Talk:Rodney disaster

New article push...

Hi there - this is one of a few articles on Sydney Harbour ferries I'm creating and leaving for now as stubs. I've created a few articles recently (and expanded other existing articles) working them up to a larger size. However expansion takes time, and now I'm going to try a new strategy and relatively quickly roll out a dozen or so stubs on ferries without expanding for now. These will of course be notable subjects with reliable sources. As time permits I will come back and expand - in the meantime, please feel free to expand yourselves. :) --Merbabu (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that you have removed the account from the Louisville's lieutenant that I posted earlier. His statement differs from the account currently recorded and should probably be mentioned in the interests of neutrality. Specifically, his statement was that the ferry was clear of the wash and that it was the turn to port while listing that caused the capsize. The current article text appears to place the blame entirely on the passengers while the timing of the turn was down to the ship's master.[1][2] Though secondary sources may disagree with this primary account, it should be mentioned with a note about dissenting sources. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello there - i didn't remove it due to any objection on principle - to me, it seemed a little trivial, and even if the ship's wash was a factor, it was only a factor because the ferry was overloaded and top heavy. The ships wash was not a point of negligence, right?

However, if I've missed something, I am happy for you to return to the item to the article in some form. I don't know much on the details of the inquest/s, but I wonder whether we risk making more out of the point than there ever was.

A few other comments:

• If, as sources suggest, the ferry went from one side of the ship to the other via the stern end of the ship, then it follows that it would have had to cross the wash and bow waves.
• But even then that doesn't mean wash was a factor in the capsize. No one disputes the boat was excessively top heavy and that remains the primary cause. At most, the wash would have been the proverbial last straw - wash of a slow moving ship shouldn't push a row boat over, much less a ferry - unless it was significantly overloaded.
• And, are there sources showing that there was an acknowledged difference of opinion over whether the wash was a factor or not?
• As for "neutrality", i don't think anyone suggested that even if the wash did ultimately push it over, that was therefore anyone's fault or negligence. Ships are allowed to move down the harbour and it happens all the time. Rather, if the point is included, I suggest it is only for recording what was said at the inquest (and as I noted at the start of this comment, i don't know if it was even an important point at the time) - inclusion would not be about neutrality or establishing "the real facts".

I noted that I'm not familiar with the ins-and-outs of the inquest (i just wanted to start an article on a ferry and a notable point of local Sydney history), so of course, if I've missed anything from an inquest whereby wash or no wash was recorded as an issue, then my points above would be different. I'm just wary of stitching together disparate primary sources and creating something that isn't something - WP:SYN. --Merbabu (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. The discrepancy about the wash is only a minor concern, although the lieutenant stated that the ferry crossed the path of the ship far enough back that it was outside of the wash (so the "wobbled the ferry precariously in the wash" would have to be referenced to an alternative source). The key problem I have here is that the article currently says the boat capsized because it was overloaded on one side. According to the lieutenant's statement that was only one of the factors. All ships have an angle of list, depending on their weight distribution; in most cases the angle of list is stable and there are no consequences. In the case of this disaster, the ferry developed an extreme angle of list to starboard just before the master turned the ferry to port.

The lieutenant is clear that it was the turn to port that triggered the capsize; if the turn hadn't been made it is possible that the angle of list may have been corrected. That places negligence on the part of the master for making the turn rather than the implied blame in the current article wording being on the passengers for overloading one side of the ship. To maintain a neutral point of view we need to reflect the lieutenant's account that the ill judged turn to port while listing to starboard was a key factor. I'll draft something up when I get some time.

The following is my interpretation of the events based on the sources. I've filled in a few blanks with assumptions I have inferred from the sources. The ferry started out on the starboard side of the ship with the passengers standing on the port side of the ferry in order to see it. The ferry probably had some degree of list to port due to the weight distribution. The passengers/master then decided to get a view of the ship from the opposite side. While listing to port, the ferry turned to port and crossed the stern of the larger ship. The starboard side of the ferry was now facing the ship, so passengers rushed to the starboard side of the ferry; this caused the list to starboard. The ferry then turned to starboard and lined up alongside the larger ship. This is where the lieutenant states the vessel had an extreme list to starboard. The ferry then made a turn to port to increase the distance between itself and the Louisville. The turn to port while having an extreme list to starboard was the trigger for the capsize and the ferry sank as described in the sources. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a few concerns with what I think you're proposing - but I'm happy for the existing text to be modified. I suggest an alternative approach towards the end...

You say you've "interpreted" and "filled in some blanks". Our role is not to, shall I say, "get to the bottom" of something. Rather, we just record what is verified in sources. The accounts say that the ferry capsized due to overloading - particularly top heavy overloading (even the pictures back that up). The problem becomes when we try to get into the detail.

Apart from reinventing recorded history, if we run a narrative - as you seem to be suggesting - that the fault was the turn and not the overloading, it would be like describing a car accident as follows: "It's confirmed the car was travelling double the speed limit, however, speed wasn't the cause, rather it was because the driver turned the car when he came to a bend." Sure, maybe the car would not have crashed if the road was straight, but it misses the point. Similarly, maybe the overloaded top-heavy and listing Rodney may have stayed upright if the harbour was dead flat or there were no other boats to negotiate with. Again this misses the point. If a truck/ferry cannot make a simple and required turn because of overloading, surely the over-loading is the problem and not a turn required for navigation.

Also, as i ask above, was any apparent inconsistencies in evidence or alternative causes (as you seem to be suggesting) actually a significant and recorded issue at the time? I haven't seen it, but I haven't read that extensively on it.

Note there's a few other sources in the external links, like this one. It suggests sailors on board had warned of danger 10 mins before the capsize. In one of the enquiries, both the ferries master and crew say that the ferry was overloaded and they had asked some to come down. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/80-years-on-the-rodney-ferry-disaster-20180208-h0vs63.html

As a solution, rather than try to provide more detail and make our own judgements for the article, why not take a step back, and have less detail. Just say it was overloaded and made a turn. Unless you can find a good secondary source discussing what we've been discussing, I don't think our role is to get involved in interpretating details.

It does seem, however, that people don't learn. Karrabee (scroll down) also sank in Sydney Harbour, again as a result of an event. Fortunately everyone got off just in time. It could have been a lot worse had it not made it to the wharf in time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSv5cuQSzvg --Merbabu (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have noted specifically what I have inferred rather than seen stated as I do not want to mislead you. I have also kept it on this talk page as inferred information should be excluded from the article itself. However, it is a factual statement that the lieutenant stated the turn was a prime cause of the capsize, so that should be included in the article. I don't see that omission of factual and sourced information is a positive step forward. Your suggestion for a narrative about a car accident is a straw man argument. In my original edit I attributed the lieutenant's statement submitted to the inquest as specifically being from the lieutenant. A sourced attribution of a statement to the owner of the statement is consistent with Wikipedia policy. I am not sure why you are so resistant to including a statement made to the formal inquest by a military officer who witnessed the disaster. If there is a source that counters the lieutenant's account then we mention both versions; if the lieutenant's is the only account we have a source for then the article should reflect the lieutenant's version of events until alternative sourcing is located. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Greycliffe disaster

If anyone's interested in improving it (From Hill to Shore???), I created the above article some years ago. No, i don't (think I) have a morbid fascination with gruesome ferry disasters (my interests include Sydney Harbour and its ferries' history), rather I mention it here due to both article's broadly similar scope. --Merbabu (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)