This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 24, 2015. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I heard that the Eastland sank because it had too many lifeboats. It had too many lifeboats because of a reactionary measure after the sinking of the Titanic. Is this true or an urban legend? - Masmith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masmith ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 November 2004 (UTC)
Clearly the sinking was in the Chicago River, so I added this to "Category:Shipwrecks in rivers", but it's also widely considered a Great Lakes disaster, so it seems appropriate to leave both even if the sinking was not actually within Lake Michigan. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If it was right next to shore why did so many die? My guess is a lot of people couldn't swim back then. Anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.20 ( talk) 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
People wore more underclothes back then as well, especially the women. The clothes got water logged and made people sink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.33.234 ( talk) 17:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the entry as it exists at this moment (08 Oct 10) explains that many people were trapped inside the ship when it rolled over and they drowned when water entered and filled the now-submerged compartments, and that others were killed by heavy objects that slid accross the compartments as the ship was rolling over. However, the comment about the amount of clothing people wore 100 years ago is also relevant insofar as yards and yards of wet cloth in the long skirts of the time would have made it difficult for women to move quickly towards safety or stay afloat in partially flooded comparments or exitways. ( 71.22.47.232 ( talk) 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC))
edited out the copyright warning on the page because it makes the page completely unreadable. apparently whoever posted the copyright warning did not format it correctly and it thus compromised the usefulness and readability of the article. please correctly format the copyright warning before reposting or undoing my edit. thank you. 151.201.240.141 ( talk) 23:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I added a link to Carl Sandburg's 1915 article on the disaster, along with a brief quotation. The article includes three photographs. That's all public domain. His poem on the disaster was not published until 1993, so it's copyrighted. Choor monster ( talk) 19:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: thanks for the improvements, but the poem barely refers to industrial workers. I gave a three line quote from the end of the poem, and I am wondering if it comes off as the whole poem, and not just an excerpt? Choor monster ( talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
So I was reading about this disaster today on Wikipedia having been previously unaware of it (New Englander) and I have to say I found the whole section relating to Carl Sandburg's writings about the disaster to be very disjointed and, while he's a notable journalist, excessively long. I'm going to make an edit to try to clean it up and keep the substance as best I can but if someone intimate with the details would like to give it a further effort that would be nice. JBartus ( talk) 23:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Found at an estate sale, published in 1915:
Hopefully these will prove useful to the article. K8 fan ( talk) 07:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
On October 27, 2014, Smithsonian.com published [ an article] about the Eastland disaster. Squideshi ( talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
"The ship was top-heavy along with the center of gravity being too high." Seems a trifle redundant, don't ya think? ;) JetMec ( talk) 15:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The section starting: "Stephanie Riley argues in her Master’s of Arts thesis" seems to be the very definition of original research. Should it be here? Bgovern ( talk) 05:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
From the "early problems" section: "a case of overcrowding caused the Eastland to list with water flowing up one of the ship's gangplanks." This should either be explained better or deleted. Maproom ( talk) 07:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is absolutely PACKED with errors in punctuation, mostly in the form of grossly excessive comma usage. Someone who actually understands the rules of comma usage, rather than someone who merely thinks they know, needs to edit this article. No, I am not going to do it. I learned long ago not to engage with amateurs and novices on Wikipedia. DesertSkies120 ( talk) 06:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
How is this possible? "added additional weight and reduced her draft..." Was the hull modified in some way? GA-RT-22 ( talk) 23:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 24, 2015. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I heard that the Eastland sank because it had too many lifeboats. It had too many lifeboats because of a reactionary measure after the sinking of the Titanic. Is this true or an urban legend? - Masmith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masmith ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 November 2004 (UTC)
Clearly the sinking was in the Chicago River, so I added this to "Category:Shipwrecks in rivers", but it's also widely considered a Great Lakes disaster, so it seems appropriate to leave both even if the sinking was not actually within Lake Michigan. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If it was right next to shore why did so many die? My guess is a lot of people couldn't swim back then. Anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.20 ( talk) 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
People wore more underclothes back then as well, especially the women. The clothes got water logged and made people sink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.33.234 ( talk) 17:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the entry as it exists at this moment (08 Oct 10) explains that many people were trapped inside the ship when it rolled over and they drowned when water entered and filled the now-submerged compartments, and that others were killed by heavy objects that slid accross the compartments as the ship was rolling over. However, the comment about the amount of clothing people wore 100 years ago is also relevant insofar as yards and yards of wet cloth in the long skirts of the time would have made it difficult for women to move quickly towards safety or stay afloat in partially flooded comparments or exitways. ( 71.22.47.232 ( talk) 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC))
edited out the copyright warning on the page because it makes the page completely unreadable. apparently whoever posted the copyright warning did not format it correctly and it thus compromised the usefulness and readability of the article. please correctly format the copyright warning before reposting or undoing my edit. thank you. 151.201.240.141 ( talk) 23:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I added a link to Carl Sandburg's 1915 article on the disaster, along with a brief quotation. The article includes three photographs. That's all public domain. His poem on the disaster was not published until 1993, so it's copyrighted. Choor monster ( talk) 19:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: thanks for the improvements, but the poem barely refers to industrial workers. I gave a three line quote from the end of the poem, and I am wondering if it comes off as the whole poem, and not just an excerpt? Choor monster ( talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
So I was reading about this disaster today on Wikipedia having been previously unaware of it (New Englander) and I have to say I found the whole section relating to Carl Sandburg's writings about the disaster to be very disjointed and, while he's a notable journalist, excessively long. I'm going to make an edit to try to clean it up and keep the substance as best I can but if someone intimate with the details would like to give it a further effort that would be nice. JBartus ( talk) 23:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Found at an estate sale, published in 1915:
Hopefully these will prove useful to the article. K8 fan ( talk) 07:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
On October 27, 2014, Smithsonian.com published [ an article] about the Eastland disaster. Squideshi ( talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
"The ship was top-heavy along with the center of gravity being too high." Seems a trifle redundant, don't ya think? ;) JetMec ( talk) 15:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The section starting: "Stephanie Riley argues in her Master’s of Arts thesis" seems to be the very definition of original research. Should it be here? Bgovern ( talk) 05:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
From the "early problems" section: "a case of overcrowding caused the Eastland to list with water flowing up one of the ship's gangplanks." This should either be explained better or deleted. Maproom ( talk) 07:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is absolutely PACKED with errors in punctuation, mostly in the form of grossly excessive comma usage. Someone who actually understands the rules of comma usage, rather than someone who merely thinks they know, needs to edit this article. No, I am not going to do it. I learned long ago not to engage with amateurs and novices on Wikipedia. DesertSkies120 ( talk) 06:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
How is this possible? "added additional weight and reduced her draft..." Was the hull modified in some way? GA-RT-22 ( talk) 23:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)