![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Hi, Please add the following incident to the "Examples" section on main page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Khukri_%281958%29 Regards 203.99.197.70 ( talk) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
what is this nonsense with "his or her" all the time. it's unreadable. this is not how language works. if you want to fight for feminism do it somewhere else. this nonsense needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.199.173.176 ( talk) 23:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering if we should list examples like Chesley Sullenberger... men who staid on board until all passengers and crew evacuated their ship? He didn't go down with his ship, but he fulfilled the protocol as willing to do so. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 06:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
As fiction also subscribes to this notion, this should perhaps be included. In Star Trek (2009 movie), acting captain George Kirk, father of James Tiberius, goes down with the ship.
In Star Trek Into Darkness, Khan Noonien Singh (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) taunts James Kirk 'No ship should go down without her captain'. [1] Charlemagne.1971 ( talk) 07:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be good to have films like James Cameron Titanic and examples given by Drmies ( talk) Star Trek movies to demonstrate the penetration of the phrase in popular culture. Erzan ( talk) 20:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
References
Under the "notable examples" section, the last words of Captain Edward Smith was said to be "Be British" yet in the main article on Captain Smith, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Smith_(sea_captain) ) it is noted that this may be as result of the British Press. So should a note be added here as well to that extent?
"If a naval captain evacuates a vessel in wartime, it may be considered a capital offense similar to desertion, mutiny, or sedition unless he subsequently destroys the ship or permits it to sink."
Umm, this phrase confuses me. I would assume that if the captain let the vessel sink with sailors inside, he would be charged with desertion right? This sentence maybe is confusing abandoning ship with scuttling a war vessel to keep it out of the hands of the enemy, perhaps? 173.160.189.21 ( talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Mr. "Seonsaengnim," please stop deleting this entry as a counter example. It is the truth, whether you like it or not. Koreans must accept this trend in the recent history of Captains abandoning their ship. Only with acceptance, can you bring about change. Hiding it on wikipedia will not erase the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusader6 ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this discussion, but I removed the entry. I checked online and found no evidence that the included quote is real - it was only four years ago, so if the quote is real, at least some news sources would still have it online as a valid link. Also, there is no mention in the article about officers vs sailors dieing in the disaster. We need some cites to reliable sources before putting this one back in. Also, the link provided should be to the article about the sinking, not the ship. Ego White Tray ( talk) 16:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It is suggested that South Korea has explicit law that makes abandoning ship illegal however the cited article does not prove that, merely asserts it on the basis that the captain has been arrested on some charge possibly related to abandonment (and again that is not certain) - "South Korea’s law, however, appears to be explicit, allowing the authorities to arrest Mr. Lee for abandoning the boat and its passengers in a time of crisis".
Appears to be explicit, but not proven to be explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.252.194 ( talk) 14:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
For about two weeks, I have reverted inclusion of the ROKS Cheonan entry from the article for four times in total. (See these edit history for my reverts: rv.1, rv.2, rv.3, rv.4) This continued reverts shows that adding/deleting the ROKS Cheonan entry have become an edit war obviously, thus I thought that opening another discussion and asking for third opinions is necessary. Here's what I'm think about this entry:
"Koreans must accept this trend in the recent history of Captains abandoning their ship"
"Furthermore, what made you think that the ill-fated Cheonan deserves a mention in this article?"
I feels like I'm spamming this talk page with all the minor details with a relatively unimportant entry. But please understand me that taking time to comment and pointing out problems I spot was the last thing I wanted to do here. I welcome any editors' third opinion, and will restrain myself from further reverting/blanking the entry (until a consensus is made). (P.S. I notified this discussion by leaving a comment in his User talk page already. Diff) -- SSN ( talk) 07:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
3O Response: This matter is unsuitable for a third opinion, as it is a continuation of the discussion above, in which at least four editors have taken part. Accordingly, I am declining the request at
WP:3O. May I remind you of the warning from
Drmies above, concerning edit warring, and may I point out that you are also engaged in personal attacks in the edit summaries, which are also completely unacceptable. I must also point out that the section at this moment has no citations, which are essential when allegations of misconduct are made or implied about living people, and that you cannot know whether it "remains the single example in world naval history" of anything at all, since much of world naval history is lost in the mists of time.
Stfg (
talk)
13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
His son followed in his footsteps ten days later as a volunteer kamikaze pilot.
Just out of curiosity, I want to question why do we need to mention "Kamikaze" suicidal missions? What's the use of it in the Maritime tradition article? Is it just me who find it weird? -- SSN ( talk) 13:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I cut that sentence; Is it necessary to list transparent little variations?
Uruiamme reverted; Yes, of course. It is because the world is increasingly based on search engines and word lookups. Well, variations help with dialectic differences, too.
And search engines increasingly return variations of the input string (often to one's frustration). I'm not sure I understand the last sentence.
If we must have the variants, the initial the (if present) goes inside the quotation marks. — Tamfang ( talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The Russians had an equivalent for their army -- generals who lost a battle were expected to die with the vast number of men who died following their orders. Some encyclopedic page should be made (I can't recall the examples) and a link to it placed at the bottom of the page. 173.162.253.101 ( talk) 15:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Unless someone can explain how Captain Charles B. McVay III and Indianapolis constitute a failure of a captain to go down with his ship, I will remove this bullet. McVay did not abandon his ship and crew. Even though he was unfairly court-martialed, and eventually exonerated, he was never charged with shirking his duties during the sinking or leaving crew members behind whom he could have tried to save. Holy ( talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this article is unassessed, someone should assess it. From my own observations, it seems like a good candidate for a Start-Class article. Samnotanonymous ( talk) 16:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The actual maritime tradition is not that the Captain goes down with his ship, but rather that in a situation where the ship is sinking the Captain is the last to leave the ship, and while other crew or passengers remain he must stay, unless it is a naval ship and he orders 'every man for himself', whereupon he may leave after ensuring that as many as possible get off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 ( talk) 12:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Really I doubt it, certainly in the bald sense that it is stated here. An article on the CNN website is hardly a reliable source for international maritime law, surely? Springnuts ( talk) 13:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Robby.is.on: reverted my addition of this article from the Daily Mail which explicitly supports the statement in the article that "Sullenberger was the last person to exit the partially-submerged aircraft, and performed a final check for any others on board before doing so". That article is clearly, from reading it, a reputable news report. It was by far the best article I found in a two minute web search. The editor said "No, it is not reliable. WP:DAILYMAIL is clear.", but WP:DAILYMAIL says "The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." Does any editor really doubt this particular article for this particular claim? And think that leaving the statement (which I don't think is arguable) uncited is better than citing this source? If someone wants to find a better source, go for it; I don't care enough to do more than find a source that, in my view, clearly works for this purpose and is not against the consensus as stated in WP:DAILYMAIL. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
And think that leaving the statement (which I don't think is arguable) uncited is better than citing this source?I added the "citation needed" tag to give people a chance to find a suitable reference. The alternative would have been to simply remove the content. Robby.is.on ( talk) 16:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Lancelot Holland was not the captain: should he be in the list of examples? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
To me the phrase means that the captain stays to the end while others disembark: he is the last to leave, or not if fate thinks otherwise. This article includes several captains who do not fit that description because they had no choice. The captain of the Hood is a good example. How was he able to show exemplary bravery and duty? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
In the examples section, we have
According to Blockship, it's a ship that has been deliberately scuttled. That may not rule out that it is still manned, and may be hit, but does the story hold up? Nø ( talk) 14:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
OG TEXT "* January 10, 1952: After his ship was struck by a pair of rogue waves, Captain Kurt Carlsen of the SS Flying Enterprise remained aboard his ship once her passengers and crew had been evacuated in order to oversee attempts to tow the crippled vessel into port. He was eventually joined by Ken Dancy, a member of the salvage tug's crew. When the time came to abandon ship, Carlsen said to Dancy that they would jump together; Dancy refused, saying he should go first so that Carlsen could be the last to leave the ship. The Flying Enterprise sank 48 minutes later."
Neither Kurt Carlsen or Ken Dancy died in the sinking. Kurt lived until 1989 and Ken lived until 2013. It is an interesting story but the only person who died was a passenger, Nicolai Bunjakowski, during the rescue. If the entry remains it should super link to both of their wiki pages so people know that neither died in the sinking. 108.183.193.234 ( talk) 20:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Hi, Please add the following incident to the "Examples" section on main page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Khukri_%281958%29 Regards 203.99.197.70 ( talk) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
what is this nonsense with "his or her" all the time. it's unreadable. this is not how language works. if you want to fight for feminism do it somewhere else. this nonsense needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.199.173.176 ( talk) 23:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering if we should list examples like Chesley Sullenberger... men who staid on board until all passengers and crew evacuated their ship? He didn't go down with his ship, but he fulfilled the protocol as willing to do so. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 06:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
As fiction also subscribes to this notion, this should perhaps be included. In Star Trek (2009 movie), acting captain George Kirk, father of James Tiberius, goes down with the ship.
In Star Trek Into Darkness, Khan Noonien Singh (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) taunts James Kirk 'No ship should go down without her captain'. [1] Charlemagne.1971 ( talk) 07:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be good to have films like James Cameron Titanic and examples given by Drmies ( talk) Star Trek movies to demonstrate the penetration of the phrase in popular culture. Erzan ( talk) 20:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
References
Under the "notable examples" section, the last words of Captain Edward Smith was said to be "Be British" yet in the main article on Captain Smith, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Smith_(sea_captain) ) it is noted that this may be as result of the British Press. So should a note be added here as well to that extent?
"If a naval captain evacuates a vessel in wartime, it may be considered a capital offense similar to desertion, mutiny, or sedition unless he subsequently destroys the ship or permits it to sink."
Umm, this phrase confuses me. I would assume that if the captain let the vessel sink with sailors inside, he would be charged with desertion right? This sentence maybe is confusing abandoning ship with scuttling a war vessel to keep it out of the hands of the enemy, perhaps? 173.160.189.21 ( talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Mr. "Seonsaengnim," please stop deleting this entry as a counter example. It is the truth, whether you like it or not. Koreans must accept this trend in the recent history of Captains abandoning their ship. Only with acceptance, can you bring about change. Hiding it on wikipedia will not erase the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusader6 ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this discussion, but I removed the entry. I checked online and found no evidence that the included quote is real - it was only four years ago, so if the quote is real, at least some news sources would still have it online as a valid link. Also, there is no mention in the article about officers vs sailors dieing in the disaster. We need some cites to reliable sources before putting this one back in. Also, the link provided should be to the article about the sinking, not the ship. Ego White Tray ( talk) 16:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It is suggested that South Korea has explicit law that makes abandoning ship illegal however the cited article does not prove that, merely asserts it on the basis that the captain has been arrested on some charge possibly related to abandonment (and again that is not certain) - "South Korea’s law, however, appears to be explicit, allowing the authorities to arrest Mr. Lee for abandoning the boat and its passengers in a time of crisis".
Appears to be explicit, but not proven to be explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.252.194 ( talk) 14:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
For about two weeks, I have reverted inclusion of the ROKS Cheonan entry from the article for four times in total. (See these edit history for my reverts: rv.1, rv.2, rv.3, rv.4) This continued reverts shows that adding/deleting the ROKS Cheonan entry have become an edit war obviously, thus I thought that opening another discussion and asking for third opinions is necessary. Here's what I'm think about this entry:
"Koreans must accept this trend in the recent history of Captains abandoning their ship"
"Furthermore, what made you think that the ill-fated Cheonan deserves a mention in this article?"
I feels like I'm spamming this talk page with all the minor details with a relatively unimportant entry. But please understand me that taking time to comment and pointing out problems I spot was the last thing I wanted to do here. I welcome any editors' third opinion, and will restrain myself from further reverting/blanking the entry (until a consensus is made). (P.S. I notified this discussion by leaving a comment in his User talk page already. Diff) -- SSN ( talk) 07:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
3O Response: This matter is unsuitable for a third opinion, as it is a continuation of the discussion above, in which at least four editors have taken part. Accordingly, I am declining the request at
WP:3O. May I remind you of the warning from
Drmies above, concerning edit warring, and may I point out that you are also engaged in personal attacks in the edit summaries, which are also completely unacceptable. I must also point out that the section at this moment has no citations, which are essential when allegations of misconduct are made or implied about living people, and that you cannot know whether it "remains the single example in world naval history" of anything at all, since much of world naval history is lost in the mists of time.
Stfg (
talk)
13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
His son followed in his footsteps ten days later as a volunteer kamikaze pilot.
Just out of curiosity, I want to question why do we need to mention "Kamikaze" suicidal missions? What's the use of it in the Maritime tradition article? Is it just me who find it weird? -- SSN ( talk) 13:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I cut that sentence; Is it necessary to list transparent little variations?
Uruiamme reverted; Yes, of course. It is because the world is increasingly based on search engines and word lookups. Well, variations help with dialectic differences, too.
And search engines increasingly return variations of the input string (often to one's frustration). I'm not sure I understand the last sentence.
If we must have the variants, the initial the (if present) goes inside the quotation marks. — Tamfang ( talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The Russians had an equivalent for their army -- generals who lost a battle were expected to die with the vast number of men who died following their orders. Some encyclopedic page should be made (I can't recall the examples) and a link to it placed at the bottom of the page. 173.162.253.101 ( talk) 15:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Unless someone can explain how Captain Charles B. McVay III and Indianapolis constitute a failure of a captain to go down with his ship, I will remove this bullet. McVay did not abandon his ship and crew. Even though he was unfairly court-martialed, and eventually exonerated, he was never charged with shirking his duties during the sinking or leaving crew members behind whom he could have tried to save. Holy ( talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this article is unassessed, someone should assess it. From my own observations, it seems like a good candidate for a Start-Class article. Samnotanonymous ( talk) 16:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The actual maritime tradition is not that the Captain goes down with his ship, but rather that in a situation where the ship is sinking the Captain is the last to leave the ship, and while other crew or passengers remain he must stay, unless it is a naval ship and he orders 'every man for himself', whereupon he may leave after ensuring that as many as possible get off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 ( talk) 12:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Really I doubt it, certainly in the bald sense that it is stated here. An article on the CNN website is hardly a reliable source for international maritime law, surely? Springnuts ( talk) 13:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Robby.is.on: reverted my addition of this article from the Daily Mail which explicitly supports the statement in the article that "Sullenberger was the last person to exit the partially-submerged aircraft, and performed a final check for any others on board before doing so". That article is clearly, from reading it, a reputable news report. It was by far the best article I found in a two minute web search. The editor said "No, it is not reliable. WP:DAILYMAIL is clear.", but WP:DAILYMAIL says "The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." Does any editor really doubt this particular article for this particular claim? And think that leaving the statement (which I don't think is arguable) uncited is better than citing this source? If someone wants to find a better source, go for it; I don't care enough to do more than find a source that, in my view, clearly works for this purpose and is not against the consensus as stated in WP:DAILYMAIL. —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
And think that leaving the statement (which I don't think is arguable) uncited is better than citing this source?I added the "citation needed" tag to give people a chance to find a suitable reference. The alternative would have been to simply remove the content. Robby.is.on ( talk) 16:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Lancelot Holland was not the captain: should he be in the list of examples? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
To me the phrase means that the captain stays to the end while others disembark: he is the last to leave, or not if fate thinks otherwise. This article includes several captains who do not fit that description because they had no choice. The captain of the Hood is a good example. How was he able to show exemplary bravery and duty? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
In the examples section, we have
According to Blockship, it's a ship that has been deliberately scuttled. That may not rule out that it is still manned, and may be hit, but does the story hold up? Nø ( talk) 14:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
OG TEXT "* January 10, 1952: After his ship was struck by a pair of rogue waves, Captain Kurt Carlsen of the SS Flying Enterprise remained aboard his ship once her passengers and crew had been evacuated in order to oversee attempts to tow the crippled vessel into port. He was eventually joined by Ken Dancy, a member of the salvage tug's crew. When the time came to abandon ship, Carlsen said to Dancy that they would jump together; Dancy refused, saying he should go first so that Carlsen could be the last to leave the ship. The Flying Enterprise sank 48 minutes later."
Neither Kurt Carlsen or Ken Dancy died in the sinking. Kurt lived until 1989 and Ken lived until 2013. It is an interesting story but the only person who died was a passenger, Nicolai Bunjakowski, during the rescue. If the entry remains it should super link to both of their wiki pages so people know that neither died in the sinking. 108.183.193.234 ( talk) 20:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)