Talk:Sinking of MV Sewol/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Sinking of MV Sewol. 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

Split Discussion

I propose that the sub-subsection Sinking of the MV Sewol#The Sewol be split into a different article. The current article should only be about the sinking of the ship, and the background information presented should conform to the sinking. Additional information about the ship (such as the infobox, which is taking up a lot of space) is distracting as tangential information. If the ship doesn't appear to have adequate notability for a stand-alone article, I'm also fine with deleting the information that's irrelevant to the sinking. If there are no replies within 5 days, I'll be WP:BOLD and split the article. KJ^Discuss? 13:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Done WP:SPLIT, with templates added to talk pages. KJ^Discuss? 08:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Murder or homicide?

The BBC cite does indeed refer to the chief engineer being found guilty of "murder", as do many others (including Korea Herald [1]; however, many others use the broader term "homicide", eg ABC[2], Guardian[3]. Can regular editors clarify? Davidships (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

6,825 tons weight or tonnage

According to Wikipedia and other sources the Sewol had a capacity of 6825 gross tons, but in this article this amount is specified as the weight. I find it highly improbable that a 6800 ton-ship weighs exactly that amount. Gross tons are very often, even by the media mistaken as weight measurement, so it is possible that this is the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafalias (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dafalias: The weight is supported by sources such as the New York Times [4], the Guardian [5], and the Chosun Ilbo [6]. There doesn't seem to be any other sources that contradict this statement. There doesn't seem to be anything improbable about having a ship's weight accurate down to a ton (around 1,000 kilograms). KJ^Discuss? 16:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to have come to this very late. There is indeed nothing improbable about the existence of "weight" figures, though they are rarely used for commercial vessels (mainly for calculating scrap value). Such measure, generally called light displacement, for Sewol was 6,113 tonnes (source: Sea-web database, published IHS Global (suscription required) [7]). Outside the specialised shipping press, it is regrettably almost universal that the media refer to the widely-available gross tonnage of a vessel as its "weight", and insist on erroneously adding "tons" or "tonnes" to it, as in the citations above. Davidships (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, KJ, you do not understand. "gross ton" is NOT a measurement of weight, it is a measurement of the volume of a ship. And the press is NOT a reliable source on that, this error is very, very, very wide spread, it even occurred in nautical magazines (to their embarrassment). Plus, newspapers write off each other, so the mistake just gets replicated. In German they even changed the noun from "Bruttoregistertonnen" to "Brutto-Raum-Zahl" to emphasize that it is not about the weight of a ship. Consider the Wikipedia entry of the Oasis of the Seas: The ship is 225.000 gross tons large, while the weight is estimated around 100.000 metric tons. These are two very different things. Now it is extremely unlikely that a ship has the same weight in metric tons as it has volume in gross tons. I highly doubt that such a vessel would be able to swim.Dafalias (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Angular velocity

Right now the article states in the section "Turn and effects (08:48):

According to the joint investigation team, the sharp turn was a combined result produced by the steering error and the lessened restoring force caused by overloading; investigations did not show any malfunctions with the generator or the battery.[35][99] From 8:49:26, AIS data showed Sewol‍ 's angular velocity accelerate from 0.29 radians per second to 0.83, 1.00, and 2.00 until 8:49:39; these readings were consistent with previous testing data gained from earlier tests conducted on an empty Sewol.[94] Consequently, the ship herself listed 20 degrees into the water; on 8:49:40, causing cargo to fall to one side of the ship.[100][101] The impact caused the ship's gyroscope to erroneously record angular velocities of 15 radians per second on 8:49:40, 14 on the next second, and -11 on the consequent second, and tilt the ship 10 degrees further into the water.[94][100] Passengers also reported hearing a loud "bang."[102]

All of this is properly sourced in Korean, which I can't read, but that's OK. However, the quoted angular velocities in radians per second seem too high, even physically impossible. Could it be that the quoted angular velocities are actually in degrees per second? That would make more sense, as all directions are in degrees too. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Park's "missing seven hours"?

Shouldn't there be mention in the Reactions section of criticism related to President Park Geun-hye's whereabouts being unknown in the seven hours or so following the event? Some hastily found sources:

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/652176.html

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/661952.html

http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201410101835257&code=790101

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20161030000180

76.64.32.197 (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Referring to the ship as a female

Hello, is it really okay to assume the gender of a ship? I don't see any feminine stuff on it that's why I'm curious. Oppashi (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Oppashi: Since WP:SHE4SHIPS holds that ships may be referred to using either feminine or neuter pronouns, it should be fine in this case. KJ^Discuss? 23:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sinking of MV Sewol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Roll on/roll off?

This article links to a list of roll on/roll off ship incidents, but at no point in the article (that I can find, anyway, might just be my stupid) does it actually state the the MV Sewol was a roll on/roll off type ferry. I don't want to edit the article to say that it was, because I don't know that it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WasBrendanDoyle (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Added description as passenger/ro-ro ferry in first sentence. Thanks for spotting the omission. Davidships (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sinking of MV Conception which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed "underwater stream theory"

I removed our section on the "underwater stream" alternative theory because it was just sourced to a 30-page self-published "book" on Amazon by non-notable "independent investigator" Dmitry Verkhoturov with no indication it ever went any further than that. That doesn't even come close to meeting the notability requirements even for an "obsolete theory." -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Minor edit, replaced "taken aback" with "startled".

Previous was "During this time, Park was crying, as she was taken aback by the sudden incident; this lasted until at least 9:06 a.m.", which I revised to "During this time, Park was crying, as she was startled by the sudden incident; this lasted until at least 9:06 a.m." Please advise if this minor change causes any discomfort. Cheers. H Bruce Campbell (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

sewol ferry tragedy all story

Sewol ferry tragedy all story 111.119.183.35 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If the experts DIDNT agree you would never hear it because they would be censored.

juat seems incredibly dishonest and misleading to leave that out, but it is fitting with wikis general bootlicking. 2001:56A:7D81:BF00:83AA:85A0:F296:CD0B (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Radians per second

In the article, it is mentioned that the vessel reached angular velocity of 2 radians per second, which cannot be correct. A full round is 6.3 radians. I cannot verify the source to the given numbers, since it is in Korean, but I suppose degrees per second is the correct unit. Atteaalto (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Atteaalto, You are right. The source "선박자동식별장치(AIS) 신호정보에 따르면 세월호는 4월 16일 오전 8시 49분 13초부터 초당 0.29도, 0.83도, 1.0도, 2.0도로 선회 각속도가 차츰 빨라졌다" is translated as "According to the signal information of the automatic ship identification system (AIS), the Sewol ferry's turning angular speed gradually increased from 8:49:13 am on April 16 to 0.29 degrees, 0.83 degrees, 1.0 degrees, and 2.0 degrees per second".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes but we know that is not credible or reliable because it comes from Korea. 2001:56A:7D81:BF00:83AA:85A0:F296:CD0B (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The 31st MEU

While we didn't get to launch any water craft to aid in rescue efforts, we did have a helicopter divert as soon as it happened, with another joining after about half an hour. The first arriving at 09:02 and the second at 09:28. Just in time to get harassed by the KCG. It wasn't just fishing boats. We helped rescued 16 before the South Korean Navy forced us to leave and stand-by with our Johnsons in our hands while they fouled this up gloriously and got sailors killed. Get your facts right. I got called on the carpet over this bs. Off-Handed Barrel (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"side ramp"?

The article says "The regular captain of Sewol, Captain Shin, had warned Chonghaejin about the decrease in stability and attributed it to the removal of the side ramp". This sounds like the "side ramp" should have been discussed earlier in the article, but I can't see anything about it. (The word "ramp" only appears once in the article) KarenSutherland (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)