Talk:Pamir (ship)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: [edit] To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve Grammer Add any additions if needed Discuss disired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion [edit] Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article

I have not found any non-copyrighted picture of the Pamir on the web. However, having one or two images in this article would be very nice. Lupo 13:14, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

• Got you a stamp from the Falkland Islands. I think as a stamp it is not copyrighted. Another stamp from the cook islands was here [1], but smaller. The australian government has another photo here [2], for no-commercial use according to their copyright licenses, so I am not sure if we can use that. Hope this helps -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Actually, I posted this on requested pictures in hope of an image of the ship, not of a stamp, but it's better than nothing... At least one can discern the four masts. And as you also noted, most other pictures available on the web have a (sometimes very) unclear copyright status. Lupo 14:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

In Tall Ships Down Daniel Parrott gives the LAO of the Pamir as only 316ft. Anyone know whether which figure is correct, or whether the "overall length" in this article is actually referring to something other than the technical LAO? BruceRD 10:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

316 ft would be the deck length. See [3]. Lupo 08:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh, it is

I have again removed a problem sentence. The article had become less POV but the inference that the captain was to blame for not flooding the ballast tanks was a problem. Even if true, it needs citing. If it isn't true, then it is an attack by Wikipedia. The sentence removed said (1) " For unknown reasons, the captain did not have the ballast tanks flooded, which would have helped the ship to right herself again" and was also a problem. You could equally say, in part, (2) "as the ballast tanks were not flooded, the ship rolled over". The primary effect the lack of balance from ballasted tanks had on the disaster was to capsize Pamir. Not being able to provide self-righting was a secondary effect, but as the vessel was already capsized in the middle of a Category 1 Hurricane, it was already history. OK, I know my last two sentences are my opinion, but I would to see evidence why (1) is more accurate than (2). Moriori 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Moriori, I'm glad we can have the discussion here... so: 1) Whether or not someone said something is not POV. It's a fact. It may be hard to track down (as in the case of a ship where most people died), but it remains a fact. In this case (the captain ordering or not ordering): Nobody (including the most outspoken supporters of the captain, esp. the shipping company's former lawyer Willner) claims that Diebitsch [the captain] actually gave the order. That's not surprising: On large sailing vessels as the Pamir, and especially in those times, orders are given hierarchically; and the person who would be giving orders with consequences as far-reaching as flooding a tank which was filled with grain (thereby destroying part of the cargo) would be the captain. Due to that very hierarchy, such orders would be followed unless a) they are (physically) impossible to be followed, or b) you have a mutiny. There was no mutiny, and there has not been the slightest hint that the orders could not be followed. Consequently, as the tanks were not flooded, there has not been any reason to assume that the captain did give the orders. Consequently, as of my knowledge, nobody has assumed that Diebitsch gave those orders. (Unfortunately it's logically impossible to "prove" or "cite evidence" that something did not happen. So if you disagree and believe that Diebitsch did in fact give those orders, I would ask you to show me who argues it. Anyway, I think the last version of the article did not even claim he did, it just said he "did not have the tanks flooded" = merely outcome-based.)

2) Whether or not someone should be blamed for saying or not saying something is an entirely different matter. The article has never blamed the captain for not having said anything (and thus did not infer anything about that matter), it merely stated that he didn't. Just pointing out that someone did not do something (i.e. did not have the tanks flooded) is no attack, it's a fact. If you think that it sounds nonetheless like blame: Feel free to rephrase.

3) I don't know what exact difference you see between capsizing and self-righting. As capsizing is simply further down the line, I would prefer to state simply that not flooding the tanks impacted the ships ability to right herself. But maybe that's a vocabulary problem on my part (see your discussion page), then it shouldn't be a problem for you as a native speaker to take care of it. As for the content rather than the vocabulary: The problem of the Pamir was generally that the ship listed more and more, then "fell over" to lie on her side, then capsized and finally sank. These were not independent events, but each was a consequence of the preceding event: The ship "fell over" because it listed too much, it capsized because it had been laying on its side, etc. Flooding the ballast tanks would have counteracted that spiral: It would have righted the ship, thereby preventing the "falling over" part and all the subsequent events. (Whether or not flooding the tanks would have been enough, is mere speculation. Saying that it "would have helped" should be okay, but again, feel free to rephrase.) - BTW, saying "as (!) the tanks weren't flooded, the Pamir capsized" would IMHO be a POV. And to my knowledge, nobody argues that anyway. Not flooding the tanks may have contributed, but it probably did not cause the shipwreck.

As a result, I still believe that there's nothing wrong whatsoever with stating that the captain did not have the tanks flooded, which would have helped to right the ship again. --Ibn Battuta 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use "it's a fact....it may be hard to track down" to try to justify inclusion of any content in any article. If contested content isn't cited, it doesn't merit inclusion. Moriori 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not use "it's a fact....it may be hard to track down" to "try" to justify anything. Citing out of context doesn't get you anywhere. I used "it's a fact....it may be hard to track down", followed by a pretty long paragraph arguing why there is no way and no need to "prove" (and hence cite) why it is the captain who does or does not give orders. I can explain it to you again: The ship capsized with the starboard tank not having been flooded. The command to flood tanks is given by a ship's captain. And this is in fact so agreed-upon that you don't even find sources arguing back and forth about it. I don't know if you've ever gone to sea or served in the military or anywhere else where hierarchy matters. If you haven't, please feel free to consult with someone who has. Flooding tanks in the midst of a hurricane and thereby destroying part of your cargo is not something that a cadet will order. And there is simply no literature on this topic because nobody but you seems to contest it. Is that so hard to understand?

You, on the contrary, could maybe elaborate on your opinion. Which part of the sentence is an "inference that the captain was to blame", and where does the "POV" come into play? I've tried to address anything that I thought you could object to. If you aren't satisfied, why don't you try to formulate a bit more precisely what you actually object to? --Ibn Battuta 07:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)