Talk:Marchioness disaster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hurlingham

Should the fact that passengers and crew on Hurlingham saw the accident and rescued some of the survivors be mentioned? http://www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk/register/257/hurlingham 92.40.120.150 (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Marchioness

In 1976 I saw a passenger boat called Marchioness on the Norfolk Broads, and the name stuck with me because at the time it struck me as quite unusual. I have no idea whether it was the same boat, of course, but I'd be interested to find out. Lee M 00:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we know when the boat was built, and how long she had been in operation when sunk? Drutt (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cutting Off Hands For Identification

I am surprised to see no mention of this in the article as it was a matter of some controversy at the time. I am not going to insert it as I don't have a source for the information, I just read it in the press (so don't even know if it was found to be true). Can someone with in-depth knowledge of the disaster please put the appropriate section in the article? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This was not a procedure of first resort. I am not sure this was in relation to the Marchioness disaster, but I did read in a woman's magazine an article on the mother of a Thames boatman, who recalled being told his hands had to be cut off to permit the taking of fingerprints because after a boating disaster his body was so long in being found that he could not otherwise be identified. He was subsequently cremated and his ashes scattered on the Thames.Cloptonson (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This document researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00769/SN00769.pdf establishes that it happened. Maproom (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Both boats

It seems that alcohol was involved in both boats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.11.202 (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Southwark

I am not sure why those who died were mentioned in Southwark Cathedral. Many were not of the same denomination as those with the Cathedral now in their hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.7.129 (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have seen the memorial. It seems denominational differences were disregarded. The churchmanship of Southwark Cathedral's clergy has tended to be liberal.Cloptonson (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

Worth having a section about this? I remember the fury about the Daily Mail headline "Death of the Beautiful People" and there were some other controversial pieces of coverage in the media in the days following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.171.64 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If one can find the newspaper coverage to cite. I recall reading at the time that it was much implied the victims were all rich. The parents of an Australian victim were distressed by the high cost of repatriating his body.Cloptonson (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marchioness disaster. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cathedral.southwark.anglican.org/news/Marchioness-anniversary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050907204104/http://www.southwark.anglican.org/cathedral/tour/arcade.htm to http://southwark.anglican.org/cathedral/tour/arcade.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marchioness disaster. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150108202116/http://scuba-madeira.com/html/dive_-_sites.html to http://www.scuba-madeira.com/html/dive_-_sites.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Cooper article

The Cooper article-- or most of it-- appears to be online [1] but it displayed oddly when I previewed it after adding the url.

The article uses an odd definition of "trim", so I used another one from an online dictionary. The important point is that the stern was lower than the bow, which is well-handled in the efn. Kablammo (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"calderbank condition"?

The term "calderbank condition" is not one that appears in legal textbooks. What does it mean? What were the terms of the settlement offer that was made?

This book explains quite well the three forms of offer that can be made to settle civil litigation in England:

• "open" (which can be referred to in court, possibly to the deteriment of the defendant as it might involve an admission of liability, but affects the abiity to recover legal costs if the claimant fails to recover more than the offer);
• "without prejudice" (which cannot be referred to in court, so does not affect liability, but also does not affect costs);
• "without prejudice save as to costs" (i.e. a Calderbank offer).

Any offer can be accepted or rejected (or withdrawn before either) but a defendant's offer is not "withdrawn if a judge awarded a lower amount", it just falls away. Just as a claimaint can't wait for the judge to decide the case, and then accept a higher offer made previously by the defendant.

The effect of an offer being "without prejudice save as to costs" is that (unlike an "open" offer) the offer cannot be referred to in court until a determination is made of liability and quantum (i.e. whether the defendant is liable, and to what extent) at which point, if the Calderbank offer was higher that the judge's determination, it would affect the ability of the claimant to recover their legal costs from the time when the offer was made. (Rather than costs following the event, as is - or at least was - typically the case.)

With respect to the journalists of The Guardian in 1999, Lynne Wallis seemingly does not understand what a Calderbank offer is, and in any event a newspaper is not a reliable source for an explanation of legal terms. (A small point, but upper case is used almost universally for "Calderbank", named as it is after the litigants in the case of Calderbank v Calderbank in 1976.) 213.205.240.190 (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Lights

The article mentions the issueof whether watch was being kept on each vessel. But it says nothing about what lights were being shown. I recall this being discussed in the press at the time: there were accusations that that the Bowbelle was not displaying a bow light, whereas the disco boat was, inevitably, emitting any amount of light (and sound). Maproom (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did it sink SO quickly?

sinking in less than a minute? why? Cramyourspam (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Catastrophic damage due to being crushed under a far larger vessel. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cramyourspam: baldy ^^^. The Marchioness was over 60 years old and wooden-hulled, while the Bowbelle was steel-hulled and over 30 times its weight: equivalent, say, of a Ford driving over a skateboard. ——SerialNumber54129 18:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. We cover this in the article as far as the sources allow us: "The upper superstructure of Marchioness was ripped off by Bowbelle's anchor.[44] The lower saloon was quickly flooded ... The weight and momentum of Bowbelle pushed Marchioness underwater and she sank, stern first, within 30 seconds of being hit". She was run over, split in two and pushed under by the heavier vessel. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

[2] "Modern vessels' hulls are required to be divided into watertight compartments, so any flooding resulting from a breach can be more easily contained" -- BBC. Although it's not implied that this would definitely have made a significant difference in this disaster. MPS1992 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

thanks Cramyourspam (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Link

SS Californian, another ship that was subject to a controversial MAIB report around the same time as the Marchioness, in early 1992.

The link goes straight to the ship of this name involved in the Titanic disaster of 1912. Why is this link here? Valetude (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nordjyllands edit warring

2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F099:E2EB:15CE:9C39, please do not continue to remove referenced content without explanation and with no attempt to discuss here. Please explain why you believe your opinions on this content should matter more than other editor's. Nordjyllands (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear sock, Firstly you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are playing at. The edit I made yesterday was reverting several inappropriate changes made to the account in the last few months, while retaining any improvements. Some of the changes reverted included people dicking around with quotes and trying to change the punctuation - that's an absolute no-no. Reverting such changes is a no-brainer, so why you decided to put back the changes is laughable. The small part of the lead that was also removed in the edit I made (that you have edit warred three times to replace), is fairly obvious to anyone who isn't playing at being a sock-troll: it's badly done. The main problem is that it is extraneous detail that bloats the lead. The lead, as it stands, is clear, concise and succinct. The rest of the article is for adding additional details, not the lead.

If you really want to play around on an article, go find something that isn't an FA, and therefore has been through a couple of community reviews to anchor in a rather strong consensus. And learn fast that a knee-jerk revert without any edit summary (as your first ever edits have been) is very likely to be ignored. There again, there's an overwhelming likelihood that you're a sock who is here to troll only, so these are all probably wasted words. - The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11A1:3EEB:EE7D:C22F (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Article uses ":" in blockquotes for indenting – is this a problem?

This article currently uses ":" (lists) to indent text in blockquotes. I was sure I saw somewhere that this is not recommended, but I can't find where. If it is a problem, what can be done instead for indenting? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't an issue, as far as I am aware. Perhaps if you can find the part of the MoS that says otherwise that would be helpful, as it will often give the alternative method of coming to the same effect. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11A1:3EEB:EE7D:C22F (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It's MOS:INDENT. I have updated those sections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Liferaft capacity

So the rafts (140) plus the lifebuoys (14) would accommodate 154 passengers. Why was she licensed to carry 165? Valetude (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The 51 victims aren't listed

Most disaster entries on Wikipedia seem to list the victims (or notable ones if the victim list is large). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

changes to passenger vessel legislation

There should be mention of the profound and far-reaching changes to MCA legislation, which is still happening to this day, brought about following the Marchioness disaster. 146.199.238.75 (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Tvx1 stop edit warring. If you have something that says Andrew McGowan died, please show it here. As he was given a medal and appeared at the subsequent inquiry, it may be difficult for you to do that, but FFS, stop edit warring. (Given McGowan is still alive, you are breaching BRD). - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

For crying it loud, I already explained in my edits you are mixing up two different sinkings. The passage I changed dealed with the demise of the BOWBELLE years later with new owners and crew that have nothing to do with the Marchioness disaster. How one earth can you be so stubborn not to admit your mistake??Tvx1 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the article in The Times shown as one of the supporting references. The final line reporting the sinking was “one crew member died”. Your move. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the article? I cannot find a working link in this article to something from The Times reporting on the sinking of the Bowbelle. I will also reiterate that you should look at the contents of MV Bowbelle (1964) and it‘s sources all stating all of its crew of two perished in the sinking. Tvx1 20:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Times can be found in the WP library. And don’t ever use another WP article as the basis to edit war (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source). I look forward to you self reverting given no source says there were two crew who died. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That‘s why I specifically mentioned THE SOURCES in the other article. I never suggested using a WP article as a source. There are multiple sources in the other article that support the content. So your claim that there is no source supporting that claim is simply false. Tvx1 21:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing false in what I have said: there is nothing that says two crew members died. - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple sources in the vessel's article that say they did. So yes, you are very much false in claiming that no sources state all crew died. Meanwhile I have been trying to find a way to access the Times article titled "Bowbelle sinks" online, but so far without any luck. It's not in the Wikipedia Library as you suggested. You act like you read minutes ago, so is it really that much to just place the URL here? Tvx1 21:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As has been said below, you need to provide the sources, not just claim that there are multiple sources. At the moment, I can see one source (in the Bowbelle article) that says all the crew died, and one source (The Times) that says one person died. Neither of these say two people died. So while the article is correct as far as one source goes, you’ve not provided any sources to back up that only two people died. - SchroCat (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the pedantics you're going to throw at me? You could have changed it to all crew dying then instead of just blindly reverting while continuously naming the crew of a different vessel to prove your point. Tvx1 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You were edit warring to insert erroneous information into the article, while refusing to use the talk page until the very last minute. Try reading WP:BRD and discussing the point properly next time, instead of blindly adding the wrong information into the article. And why would the article change to say all the crew died, when there is one source that says all and one that says one person? There isn't anything that says one takes precedence over the other - that's just bad practice. I don't think there's anything constructive in you continuing along the vein. - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And you we're edit-warring just as much to keep the information out. Edit-warring is not a one person thing, so stop criticizing people of behavior you displayed yourself. And there were even other alternatives like removing the information on the crew alltogether given the contradiction. There were many ways of being constructive instead of just blindly reverting, which wasn't justified in any way.Tvx1 10:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The difference being I opened the thread and started the conversation a long time after you should have done so. (again, you really should try reading BRD): your bold edit was reverted, and it should have been you that opened the thread, but you decided to just edit war without discussion. If you'd have bothered opening the thread, rather than trying to communicate through edit summary while blindly reverting, then this could have been cleared up some time ago. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing gave you the right to break WP:3RR though, nor to post insults in your edit summaries. You could have just focussed on the talk page as well without continuing to revert. Your behavior was wrong just as much. I, however can admit when I make a mistake.Tvx1 11:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And what gave you the right to breach 3RR by posting incorrect information into the article? That's a poor approach to editing an FA. I'm not going to bother this. As you've decided to open an ANI report for some unknown reason, I'm going to withdraw from discussing this with you now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't. I made an edit and made a couple of reverts but stopped at the hard line. You on the other hand made more than three reverts so broke the rule. I can admit when I was wrong. Moreover, you insulted me repeatedly in your edit summaries. That's is just not acceptable behavior. You had multiple options to collaborate to a solution, yet you chose agression and keep putting all the blame with me even though your own behavior was for from ok. Tvx1 11:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]

No, you did. Your aggression in continuing to edit war, in ignoring the talk page and in harassing on my talk page are factors in this you are trying to ignore. I suggest you stop digging. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Tvx1, per WP:V, Wikipedia depends on the citation of WP:Reliable sources like The Times. If you think something is wrong in the article, you must present WP:Reliable sources that clearly state newer or different facts. Please do not simply refer editors to the sources in another article, but actually present the urls or bibliographic cites here so that others in the discussion can easily look them up. Otherwise, the current stable version of the article should be retained. Please note also that WP:EDIT WARring is prohibited on Wikipedia, and and continued reversions may lead to the loss of your editing privileges. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, there are reliable sources in the article on the vessel. I really don't understand why this is so disputed here. The thing is that the statement as currently included in this article actually isn't supported by the sources appended to it. That's what I'm trying to correct and point here. We also cannot have two related articles contradicting each other like this. I'm trying to find a way to read the The Times article titled "Bowbelle sinks" cited here without a url as I type, but accessing a 1996 printed newspaper article isn't as easy as you think. Looking up newspaper articles that old is not as easy as you portray it to be.Tvx1 21:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Update, I have now been able to find an online copy of that newspaper. It does indeed state only crewmember died. This now leaves us with sources contradicting each other. I don't what the solution is here.Tvx1 22:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know why it was so hard for you to accept that the exact words I quoted appeared in the article I said they did, but there we go. When the article comes out of lockdown, I will sort out the discrepancy between the two sources. What won’t appear at all is that two crew members died. None of the reliable sources say that. - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Because, as I said, accessing a 1996 printed newspaper article online isn't that easy and because you kept naming the crew members of the Marchioness in your defense and flatly refused to admit your mistake there (you still do) which left me in doubt whether you had actually referred to correct sinking my edit was dealing with. Tvx1 10:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And now you know I was correct in quoting the news article that supports what this article says - and it doesn't say two people, just as none of the reliable sources claim that. I had already pointed out that The Times is available on the Wikipedia Library: you only have to use it properly to find it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't lecture me on the Wikipedia Library please. I actually did search through in every way possible, that article just isn't there. The Times is, but not that particular issue with that article! Tvx1 10:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It really is there: it's how I found the article in the first place and how I checked it yesterday. The Times is there, that edition is there, and that article is there. You only have to use it properly to find it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Or you could just post the url to back your claim? I did use it properly. I searched the entire Library in every way possible, that article isn't there.Tvx1 10:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Nah. It's there: you should try using the library properly. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Can confirm; took around 90 seconds Tvx1. Please explicitly admit that your repeated claim that the article wasn't accessible through TWL is false. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy to be proven wrong. I don't understand why it was too much to ask for SchroCat to share that. I had actually stumbled on the Gale archive through google. Don't understand that I missed the WikiLibrary route.Tvx1 13:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You had accused me of ownership, edit warred, harrassed me on my talk page and been aggressive in your approach. There is no compunction on me to provide you with something that was easily findable at the place I told you it was. - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And you edit-warred as well, were even more aggressive and insulted me. Pretty low to crisize another's behavior when you weren't doing any better. You had plenty of opportunity to be constructive but you admit that you conciously refused to do so. That's what you really should look at.Tvx1 13:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh just stop. You tried to do this dance at ANI and it failed: stop trying it here. It's not constructive and could be construed as WP:BAITing. Just drop this nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

How do you intend to sort it out? Personally, given the contradiction of sources, I would suggest to leave the mention of dead crew out alltogether. Tvx1 11:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As you've decided to open an ANI against me, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion, but your suggestion is a poor one that I'll ignore. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The Evening Standard also reported on the sinking the day before The Times, including that six other crew escaped just before it sank. Other papers including The Daily Telegraph also printed broadly the same details as The Times. In 2001 the Evening Standard and The Independent both ended pieces on inquiries about the Marchioness disaster that one person died when the ship sank in 1996. Shaws username . talk . 12:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the additional sources. So the article on the vessel needs to be changed then. For this article, adding one of these additional sources should suffice. Graham Beards, I think you can lift the protection now. There appears to be consensus on the content. Tvx1 13:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to add another source to this article. The Times, being a newspaper of record, suffices. - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No strict need, but the Evening Standard article actually provides more detail which makes it more useful than The Times one with just one line on the deceased.Tvx1 13:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We're not citing more detail, we're citing one single piece of information: the death of one crew member. As The Times is a newspaper of record and the Standard is close to tabloid and of occasionally dubious standard, we need only the existing one. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm trying to be constructive here but all you do is just shoot off everything I propose. Who actually is the unreasonable one here then?Tvx1 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Again with the personal comments? Please just stop. This isn't being unreasonable, and I've explained my rationale. To repeat that: you are suggesting a second level source where we have a top level source in place. It doesn't need reinforcing or replacing, or altering: what is there is a newspaper of record, and therefore enough. It doesn't need to be weakened with a second rate source. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not actually a top level source because only has one short sentence on the matter. The other source has more detailed and thus more reliable information available. I honestly cannot understand why you are opposed to using two sources instead of one. It only improves verifiability. Would it really kill you to take a positive approach?Tvx1 14:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a top-level source. The Times is classed as a newspaper of record, which makes it so. Just because it says in a few words what other say in more words does not affect that. More words does not mean more reliable - this is basic stuff when judging the reliability of sources. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You are focusing too much on the publisher. You need to acknowledge the content more as well. More information is always to the benefit for the readers. None of your arguments actually justify why both sources could be citer simultaneously.Tvx1 11:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Still going on about this? Completely wrong approach to judging sources, and a straw man argument, given there is no information being added. - 11:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's no rush. There are only a few hours to go. Graham Beards (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References