Talk:Sinking of MV Sewol

Capsizing section → messages portion is misleading

"During the capsizing, it was at first believed that passengers trapped in the vessel were able to send text messages to friends and family as the vessel sank.[33] However, subsequent investigations by the Cyber Terror Response Center reported that survivors had not used their phones from noon on the 16th to 10 am on the 17th and determined that all reported text messages were fake.[34]" → Some of the text messages sent "during the capsize" were real. Only those sent after 12 noon on April 16th were fake. The way it's written makes it seem that all text messages were fake, and they weren't. Suggest rewrite. ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, after the accident, there were text messages on the web allegedly written by the students who were still in the ship. The messages quickly went viral, but it was later determined that all messages publicized online were fake. There are messages sent over online services and their veracity wasn't determined as of the time of publishing of that article. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reworded article for clarification. ArishiaNishi (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear whether the text messages being reported by the BBC are real or fake. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are fake. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 13:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• So the news stories were based on a false blog post? The later news stories make it sound like there was an elaborate hoax and that fake messages were sent to families. Perhaps the journalists don't want to admit that they screwed up and crowd sourced their stories. Two from one (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

From my understanding of the text messages, what happened was that text messages allegedly sent from students from inside the ships were published online. The content of the messages claimed that the senders were students who were trapped in the ship, but the postings were anonymous and the sources couldn't be immediately confirmed. Later, investigations by the cyber police determined that the text messages couldn't possibly have been sent. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 13:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Number of deaths

The currently known number of deaths is only shown in the infobox - nowhere in the article! 75.41.109.190 (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Overloaded, crew not trained in safety procedures

The Wall Street Journal is claiming that the ship carrying three times too much weight of cargo, and that the ferry's owners had spent hardly any money on crew safety training last year. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Turn direction

The ship sank when it made a sharp turn to the right, not the left. It capsized to the port (left) side. 192.165.214.193 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Good catch.ㅎㅎㅎ ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Korean words for sudden turn

From the continuous editing, it looks like there's a minor controversy concerning one of the theories of the cause, the sudden-turn theory. The Korean and Hanja words (Korean: 변침; Hanja: 變針) have been repeatedly removed then added by various editors. Should the characters be added? Personally, I wanted to post the characters since that's what the theory is referred to in Korean (especially in the media). Any thoughts? KJ ^{«Click Here»} 23:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Is your reason simply "I wanted to post the characters since that's what the theory is referred to in Korean (especially in the media)."?

Please explain more why the Korean word is necessary for the English translation "turn" or "veer", preferably citing the relevant policies or guidelines. A native name is usually included when the English name is a transliteration of the native name per W:EN and So on.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any policies and guidelines that applies explicitly applies to this case. If I had to cite a policy, I would argue WP:RSUE, since the sources for this theory are all in Korean, and the Korean terms are necessary to verify that other sources are about the same theory (and not similar ones). Also, I can't find any confirmed English names for this theory, so the phrase in Korean will be necessary to specify the exact theory. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 03:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into this discussion, but I have to agree with Phoenix7777 here. This so-called Sudden-turn theory was not proposed by some notable Korean scholars who's a world renowned expert in ship wreckage. It's just a Korean word for a basic law of physics: if a ship makes a sharp turn thus loses its balances, she could capsize to its side and eventually will sink. This should be a well-known fact to many sailors for centuries around the world. Thus, WP:RSUE can not be a good justification for keeping a Korean jargon.

If I comment one more thing about these so called theories, I have to point out that they are not hard-earned Theories at all. Any proposed hypothesis must be underwent a rigorous peer reviews to be called a "theory". From what I can tell, all these theories in this article are simply self-claimed experts' speculations at best. In other words, those expert do not have any evidence' to back up their speculations. They could make more educated guesses than non-experts, but the cause of sinking will be investigated thoroughly once the vessel to be salved. Only then, we could say the cause of sinking with some concrete evidences.

I understand that KJ wants to keep this translation from Ko-wiki project. The English wikipedia, however, has different editing standards. As someone who had blanked a theory section from this edit [1], I think the article would be better off without listing all the speculations which do not have hard evidences. (but, this could be just my bias.) --SSN (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely absurd to even bring up peer reviews or the proper methodology to scientific "theories" in this circumstance. This website presents information from news sources. If the scientific method were the standard, news would not exist. Since news by its very nature quickly reports what has occurred, it doesn't spend months investigating every story. Wikipedia, the news, and most of functioning society do not abide by this standard of "theory". In fact most investigation of events by officials never reaches such a stage, even trials do not meet this standard. This isn't an article about a theory of a scientific analysis, and therefor the criticism of the use of theory in how this event occurred is irrational and baseless. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I never said that everything written here must be scientific and rigorous. I simply questioned the use of word, "Theory", while this so-called "Theory" is in fact someone's hunch or educated guess. --SSN (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

>I can't find any confirmed English names for this theory

It is because the word is a terminology specialized in the marine navigation. I am also afraid you are misunderstanding the word as "theory". The word byeonchim (Korean: 변침; Hanja: 變針) is not a theory but a word meaning simply "veer" or "change the course" in maritime terminology. See this explanation. The word byeonchim literally means "Change the needle". The needle is the needle of the compass. The similar word is byeonsog (변속), literally "Change the speed" (sogdo, 속도).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand the meaning of the word, as well as the technical aspects of calling it a 'theory.' However, the Korean media has been taken to dubbing to this theory (or hypothesis) as an 'unreasonable sharp turn (무리한 변침)' or just 'sharp turn (변침).' The former case can be seen here and here, the latter here and here. It's not just an explanation of the events; i.e. the ship capsized due to a sharp turn, but it's the unofficial (but widely-used) name. Thus, it could be used as a temporary label until an official name is created. Similarly, other theories could be tagged with the appropriate Korean titles, but this should be the most important since this is the currently 'official theory.'

As for the concern about labeling the conjectures 'theories,' they could be dubbed 'hypotheses' but it's clear from the multiple proposals that it's not being used in the rigorous scientific sense, but rather the common usage denoting reasonable ideas. It could be changed to hypotheses without too much trouble, but there's no real merit either way. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 05:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me put the question this way: does the word byeonchim help readers to understand the article more clearly? If you leaves out this terminology, would readers have a hard time understanding the cause of sinking? If it does, we'd better keep the word. Otherwise, byeonchim does not have its place in the article.

Compare the case with the name of the vessel, "Sewol". If you leaves out the ship's proper noun "Sewol" and tries to replace it with English translation, it would not make much sense. In other words, the proper noun(고유 명사) "Sewol" cannot be replaced with any other translation. As you already did, byeonchim can be easily translated/replaced and is Not a proper noun. --SSN (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Seonsaengnim explained all about this problem. By the way, I noticed that you misunderstand byeonchim (변침) means "sharp turn". Byeonchim simply means "turn" or "veer" not "sharp turn". "우선 세월호 침몰의 유력한 사고 원인으로 지목된 `변침`은 선박이나 항공기가 항로를 변경하는 것을 뜻한다."[2]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the meaning, the term is used as the unofficially-agreed on name for the theory, as demonstrated above. In any case, I'm willing to defer to consensus. Does anyone else have opinions on this point? KJ ^{«Click Here»} 22:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add, but my opinion is that the Korean is unnecessary. It would also be unnecessary to provide a Korean translation of "renovation" or "overloading", as they are simple descriptions; "sudden turn" is no different. —WOFall (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

From everything I've read so far, all we really know is that the ship made a turn. How many radians per second that turn was, no one really knows. The AIS went off during the turn as well. It did change it's course more than it should have, but no one knows why that happened, or how quickly. I would leave out the adjective describing the turn until we have the investigative report. ArishiaNishi (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. By the way, AIS doesn't "go off". It's a system of continuously broadcasting a vessel's positional, navigational and other data, primarily as an anti-collision aid for other vessels. Davidships (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, that's true.(imho) We don't yet know what AIS equipment was onboard, and whether it had a UPS or not. There are reports from the master of the nearby tanker and from public officials that something changed in regards to the Sewol's AIS during the time of the turn, but just what that was is still a question. ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of memorials

I've taken some today and uploaded to commons:Category:Memorial for the victims of the sinking of the MV Sewol. Please help categorize them properly, describe, and select most appopriate ones for inclusion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be helpful to label the photos, at least with a location, even if the significance of each is not yet known to you? Davidships (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have done so through categories. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Needs Re-Write

You need to get someone with maritime credentials to re-write this article. There are almost too many problems to list.

Some Highlights: Ships with proper stability and watertight integrity do not capsize or sink from turning too sharply. The problem with the Sewol was almost certainly improper stability. The question is: Exactly how and why did they have improper stability? Did they know this? If not, why not? Also, the directive to passengers to dawn lifejackets inside the skin of the ship--particularly under the circumstances that obtained at the time--was criminally negligent. This is absolutely basic. VTS are traffic control. They are not qualified to issue orders, or even advice, in maritime emergencies. This is the role of coast guards with ultimate responsibility resting upon the ship's master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.88.71 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't do Original Research. If you can find sources the article can include them. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just referring to the IP's first point. We are expected to write in appropriate vocabulary/grammar in drawing on RS. There is definitely a lot of inappropriate vocabulary used here in describing maritime aspects, but much of that is coming from translations of Korean texts, some of which may not be very good in the first place (I suspect that we are relying on Korean editors to be satisfied that these as RS, the rest of us can't really know). But only a maritime-savvy Korean-speaking editor with good English can do much about that. Davidships (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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)