Talk:SS Andrea Doria
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theSS Andrea Doria article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
| Archives:1 |
 | SS Andrea Doria is aformer featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, checkthe nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page asToday's featured article on August 28, 2005. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status:Former featured article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The section about "Litigation and determination of fault: 1956–1957" contains a list of unsourced statements. Wikipedia is as good as its sources. No sources, no value. Just babble. The section should be removed.2001:B07:646B:4D36:1542:76B6:FC17:40EC (talk)15:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several passages in this article mention the speculation that the radar display onStockholm was set to a range of 5 miles but interpreted as if it had been set to 15 miles. This speculation, which is repeated in several sources, originated from the article "TheAndrea Doria–Stockholm Disaster: Accidents Don't Happen", by John C. Carrothers in the August 1971 issue of theUnited States Naval Institute'sProceedings. Note that this speculation was always denied by the third mate who was commandingStockholm when the collision occurred. Samuel Halpern's 2008 analysis of the accident,"An Objective Forensic Analysis of the Collision BetweenStockholm andAndrea Doria", argues (convincingly, to my mind) thatStockholm's radar display was set correctly, and that Carrothers had misinterpretedStockholm's course recorder track. Although this source is self-published, it was created for a presentation at theMaine Maritime Academy and presumably accepted by them; also, it has since been cited in some published sources. It seems to me that the article should at least mention this disagreement, rather than treating theStockholm radar display speculation as likely truth as it does now.Colin Douglas Howell (talk)03:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One passage in the article reads as follows:
"Stockholm's bow was replaced in New York at a cost of $1 million. Today, the former Stockholm sails as MV Astoria and is registered in Portugal. She is the oldest ocean liner still in service."
But that passage contains a reference to something written in 2019. Who knows whether the former Stockholm is still in service in late 2023 ?
It is much better to state at least whatyear a given statement — that may be dependent on time — is true. It is a very bad idea to write "today" since someone may be reading that four or 10 or 20 years later, when a statement may no longer be true.
I've removed the following content from the "Fiction" section under "Books":
In Elora Maxwell's The Shore of Forever (2023), the sinking of Andrea Doria is told from the perspectives of three characters: Eloisa Nicoletti aboard the SS Andrea Doria, Arden Lund aboard the MS Stockholm, and Adeline Darbonne aboard the Île de France.
This was added by an IP address. In one of the edit summaries, they say that they wrote the novel they are referencing (seehere) and then went on to add the book's Amazon page as a reference (seehere).
I've removed this reference since I feel it violates several Wikipedia policies/guidelines includingWP:COI,WP:PROMO,WP:OR andWP:RS. If anyone else would like to add their two cents, I'd be willing to discuss it here.My Pants Metal (talk)15:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello guys38.21.188.23 (talk)22:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this not mentioned in the section on litigation and determination of fault? It would seem to be a major factor, rather like driving in the opposing lane? "To save time, the Stockholm set a homeward course south of the Nantucket Lightship and twenty miles north of the recommended eastbound course for ships leaving the United States, placing the Stockholm directly in the path of inbound westward traffic, a violation of the 1953 North Atlantic Track Agreement to which the Swedish American Line was a signatory.[16]"Bill (talk)18:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
