Talk:Sinking of MV Sewol

Direct cause

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)

First of all, thank you for that personal introduction for my feelings. Couple of things to note. Firstly, the theory advocated by the coast guard haven't changed, as far as I know, and the sharp turn is the 'direct cause' of this incident. The ship capsized because it tilted to the right due to the turn, and the tilting eventually led to the ship being unbalanced to the point that the crew couldn't stabilize it, and that led to the capsizing. This is supported by the AIS, the crew, and experts (as sourced). Second, there are several conjectures what facilitated the ship's unbalancing of the ship. That's what the Secondary causes section is for. The ferry didn't capsize because it discharged ballast water, it capsized because the discharge led to the center of gravity shifting, weakening the ship's restoring force, and helping the ship unbalance when it made that turn. Currently, the only one of those factors being officially considered as the direct cause by the Prosecution/Police Coalition Investigations Headquarters is overloading, which is why I placed that under the 'direct causes' section. I'm not sure what the proposal is, but until the secondary causes move on from being a collection of conjecture by the media, it can't be given WP:DUE. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 05:46, 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)

@Syngmung: The direct and secondary causes aren't wrongfully labelled. Currently, there are several theories as to what caused the capsizing, but each viewpoint must be given WP:DUE and properly classified. Right now, the consensus in the media and the government was that the ship sank because of the sharp turn that it has made. The 'unreasonably sudden turn' is the theory advocated by the ROK Coast Guard as a direct cause here, and overloading and the lack of proper securing is considered as direct causes by the Prosecution/Police Coalition Investigations Headquarters as reported here. Other conjectures focus on the restoring force of the ferry, such as renovation (seen here), so it's placed under the secondary causes. Theories that argue that the tipping wasn't the cause are placed under the alternative theories section. The alternative to classifying the theories following governmental classification would be listing of all possible causes for the capsizing, and that's worse. Furthermore, if you look at the secondary causes section, you would see that the 'ballast water content' was moved to secondary theories, for the reasons given above. I would be open to changing the classifications, but there doesn't seem to be real alternatives. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 10:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion amongst editors here - and quite possible some media editors also - about the so-called "theories". The causes mentioned in the article are mostly not isolated from each other, and it is the combination of them that led to the capsize. Making the turn, as described so far, would not have led to an extreme list if the stability conditions of the ship were correct. It is clear from the reports of overloading of cargo, the consequent reduction in water ballast (and perhaps lighter fuel load) and maybe the consequences of the modifications to the vessel, that she lacked proper stability and could not be recovered from the initial list. The consequence of that was perhaps compounded by insufficient securing of the cargo. Of course, written like that it is OR, but I think that I have read all that in more recent reports, which I will go looking for on Wednesday. Hopefully we can bring some improvement to this part of the article. Davidships (talk) 01:23, 7 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)

Links

>> South Korean diver dies during ferry search(Lihaas (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)).

Article updating

Hello, IMHO the article need to cite:

• The 21 years old Yoon Dae-ho (윤대호), petty officer 2nd class (병장) of the RoK Navy (it is not clear if he was a diver in the Navy, if not wich was his actual role?) passed away on Apr. 20th or Apr. 19th (does anyone known the correct death date?) after having suffered a head injury followed by coma while embarked on Dae Jo-yeong (DDH-977) enroute to the Sewol disaster area.
• The 22 years old Park Ji-young (박지영씨 or 박지영 ?), a young crew member who helped many students to reach the Deck 4 and wear the lifejackets, giving her own to them prior to die in cold waters.
• The 17 years old Choi Deok-ha (korean name fonts unknown), a student from Danwon High School who first allerted the 119 emergency number. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

+- survived then died?

What is the logic behind these lines:

• Deaths 273 + 1 vice principal + ...
• Survivors 172[3] - 1 vice principal

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)

Agree. I changed the infobox to make it clearer.128.189.191.222 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Factors leading to a high mortality rate, and lack of an early response onboard

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)

Is the height measurement correct: 14.00 m (45 ft 11 in)?

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)

Problem with File:Ferry Sewol 1.jpg

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)