I have to agree with Phoenix7777 here. This so-called Sudden-turn theory was not proposed by some notable Korean scholars who's a world renowned expert in ship wreckage. It's just a Korean word for a basic law of physics: if a ship makes a sharp turn thus loses its balances, she could capsize to its side and eventually will sink. This should be a well-known fact to many sailors for centuries around the world. Thus, WP:RSUE can not be a good justification for keeping a Korean jargon.
If I comment one more thing about these so called theories, I have to point out that they are not hard-earned Theories at all. Any proposed hypothesis must be underwent a rigorous peer reviews to be called a "theory". From what I can tell, all these theories in this article are simply self-claimed experts' speculations at best. In other words, those expert do not have any evidence' to back up their speculations. They could make more educated guesses than non-experts, but the cause of sinking will be investigated thoroughly once the vessel to be salved. Only then, we could say the cause of sinking with some concrete evidences.
I understand that KJ wants to keep this translation from Ko-wiki project. The English wikipedia, however, has different editing standards. As someone who had blanked a theory section from this edit [5], I think the article would be better off without listing all the speculations which do not have hard evidences. (but, this could be just my bias.) --SSN (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It's absolutely absurd to even bring up peer reviews or the proper methodology to scientific "theories" in this circumstance. This website presents information from news sources. If the scientific method were the standard, news would not exist. Since news by its very nature quickly reports what has occurred, it doesn't spend months investigating every story. Wikipedia, the news, and most of functioning society do not abide by this standard of "theory". In fact most investigation of events by officials never reaches such a stage, even trials do not meet this standard. This isn't an article about a theory of a scientific analysis, and therefor the criticism of the use of theory in how this event occurred is irrational and baseless. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I never said that everything written here must be scientific and rigorous. I simply questioned the use of word, "Theory", while this so-called "Theory" is in fact someone's hunch or educated guess. --SSN (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
>I can't find any confirmed English names for this theory
It is because the word is a terminology specialized in the marine navigation. I am also afraid you are misunderstanding the word as "theory". The word byeonchim (Korean: 변침; Hanja: 變針) is not a theory but a word meaning simply "veer" or "change the course" in maritime terminology. See this explanation. The word byeonchim literally means "Change the needle". The needle is the needle of the compass. The similar word is byeonsog (변속), literally "Change the speed" (sogdo, 속도).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand the meaning of the word, as well as the technical aspects of calling it a 'theory.' However, the Korean media has been taken to dubbing to this theory (or hypothesis) as an 'unreasonable sharp turn (무리한 변침)' or just 'sharp turn (변침).' The former case can be seen here and here, the latter here and here. It's not just an explanation of the events; i.e. the ship capsized due to a sharp turn, but it's the unofficial (but widely-used) name. Thus, it could be used as a temporary label until an official name is created. Similarly, other theories could be tagged with the appropriate Korean titles, but this should be the most important since this is the currently 'official theory.'
As for the concern about labeling the conjectures 'theories,' they could be dubbed 'hypotheses' but it's clear from the multiple proposals that it's not being used in the rigorous scientific sense, but rather the common usage denoting reasonable ideas. It could be changed to hypotheses without too much trouble, but there's no real merit either way. KJ «Click Here» 05:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me put the question this way: does the word byeonchim help readers to understand the article more clearly? If you leaves out this terminology, would readers have a hard time understanding the cause of sinking? If it does, we'd better keep the word. Otherwise, byeonchim does not have its place in the article.

Compare the case with the name of the vessel, "Sewol". If you leaves out the ship's proper noun "Sewol" and tries to replace it with English translation, it would not make much sense. In other words, the proper noun(고유 명사) "Sewol" cannot be replaced with any other translation. As you already did, byeonchim can be easily translated/replaced and is Not a proper noun. --SSN (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Seonsaengnim explained all about this problem. By the way, I noticed that you misunderstand byeonchim (변침) means "sharp turn". Byeonchim simply means "turn" or "veer" not "sharp turn". "우선 세월호 침몰의 유력한 사고 원인으로 지목된 `변침`은 선박이나 항공기가 항로를 변경하는 것을 뜻한다."[6]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Putting aside the meaning, the term is used as the unofficially-agreed on name for the theory, as demonstrated above. In any case, I'm willing to defer to consensus. Does anyone else have opinions on this point? KJ «Click Here» 22:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add, but my opinion is that the Korean is unnecessary. It would also be unnecessary to provide a Korean translation of "renovation" or "overloading", as they are simple descriptions; "sudden turn" is no different. —WOFall (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
From everything I've read so far, all we really know is that the ship made a turn. How many radians per second that turn was, no one really knows. The AIS went off during the turn as well. It did change it's course more than it should have, but no one knows why that happened, or how quickly. I would leave out the adjective describing the turn until we have the investigative report. ArishiaNishi (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree. By the way, AIS doesn't "go off". It's a system of continuously broadcasting a vessel's positional, navigational and other data, primarily as an anti-collision aid for other vessels. Davidships (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
For the most part, that's true.(imho) We don't yet know what AIS equipment was onboard, and whether it had a UPS or not. There are reports from the master of the nearby tanker and from public officials that something changed in regards to the Sewol's AIS during the time of the turn, but just what that was is still a question. ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Needs Re-Write

You need to get someone with maritime credentials to re-write this article. There are almost too many problems to list.

Some Highlights: Ships with proper stability and watertight integrity do not capsize or sink from turning too sharply. The problem with the Sewol was almost certainly improper stability. The question is: Exactly how and why did they have improper stability? Did they know this? If not, why not? Also, the directive to passengers to dawn lifejackets inside the skin of the ship--particularly under the circumstances that obtained at the time--was criminally negligent. This is absolutely basic. VTS are traffic control. They are not qualified to issue orders, or even advice, in maritime emergencies. This is the role of coast guards with ultimate responsibility resting upon the ship's master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.88.71 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't do Original Research. If you can find sources the article can include them. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Just referring to the IP's first point. We are expected to write in appropriate vocabulary/grammar in drawing on RS. There is definitely a lot of inappropriate vocabulary used here in describing maritime aspects, but much of that is coming from translations of Korean texts, some of which may not be very good in the first place (I suspect that we are relying on Korean editors to be satisfied that these as RS, the rest of us can't really know). But only a maritime-savvy Korean-speaking editor with good English can do much about that. Davidships (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> South Korean diver dies during ferry search(Lihaas (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)).

Article updating

Hello, IMHO the article need to cite:

  • The 21 years old Yoon Dae-ho (윤대호), petty officer 2nd class (병장) of the RoK Navy (it is not clear if he was a diver in the Navy, if not wich was his actual role?) passed away on Apr. 20th or Apr. 19th (does anyone known the correct death date?) after having suffered a head injury followed by coma while embarked on Dae Jo-yeong (DDH-977) enroute to the Sewol disaster area.
  • The 22 years old Park Ji-young (박지영씨 or 박지영 ?), a young crew member who helped many students to reach the Deck 4 and wear the lifejackets, giving her own to them prior to die in cold waters.
  • The 17 years old Choi Deok-ha (korean name fonts unknown), a student from Danwon High School who first allerted the 119 emergency number. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Direct cause

An editor who have a special feeling for "sudden turn" (see above #Korean words for sudden turn) edited the direct cause is "As of 17 April, the ROK Coast Guard has concluded that an "unreasonably sudden turn" to the right" citing the sources dated next day or so of the accident. [25]: 17 April 2014, [26]: 18 April 2014 [52]: 17 April 2014, [53]: 22 April 2014, [54]: 17 April 2014. However recent reports suggest the direct cause is the loss of stability because of the overloading, discharged ballast water and the loss of fuel weight. Although the tracking data of AIS shows the quick right turn, it is not because of the quick veering but as a result of the tilting of the ship.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for that personal introduction for my feelings. Couple of things to note. Firstly, the theory advocated by the coast guard haven't changed, as far as I know, and the sharp turn is the 'direct cause' of this incident. The ship capsized because it tilted to the right due to the turn, and the tilting eventually led to the ship being unbalanced to the point that the crew couldn't stabilize it, and that led to the capsizing. This is supported by the AIS, the crew, and experts (as sourced). Second, there are several conjectures what facilitated the ship's unbalancing of the ship. That's what the Secondary causes section is for. The ferry didn't capsize because it discharged ballast water, it capsized because the discharge led to the center of gravity shifting, weakening the ship's restoring force, and helping the ship unbalance when it made that turn. Currently, the only one of those factors being officially considered as the direct cause by the Prosecution/Police Coalition Investigations Headquarters is overloading, which is why I placed that under the 'direct causes' section. I'm not sure what the proposal is, but until the secondary causes move on from being a collection of conjecture by the media, it can't be given WP:DUE. KJ «Click Here» 05:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Do not define direct or sencondly cause by one wikipedian, the incident is under investigation. Next, do not delete ballast water contents which reported by Aljazeera and New York Times.--Syngmung (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Syngmung: The direct and secondary causes aren't wrongfully labelled. Currently, there are several theories as to what caused the capsizing, but each viewpoint must be given WP:DUE and properly classified. Right now, the consensus in the media and the government was that the ship sank because of the sharp turn that it has made. The 'unreasonably sudden turn' is the theory advocated by the ROK Coast Guard as a direct cause here, and overloading and the lack of proper securing is considered as direct causes by the Prosecution/Police Coalition Investigations Headquarters as reported here. Other conjectures focus on the restoring force of the ferry, such as renovation (seen here), so it's placed under the secondary causes. Theories that argue that the tipping wasn't the cause are placed under the alternative theories section. The alternative to classifying the theories following governmental classification would be listing of all possible causes for the capsizing, and that's worse. Furthermore, if you look at the secondary causes section, you would see that the 'ballast water content' was moved to secondary theories, for the reasons given above. I would be open to changing the classifications, but there doesn't seem to be real alternatives. KJ «Click Here» 10:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion amongst editors here - and quite possible some media editors also - about the so-called "theories". The causes mentioned in the article are mostly not isolated from each other, and it is the combination of them that led to the capsize. Making the turn, as described so far, would not have led to an extreme list if the stability conditions of the ship were correct. It is clear from the reports of overloading of cargo, the consequent reduction in water ballast (and perhaps lighter fuel load) and maybe the consequences of the modifications to the vessel, that she lacked proper stability and could not be recovered from the initial list. The consequence of that was perhaps compounded by insufficient securing of the cargo. Of course, written like that it is OR, but I think that I have read all that in more recent reports, which I will go looking for on Wednesday. Hopefully we can bring some improvement to this part of the article. Davidships (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Causes: The shifting cargo would have created a persistent list of the ship. However, since it didn't roll over in a matter of minutes, it would have been relatively stable at the angle the ship was at once it achieved a full stop. The subsequent slow rolling over of the ship over the next hour or two would have been caused by uncontrolled water ingress onto the Ro-Ro deck, superstructure, and perhaps the lower hull. No photos of the Port side of the ship near the waterline have been published, and it is unclear if the shifting cargo damaged the side of the superstructure, perhaps creating a tear in the lower hull, or perhaps also damaged the deck plating allowing water from the deck to enter the hull. The main generator/engines apparently failed at the time of the accident for unspecified reasons. I haven't seen notes on the functionality of the bilge pumps, however, the ingress of water into the ship would have had to be substantial. Nor have the actions of the crew to save the ship been specified such as filling the previously low or empty ballast tanks which would have lowered the ship's stance in the water, potentially increasing the water ingress. Keelec (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Factors leading to a high mortality rate, and lack of an early response onboard

All the inflatable life rafts were located on the upper deck, although apparently the crew had troubles deploying them, and perhaps not a good method to get the passengers and life rafts into the water. It is unclear if any were successfully deployed, perhaps one. However, there was also a lot of open space as well as railings on the upper deck. Had the passengers been ordered to "muster" on the upper lifeboat deck they would likely have had a very high survival rate. However, the passengers were apparently instructed to "stay put". See section "Inside the Sewol". The cabins became extremely difficult to exit as the ship listed, and at notes indicate the stairwells were difficult to climb. Communication within the ship was apparently poor, and the internal communication system apparently failed before the abandon ship order which may not have been relayed off of the bridge. Keelec (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

+- survived then died?

What is the logic behind these lines:

  • Deaths 273 + 1 vice principal + ...
  • Survivors 172[3] - 1 vice principal

It is pretty messy. If he survived then survived; this is not an algebraic equation, what happened after his life doesn't change this status. So we have 172 survivors. If everybody will die in 120 years (what is really likely), then you would write: survivors 172 - 172 = 0. Or what? 91.82.160.75 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I changed the infobox to make it clearer.128.189.191.222 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to read

In places, the text has major grammar errors, making it hare to understand. Please fix up. Kdammers (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the height measurement correct: 14.00 m (45 ft 11 in)?

The height of the ship is listed as: Height: 14.00 m (45 ft 11 in) Is this correct? It looks taller than that considering the 22m width, and 157m length. I'm having troubles confirming.Keelec (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

14m is the depth (distance from main deck to the keel), not height. Corrected. Figure for height not found. Davidships (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem with File:Ferry Sewol 1.jpg

Can anyone comment on what is the problem with that image, and when it will be deleted if the issue is not fixed? Also, perhaps we can reach out to others who took similar pictures and try to get another person to freely license their picture? (Pinging User:Hym411 who added the OTRS problem template) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate your concerns. The photo clearly shows the ship's name. It also shows the double-stacking of cargo on the forward deck, raising the center of gravity. The perspective is odd.
I have seen a good side-view "promotional" image on the web. Keelec (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it is the unresolved concern about "permission"? Davidships (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It only needs additional, more clear email from copyright holder. (Current email is bit unclear that I couldn't determine which license copyright holder used.) — Revicomplaint? 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I can process with current email. I'll process with current email, and will update if there's email arrived. (Main reason I didn't pass this was because I wanted more clear statement, and copyright holder just could use CCL template on the source website.) — Revicomplaint? 17:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Dismantling the South Korean coast guard

I can't find anything about this extraordinary decision on the page! CapnZapp (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sinking location

The lead stated the distress call was made off Gwanmaedo. That's way off, Gwanmaedo (Gwanmae Island) is some 10 km NE of where Sewol made its J-shaped turn off the coast of Byeongpungdo. I added a source for that.

All I have seen, e.g. graphics like this, shows the sinking vessel then drifted due north towards Donggeochado (Donggeocha Island; 동거차도). A photo like this taken at 34°12'N 125°57'E supports that. The sinking location currently given in the infobox is "1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi) off Donggeocha Island" with a citation needed appended.

The coordinates given are however 34.239833°N 125.866361°E, but that puts the sinking 3 km VSV of Seogeochaddo (Seogeochad Island) and 3 km NNE of Maenggoldo (Maenggol Island), and that seems highly implausible. I haven't seen any graphics indicating it should have difted some 8 km to the west.

Can anyone find the correct coordinates that also confirm its off Donggeochado? Best, Sam Sailor Sing 10:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a source for "1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi) off Donggeocha Island". I can not find a source that states the lat and long for the sinking position. If we consider that at 9:31 the captain reported the ship's position to 34°10'N 125°57'E, and that it at 10:21 was at 34°12'N 125°57'E, then, if assuming it continued along 125°57', an approximate sinking position is 34°13'5.00"N 125°57'0.00"E. That's pure OR, and very likely off with 200-300 meters, but it's a lot better than the unsourced 34.239833°N 125.866361°E that is 8 km off to the west. If anyone can find a source for the precise location, do add it and correct the coordinates. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 20:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Capsizing

Reconstruction of route leading to capsizing given graphically does not jive with 45 degree turn. According to the graphic attributed to reconstructed AIS data the turn was more than 180 degrees to the right. If the graphic is accurate regarding distances the ship decelerated rapidly during the turn. Electrical failure is cited as cause of unusual turn to the right. This statement and the graphic is attributed to "Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries". [1] Kellnerp (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added {{Update}} to the article. Please go ahead and change any old info you can replace with newer, sourced info. Sam Sailor Sing 11:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sporadic cleanup needed

The article as a whole is pretty good, in terms of writing, but I keep noticing some isolated areas that need to be reworded, and this one, in particular, I can't fully decide on how to phrase more coherently:

On 18 April, Kang Min-kyu, 52, the vice principal of the Danwon High School which many of the victims attended, rescued from the ship, was found hanging from a tree in Jindo, near the gymnasium where relatives of the victims were camped.

The sentence feels somewhat incoherent. I don't mean that as a personal attack, because I know the editor(s) meant well. So, anybody have ideas for improving it? KirkCliff2 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

KirkCliff2, have a look and see if my rewording is any better. Or just be bold and reword it yourself. In general this article needs a lot of updating, expansion and correction. Most material is from late April and a lot of things have happened since. Best Sam Sailor Sing 06:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. Now, let's see what else we can do to tidy this article up. One more thing: In regards to any references for websites written in Korean, perhaps we could link them using the Google-Translated version? This is the English Wikipedia, after all. KirkCliff2 (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Length: 157 m

Infobox ship currently has 146.61 m (481 ft 0 in) (as built), 157.02 m (515.16 ft) indicating it should have been made ~10 m (32 ft 10 in) longer. I do not recall reading it was altered horizontaly. Do we have a source for that? I'm going to stick in a {{dubious}}. Sam Sailor Sing 05:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I went a step further and removed it. If we do have sources, it can be added back easily, but I can't find anything to support it. Also, per [7] and the ko wiki, I corrected the length from 146.61 to 145.61. —WOFall (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this for the Sewol, but differences like this are sometimes due to the difference between LOA (overall length), and LWL (waterline length). And it isn't clear to me which of these should be reported for the "Length" stat. Boardhead (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at the pic on marinetraffic. I should have looked for sources myself in the first place. As far as I can tell the 146 m reported a couple of places is likely the LOA rounded up in the AIS transponder. I'm confident with the marinetraffic length of 145.61 m that WOFall quoted. Whereas 157.02 dosen't return much. Sam Sailor Sing 18:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Number of fatalities missing

Political repercussions

[8]Lihaas (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

News Article "Errors by Coast Guard detailed" July 3, 2014

As I am not watching this Wiki page closely enough to add in this material I wanted to post it here in the hopes that someone can use it/helpful to someone. (link) ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Five more deaths connected with the disaster

A helicopter crashec today killing five people, firefighters returning from searching Sewol for bodies. Is this worthy of inclusion? Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think no. Their deaths are NOT connected to Sewol disaster or its subsequent rescue effort. Their job was complete and they were returning home, when the plane crashed. This is a separate incident, with no relation with Sewol disaster. If we add their deaths, then would we add the death of a rescuer who dies in a car accident 20 years later, just because he is a rescuer? 128.189.191.60 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Text of captains conversation with coast guard?

I think that the text of the captain's conversations with the coast guard are also salient and should be included. I remember hearing on the news how the captain was asking for instructions over the radio and also asking if the coast guard (or whatever the correct name is) would initiate a rescue. The coast guard repeatedly refused to give the captain advice and help.

Here is some of it. Don't you think that JINDO VTS is also guilty. They **never** answered the captain's question. He was clearly panicking and unsure of what to do. (The Captain of the Costa Concordia had a similar panic and refused to get back onto his ship when ordered by the coast Guard. So did the captain and crew of the MTS Oceanos (a musican had to organize the rescue) -the crew fled in a lifeboat. [2] [3]

If JINDO VTS had given him direction immediately, more lives could have been saved.

9:22 a.m. SEWOL: OK. How long will it take for the coast guard to get here? JINDO VTS: Yes, hold on.

9:24 a.m. JINDO VTS: Even if it's impossible to broadcast, please go out as much you can and make the passengers wear life jackets and put on more clothing. SEWOL: If this ferry evacuates passengers, will you be able to rescue them? JINDO VTS: At least make them wear life rings and make them escape! SEWOL: If this ferry evacuates passengers, will they be rescued right away? JINDO VTS: Don't let them go bare, at least make them wear life rings and make them escape!

9:25 a.m. JINDO VTS: The evacuation of people on board Sewol ferry ... the captain should make a decision about evacuating them. We don't know the situation there. The captain should make the final decision and decide quickly whether to evacuate passengers or not.

9:26 a.m. SEWOL: I'm not talking about that. I asked, if they evacuate now, can they be rescued right away? JINDO VTS: Patrol boats will be there in less than 10 minutes. SEWOL: In 10 minutes? JINDO VTS: Yes, in about 10 minutes, 10 minutes!

9:27 a.m. JINDO VTS: Sewol ferry, a helicopter will be there in one minute. SEWOL: I can't hear you. Please talk to me slowly and clearly. JINDO VTS: A helicopter will be there in one minute. SEWOL: Say it again. JINDO VTS: A helicopter will be there soon.

9:28 a.m. SEWOL: There are too many passengers. A helicopter is not enough. JINDO VTS: A helicopter will be there and other ships nearby are approaching, for your information. [4]

(I also wonder why the top of this article says that it is out of date and no longer accurate). Lehasa (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree with your interpretation. In particular, I cannot see where the captain asks for advice and isn't given any. The exchange is basically loops of "but will you be able to rescue us?" followed by "not if you don't evacuate!" (very paraphrased). The conversation leading up to the part you quoted is also important for context (– from the start it was already too late to evacuate, according to Sewol's captain). Btw, much of Sinking of the MV Sewol#Capsizing is taken from this transcript. —WOFall (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Doola Ace -- more missing information

This is from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/10779467/South-Korea-ferry-disaster-first-distress-call-came-from-young-boy.html

On[sic] transcript showed that a ship named Doola Ace was just two miles from the Sewol at 9.06am, roughly 11 minutes after the bridge made its own distress call. The Doola Ace was told to assist in a rescue, but 12 minutes later, it reported that the ferry was not evacuating its passengers.
"We cannot move alongside if people don’t evacuate," it said. Five minutes later, it reported it was "right in front" of the Sewol, still waiting. After the shore told the ship again to get its passengers out on deck, the bridge of the Sewol responded that its captain had to make a final decision.

Lehasa (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Petrova, Iskra. "Sunken ferry Sewol Update: 152 confirmed dead, 150 remain missing". VesselFinder. Astra Paging Ltd. Retrieved 18 June 2014.
  2. ^ http://oceanossinking.blogspot.ca/2010/05/what-happened-to-captain-yiannis.html
  3. ^ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/why-ships-sink.html
  4. ^ http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/20/305338621/ferry-transcript-shows-confusion-and-panic-please-come-quickly
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinking_of_MV_Sewol/Archive_1&oldid=1136380743"