![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
is [1].
Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 14:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Please edit with the citation. -- Cheol ( talk) 11:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There are several reports on the ship's capacity.
Hto0501 ( talk) 00:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Merge completed / redirect set -- Tawker ( talk) 19:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Article says "freezing". At 34°N in the subtropics? Srsly? 46.114.128.22 ( talk) 14:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
A simple timeline of events would help this articles (See this [3].
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)
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)
This is an English Wikipedia, surely sources should be in English and not Korean, right? ShawntheGod ( talk) 22:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. ShawntheGod ( talk) 07:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
See discussion below at #Requested move. Mkdw talk 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)
I support this as well, the lemma should be "MV Sewol". Simplicius ( talk) 21:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:SNOW and WP:PRECISE. ( Bold closure as participant) Mkdw talk 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Sinking of MV Sewol/Archive 1 be
renamed and moved to
Sinking of the MV Sewol.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
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)
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:
This sounds like middle school English. All articles should be written in an active voice: Example:
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)
Is Sewol's Hanja name appropriate in the lead? It seems that this script has a relatively narrow usage, mostly in old historical documents. Brandmeister talk 18:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I wanted to post the characters since that's what the theory is referred to in Korean (especially in the media)."?
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)
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)
>> South Korean diver dies during ferry search( Lihaas ( talk) 14:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)).
Hello, IMHO the article need to cite:
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)
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)
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)
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)
What is the logic behind these lines:
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)
In places, the text has major grammar errors, making it hare to understand. Please fix up. Kdammers ( talk) 04:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
I can't find anything about this extraordinary decision on the page! CapnZapp ( talk) 18:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)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)
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)
[8] Lihaas ( talk) 10:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
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) ₪Rickn Asia₪ 01:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
Lehasa ( talk) 16:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
is [1].
Balaenoptera musculus ( talk) 14:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Please edit with the citation. -- Cheol ( talk) 11:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There are several reports on the ship's capacity.
Hto0501 ( talk) 00:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Merge completed / redirect set -- Tawker ( talk) 19:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Article says "freezing". At 34°N in the subtropics? Srsly? 46.114.128.22 ( talk) 14:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
A simple timeline of events would help this articles (See this [3].
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)
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)
This is an English Wikipedia, surely sources should be in English and not Korean, right? ShawntheGod ( talk) 22:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. ShawntheGod ( talk) 07:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
See discussion below at #Requested move. Mkdw talk 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)
I support this as well, the lemma should be "MV Sewol". Simplicius ( talk) 21:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:SNOW and WP:PRECISE. ( Bold closure as participant) Mkdw talk 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Sinking of MV Sewol/Archive 1 be
renamed and moved to
Sinking of the MV Sewol.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
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)
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:
This sounds like middle school English. All articles should be written in an active voice: Example:
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)
Is Sewol's Hanja name appropriate in the lead? It seems that this script has a relatively narrow usage, mostly in old historical documents. Brandmeister talk 18:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I wanted to post the characters since that's what the theory is referred to in Korean (especially in the media)."?
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)
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)
>> South Korean diver dies during ferry search( Lihaas ( talk) 14:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)).
Hello, IMHO the article need to cite:
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)
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)
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)
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)
What is the logic behind these lines:
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)
In places, the text has major grammar errors, making it hare to understand. Please fix up. Kdammers ( talk) 04:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
I can't find anything about this extraordinary decision on the page! CapnZapp ( talk) 18:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)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)
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)
[8] Lihaas ( talk) 10:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
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) ₪Rickn Asia₪ 01:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
Lehasa ( talk) 16:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)