Talk:MV Explorer (1969)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

which ship?[edit]

Can we please establish whether it is the MS Explorer [1] or MV Explorer [2][3] that is involved in the incident? Currently the page redirects back to itself! Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The MS Explorer [4] (called the Explorer II) has its own article MS Explorer II (cruise ship) --Camptown (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the three different links, #3 is the correct ship. #2 webpage the company says it is not their ship. Link #1 and #4 are the same. All that needs doing now is to sort out all the different redirect pages - beyond my level of editing yet. Mjroots (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Which redirect page are you in particular thinking about? Camptown (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Have discovered the IMO number of the vessel. At least we now know which one to talk about! Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It is the same ship as on the Noble Caledonia and Eagle Eye pages, it is not the same ship as the RSSC's Explorer II. Keep in mind that one company can own a ship while another charters or leases it. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find out what the "MS" stand for as my first thought was Microsoft Explorer was sinking. Which would have more of a global impact. life is growth; live:grow 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbytes (talkcontribs)

M/S stands for "motor ship" (originally vs. "SS" for "steam ship"). "M/V" stands for "motor vessel" or "merchant vessel". Very often M/S and M/v are used interchangeably, although you'd expect otherwise. The Eagle Eye Tours page uses both of them! The use of the slash is stylistically variable as well, and Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a standard. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
MS Explorer crashed? Why am I not surprised? (Sorry it had to be said.)Paperweight (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this ship should be referred to as the "MS Explorer", and I don't think a redirect from the MV Explorer page is appropriate since Semester_at_sea's current vessel is the MV Explorer. Here's the specs from SAS [5] Jeadly (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Foot in mouth[edit]

Article reads: "It was the first ship custom built as an expedition ship, and the first to navigate the North West Passage, in 1984.". This is all very obvious wrong, many ships has been built as expedition ships, and many has navigated the North West Passage. Perhaps someone was thinking "... for the cruise market" or something, but then it gets less interesting. I will remove the sentence entirely. Greswik (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This site [6] give the correct line, she was the first expeditionary cruise ship. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Having been aboard the vessel (in a working capacity), I believe they were describing her as the first (and only) expeditionary ice-breaker purpose built as a cruise ship. Asserting all others where either research vessels converted for passengers, or regular cruise ships which were operationally limited in ice. I've no idea how truthful or accurate their claims were, but those were the claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be less interesting to Greswick, but it's citeable. I don't have a problem with this claim (although I'd like more info about the 1984 trip). I don't know what "foot in mouth" means here. --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
"Foot in mouth" means to make a stupid or mistaken statement. The idea is that someone who misspeaks is putting his or her "foot" in his mouth and thus garbling his words. I dunno where the phrase came from. (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a native English speaker. I don't know why Greswick used it in this context. --Dhartung | Talk 08:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a native English speaker, so I use whatever I think will convey the meaning. The meaning was not to bash the ones inserting it though, if that was you: just to say it could obviously not be right. If you check the diffs, you will see I didn't actually remove it alltogether, just wrote it down a bit. Still, by writing on the talk-page I hoped someone knowing (and by that I mean knowing, and not only guessing) what could have been meant, looked at it, and rethinked if something still should be in the article. But I also wanted to make a point about the marketing-slogans: they are not allways as interesting as the marketing-people think they are. I still think it's either a tall or an uninteresting claim when they say it was the first cruiseship custom built for expeditions. I am sure some rich person has had their yachts custombuilt in a similar way, and how interesting is the difference between cruiseships for the rich, and yachts? But that's just me. I'm not doing anything more about this, i just wanted to air it, yesterday. Greswik (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nystad vs. Uusikaupunki and other linguistical issues[edit]

Since this is clearly causing confusion: Uusikaupunki is the name of the city where this ship is built, and the shipyard is Uudenkaupungin telakka. Due to Finland being a bilingual country, both have Swedish-language names alongside the Finnish ones (in this case, Nystad and Nystads varv). The correct versions you should use are the Finnish ones, due to the city being monolingually Finnish. Many internet sources use the Swedish names, probably because the Swedish-language Fakta om Fartyg uses the Swedish versions and many websites source their info from there. Still, usage of the Swedish names is incorrect unless you are doing a Swedish-language article. -- Kjet (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation, Uusikaupunki it it then! Mjroots (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. -- Kjet (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but this is not Finnish Wikipedia, and Nystads Varv Ab, seems much more used in English registers and translations. So to deem it "incorrect" etc is just silly. Like a Norwegian joke. --Camptown (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
We should not seek political correctness. We should use what secondary sources use. If they use the Swedish, so should we. The wikilinked articles, if they have information on the dual naming, can explain further. --Dhartung | Talk 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. Living in Finland, the translatability of Finnish names to Swedish and vice versa seems the naturaly and correct thing to do to me, but obviously things aren't that simple if you aren't from here. (But Uusikaupunki would still be more correct :P). -- Kjet (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
One more thing - I'm not sure what the convention on this is in English, but "varv" is Swedish for shipyard, so if you say "Nystads Varv shipyard", you're actually saying Nystads Shipyard shipyard, which sounds rather silly. -- Kjet (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, it sounds rather dyslexic, but as the place where the ship was built is usually cited as "Nystads Varv" / "Nystads Varv Ab", and most readers here are unfamiliar with the Swedish word "varv", Nystads Varv Shipyard is as is good as anything. --Camptown (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Just for the sake of argument, doesn't the fact that a ship was built there pretty much automatically signify the place is a shipyard? Ad another point, I don't remember seeing any articles referring to "Aker Yards Shipyard", "Chantiers de l'Atlantique shipyard", "Meyer Werft Shipyard" or "Finnboda Varv Shipyard". Although that mihgt just be selective memory on my part. -- Kjet (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


I've managed to add an infobox. Once all details have been transferred the sectin "Specifications" can be removed. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Still floating?[edit]

After I changed her into past tense, I am a bit embarassed to admit Norwegian papers still seems to think she is floating- I read them to be writing "down" previously. Anyone with certain information here? Should we still have the article as if she is afloat? Greswik (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Expected to sink within a few hours. Most likely sunk by now - I've updated it :) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say leave it for now. I did see one news webpage that said she had sunk, but the majority are silent on the matter. It is a remote area so news may take a while to get through. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, I disagree with you on this. We can't speculate. I wrote down because I misread the Norwegian papers to be clear on this, but speculation is even worse. However, she seems like a floating wreck on the pictures- but that is still not the same. Greswik (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There is still no confirmation. As we can't have her as sinked when we do not have any confirmation of it, I will revert it again. Greswik (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Size of Hole?[edit]

The size quoted of 10" x 4" doesn't seem big enough to sink the ship. Having seen the pictures on BBC News 24, I'd say 10' x 4' may be a lot nearer the truth! Am not editing article until confirmation is forthcoming. Mjroots (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

British Coastguard says "a hole the size of a fist" here. That certainly seems sufficient to let water in, though you would think they'd have pumping capacity against that. The problem becomes one of sufficient water having its own physics and if the ship lists such that above-water openings are close to or below water level, it becomes just a matter of time. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Check the picture on BBC webpage - note the size of the black mark = hole? Mjroots (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean the parallelogram near the bow on this photo? That's the anchor pocket. Although as I said water, once in a ship, develops its own physics, in all likelihood the actual damage was submerged and remains so, and not visible. --Dhartung | Talk 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There is what looks like a crushed in section on the very bottom of the ship a few feet in from the front. It looks like a small dimple. It's possible it's a block of gray colored ice that's floating high though it looks like the low floating slush and a dent in the bottom. The same dent is visible in this picture [7]. BTW - article [8] says the images are from Chile's Navy and thus may be public domain and available for use on Wikipedia. The same article seems to confirm the ship has in fact sunk or at least "Our units in the area aren't seeing anything." The Chilean Navy has an article in their Spanish language section with pictures [9]. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, assuming that's what Mjroots meant, I see what you're talking about. My only hesitation is that I suspect a hole that large would have meant the ship sinking within minutes, instead of hours. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Re size of hole, amount of water and sinking. This source says
"The fight to stop the ship taking on water was lost and passengers and crew abandoned ship...From the bridge of one of those vessels, the Explorer's Chief Officer Peter Svensson, said they lost power and had to evacuate the vessel while they could."
I presume water got into the engines, fuel pumps or the power distribution system and she lost the ability to run her pumps. The Explorer wouldn't be the first ship to be lost for this kind of reason.KTo288 (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point, and in fact at least one video report has said that the engine room was flooded pretty early, causing the captain to make the abandon ship decision. After that (I'm assuming) the pumps could run on battery power but the batteries would not be recharged. There would need to be reserve battery for radio communication as well -- the captain was in contact with rescue authorities and the lifeboats. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder if a more sensible logic for the size of the hole will still be given, also batterys for pumps and batterys for radios have little to do with another darthung, thanks for letting us know the captain was in contact with the lifeboats;) how very unusual;) (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a good justification for your sarcasm? Please remain civil. It is a Wikipedia policy. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
On the size of the hole. This news report[10] indicates that that the ship started to list within minutes of impact and that it was passengers who first noted the water. Most ships have at least two decks below the passenger levels for crew cabins, crew work areas, galleys, the engine room, etc. The fact that "two passengers from the cabins down below came in wet, shouting: 'There's water, there's water'" indicates there was a hole up high at the level of the passenger decks and yet a large dent is visible at the bottom the of the ship. The implication is a large chunk of the starboard side got staved in causing serious flooding in the passenger level and probably much worse flooding below.
One puzzle for me is why they were not able to close the water tight doors. Ships are divided into vertical zones, fore to aft, with each zone having at least a crew stairwell meaning the first thing you do is to seal the zone that has a leak or fire off from rest of the ship (both fore and aft). Normally all of these doors can be shut from the bridge. It's my understanding there may be been problems with some doors on the Explorer but usually the problem with a door is they can't be operated remotely but still can be operated manually.
Related to doors is I've worked on ships and when we were sailing in areas with iceberg potential we sailed with the watertight doors closed at all times. It was a pain as to move from zone to zone you went up the stairwell to an upper deck (above the water line), traverse forwards or aft, and then go back down the stairwell. While I never worked on a ship like the Explorer I would have hoped their sailing protocol would have been with the doors sealed shut. It's an area of interest to me as we've always assumed the ships we worked on were pretty hard to sink... Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 08:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This news article provides more detail[11] and presumably as more passengers and crew get access to e-mail/media there will be more data. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I make no suggestion of malfeasance, but as you state this goes against all expectations. I expect an inquiry of, er, Titanic implications. Of course, that could take two years and require ROV photography and all that ... but it's going to be an interesting question why this ship survived 40 years of ice operations but foundered in the very conditions for which it was presumed to be designed. Thankfully there was no loss of life, of course, and in the end we have to remember that ships aren't made to be unsinkable (anymore), just harder to sink so they can remain stable long enough for an orderly and complete evacuation. In that regard the ship performed nominally. --Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I was on the ship (as a passenger) twice two years ago, and for the sake of explanation on the talk page, I can explain a few of the issues Marc brings up. There were, if I recall correctly, no decks below the passenger decks, and if there were, I don't think there could possibly have been more than one (the ship was apparently designed to be able to navigate quite far up the Amazon). Also, during our trips, to the Antarctic and Arctic, the watertight doors were closed at all times except when in port. I couldn't imagine a situation under which they would have been open, unless GAP drastically changed their policies in the last two years. I was quite shocked to hear of the sinking, as going through areas with ice was what the ship was designed for. I expect there will be sources for this information at some point in the near future. --Constantine (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a deck plan here and this site suggests that there were defects in the water tight doors. KTo288 (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
That deck plan is just the deck plan for the passenger-accessible areas, which isn't very helpful for answering the question of whether there was another deck below the lowest passenger deck. The Hemscott article appears to be quite outdated, as our own article notes that the problems were reported (by the inspectors, apparently) to have been rectified, and the agency behind the inspections also added that they "were not huge problems". --Constantine (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems the lowest passenger deck is labeled "Explorer" and has outside cabins. That'll be the row of port holes just above the water line. The draft is 4.48m (14.7 feet) meaning there's room for one full deck below this.
Also - I was looking at the nice former-passenger supplied image Image:MS-Explorer-2005-1.jpg and see there's a logo for a bow thruster. In looking at [12] where I had commented on the dent earlier I've decided that's not a dent but must be the top of the bow thruster opening. Thus my previous comment on the possible size/location of the hole is wrong. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the draft after commenting about the decks. The portholes in the lower cabins were rather high on the walls, but that would still leave 9 feet or so, which even with my ignorance of things would suggest to me that there could be another deck. I don't know how we could find out such information, however. I had also forgotten about the bow thruster, which was used quite often. --Constantine (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If the ports in the lower deck cabins were rather high on the walls then it's unlikely there's room for another deck. This image Image:Explorer-sinking-2.jpg also shows there would be very little room. Getting back to the original subject - news articles continue to report what was in the first articles, namely, a "fist size hole" and "crack" as initially reported by GAP on the 23rd [13]. This is a fascinating read if a first person account from someone on the MS Nordnorge [14]. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted img removed[edit]

I removed a copyrighted image from this article. I kept another one, because it directly showed the sinking, was accurately depicted as a fair use image, and was appropriate to the page. The image of survivors is not essential; it's just a bunch of people bobbing around in the water. Moreover, it was incorrectly stated to be GNU. (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a number of pictures of the ship, from about two years ago, that I would be willing to put on Commons if this would be useful. --Constantine (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


I could have sworn I tinkered with the article on this ship a couple years ago, but article history suggests that it was created today. It's also odd that Lindblad Explorer is not linked; it was well-known under that name for many years. Stan (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

MS Lindblad Explorer is. --Camptown (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


The infobox entry for propulsion needs attention, not all details are being shown. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't notice your post before now, some kind of blindness, but I think this is what I fixed earlier today, so it should be fixed now. Greswik (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Audrey's blog[edit]

Does anyone know if Audrey's Blog was lost in the editing process or deleted on purpose; I can't seem to find the diff with an edit summary for when this was done. Although as a blog it could not be used as a ref, it provided a unique insight into the atmosphere of the rescue and I can see no harm of it being used as an external links.KTo288 (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It was removed here: [15]. It's an admin, and I'we already disagreed with him over the speed we wrote "sunk", so I didn't object when he did it. ;-) Also, the reason seemed to be founded in policy. But I agree the blog was interesting, so I felt a bit sorry for it. Greswik (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An eye-witness account of the rescue is removed because of the reporting venue? What the hell? Had the author of that that blog had the evidence printed in the New York Times ... exactly what would have changed? There is no way anybody -- and this includes even the most objective, Pulizter prize-winning reporter -- could, at the time the evidence was published, verify or confirm the account in any meaningful way. At some point facts are facts, and they remain facts whether printed in a blog or if they appear in the scrolling ditties under the polished visage of some talking bimbo-head at CNN. The buck stops at the witness, and if Wikipedia policies are inconsistent with this reality, then said policies need to be ignored to keep Wikipedia from looking silly. mdf (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I've found the line of policy that would normally exclude blogs, line 12 of "Links normally to be avoided" of Wikipedia:External links however the title is "Links normally to be avoided" rather than "Links to be avoided" another line in "Wikipedia:External links" under Links to be considered offers "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I take it than that under some circumstances blogs may be considered as valid links. I'm going to ask at the help desk, with regards this polcy. KTo288 (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
And to drive this point home: the current article lists in the external links section. There, you will see eye-witness testimony of Explorer's list. Is this not the functional equivalent of a dreaded blog? How can I, Wikipedia verifier, confirm that those pictures were in fact of the ship in question, taken under the circumstances claimed? How can I, Wikipedia verifier, confirm that Audrey is on the up-and-up? Answer to both questions of verifiability and reliability: I can't, as I have come to the end of the chain of evidence. In the human-written-blog case, we have someone converting what happens in front of them into HTML, and in Nordenorge, we have a someone else's robot converting what it sees into JPEG's. Under the "no blogs" rationale, if the text-blog has to go, then so must this image-blog. But that seems silly, right? mdf (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am the person who originally posted the link to Audrey's Blog. I'm sorry to have caused a ruckus. Audrey is a friend of mine who is traveling on the National Geographic Explorer boat in the same area. I helped her set up the blog so she could blog her experiences. She posts the text herself, emails me the pictures to post. I only wish I could have posted her photos of the Explorer as well, but the Internet access on the boat is terrible. Photos will have to wait until December 1 when she gets back to Santiago. Thank you. Mike (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)/

It is no ruckus. It was no bad link, in my point of view. Why don't you (that is User:KTo288) ask at that admins talk page, no need to go to the help desk so fast, perhaps he agrees with you it was a blog to be kept? Greswik (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added the blog back, it was a bloody good account that our readers should most certainly have the opportunity of clicking through to read. There's also a chance that Audrey may freely licence some of her photos, in which case, we would be quite prepared to linkback to her blog if that was part of the requested attribution. Nick (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur there is little harm in including this blog -- the exception that proves the rule. It would be problematic if the blog were making unverifiable claims e.g. about the competence of the captain. That is typically when blogs become damaging to the Wikipedia project. It should be treated as an external resource, however, and not a reference. In any case, it is always good to review the inclusion of possibly unreliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT British Antarctic Territory[edit]

It is claimed by british, so the article can't affirm the accident was in a british terrirory. Somebody sugest: "Argentine Antarctica ocean is just another claim. let's keep with first mentioned." There is not reason to keep the article because it was written incorrect at first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User Benea said: "remove POV statement to neutral version per dispute. Please do not add Argentine Antarctic territory again)" Sounds much beter now. Location now is stated as "Southern Ocean". I will aslo ask to not add British Antarctic Territory again. Article now is better, with a neutral point of view regard the place of event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are international waters! Come on! (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, trinational waters anyway (UK, Chile, and Argentina). (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
As the territorial claims (set aside indefinitely under the Antarctic Treaty) are of no relevance to this event, there is no point to including this information. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The dispute is actually of some interest as the British coastguard at the Falklands Islands first reported about the incident, along a rather substantial "clarification" that the incident happened within the "British Antarctic Territory". The dispute is also interesting as there might be some complications should the vessel start to leak toxic and other harmful material etc. --Camptown (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dhartung, and have removed that reference, again. - Thaimoss (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
And I agree with Camptown and accordingly returned it. Bondkaka (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Since there is nothing in the article which explain or suggest why its relevent, then it remains irrelivent. The sentence adds absolutely nothing to this article and thus in the articles current form I support its removal. Russeasby (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
As Camptown already has pointed out, the issue is interesting at the dispute might complicate the resolution of an evironmental disaster if the wreck starts to leak toxic waste. I'm not sure that the parties involved are that interested to prevent that from happening. --Bondkaka (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I read Camptowns post, and disagree with it, as you can see. First of all WP:NOT, its certainly not a crystal ball as is so commonly said so suggesting "what IF x happens" is not a valid argument. If the boat starts leaking toxic materials and in that incident the various claims made on on the territory become part of the incident, then it would of course be relevent. But nothings leaking and no sources thus far that I have seen have brought up any relevence of the dispute to the incident. Unless there is a need for something in the article related to the dispute then it has no value being mentioned here. If you were to add something to the article to make it relevent like "Should the wreck start to leak toxic waste then the disputed territory may be cause for concern" then that would violate WP:OR as well. I stand by my opinion that it has absolutely no relevence to the article or the ship and event it describes. Russeasby (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You must be the only person on this planet knowing that nothing is leaking. I hope you are right. However, your edits are not very impressive, and as you obviously have some magic insider information, you should help improve the article instead of making sudden revisions of what seem to be other editors "good will" edits. --Camptown (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, first check out WP:CIVIL. Second, surely you understood what I ment by "nothings leaking" but since you seem to want it spelled out more specificly: Nothing of major concern is detectably leaking at this moment. No international organizations or governments have made any mention that I am aware of reguarding any concern here, hence why it is OR to suggest there is "concern", who is concerned? This is exactly why references are important. Second, I made my point here and WP policy supports it, then the editor went and made an edit doing exactly what I pointed out. Sorry you do not like my edits and felt that I was reverting someones "good will" edits, but personally I think making things up (like concern that doesnt seem to exist) and putting them into wikipedia just to support ones view that the dispute should be included is inappropriate and I removed it. I am a reasonable person and always assume good faith from my fellew editors until they show otherwise, note that even though I disagree with having the territorial dispute in the article, I have not once removed it, since I prefer to keep the discussion here and reach consensus, I did only once remove some WP:OR that certainly has no place in the article which was added only to help push the POV that the dispute belongs in the article. Russeasby (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Folks, let us continue, if necessary, to discuss this. But, let us also please be reasonable, and keep from getting personal. As I see the evolution of the article, this particular point was raised following the inclusion by Camptown (Revision as of 06:15, November 24, 2007) of the phrase "in the waters of the British Antarctic Territory". That was it. I think the inclusion of an additional geographic point of reference was useful (note the interesting question posed here in this Talk: "How is"). However, an unidentified user ( changed the wording to Argentine Antarctica, at which point began a series of edits based on point-of-view. Greswik came back suggesting we keep the first claim mentioned. re-inserted the Argentine entry, and Benea countered. When came back again, Benea removed the contentious reference, replacing it with the geographic, and politically neutral, Southern Ocean reference. Bondkaka weighed in with a sentence specifically spelling out the British/Argentine dispute, which in effect seemed to be a response to the contention in the editing, and not a direct enhancement of the article, and Bondkaka expanded on that entry later. Russeasby took exception with the epansion's focus, cited WP:OR and asked for supporting reference.
Bottom line: while the original insertion was well-intentioned it was also contentious. At best, the inclusion speaks to future possible litigation or environmental issues, none of which are currently identified, and which is discussed here. The best approach, and that commonly taken throughout Wikipedia articles, is to remove the contentious reference(s). - Thaimoss (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Thalmoss (concurring with me). If there are reliable sources that discuss sovereignty issues wrt this wreck, then it becomes relevant, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and including information just because it might become a point of dispute down the road is speculative original research. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Explorer sinking removed?[edit]

Why has the photo been deleted? Yes, it was a copyright photo, but the fair use explanation given (non-reproducible historic event, relevant to article) made sense to me. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because we now have a free image of the ship. No need to make a fair use claim (which is especially shaky when the photo in question is an AP photo, despite the event not being reproducible) when we've got a free replacement. kmccoy (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
As Kmccoy notes when a free image is available a fair use rationale is severely weakened. As well, the admins manning the copyright fort are generally in agreement that "non-reproducible historic event" is not just any old event, but major notable events for which a complete encyclopedia requires a photographic image. Ships sink all the time, alas, making this a non-historic event. --Dhartung | Talk 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Although I too agree with the fair-use analysis (ie, free image trumps fair-use image), I think this is a bit of a red-herring in this case: Constantine's edit summary has the more relevant argument, and it applies even if the image of Explorer on its deathbed was free. mdf (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the fair use rational is solid here, and the current incarnation of the article is ideal, with the GNU licensed photo as the main photo and the fair use photos used lower in the article. I do wonder however, since the photos were relased to the press by the Chilean Navy, it is possible that a fair use rational isnt even needed, did the Navy give full rights to AP only? Anyone know of a way we can find out what the actual copyright status of these photos are? Russeasby (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC) I think the use of the pic is fair as the ship has sunk the free pic does not show the ship in it current form and their for i think the sinking pic should remain.

As an AP photo, we're on especially shaky ground with a fair use claim. We run into this pretty routinely when it comes to current events/news stories -- since the AP has such a large reach, they get photos of all sorts of one-time-only events. We need to have a seriously good reason to use it, and just the fact that it's non-reproducible isn't enough. The event really does need to be historically significant. I don't see this event getting called that. If the only argument is that the event is non-reproducible, it basically means we're giving ourselves carte blanche to use most AP photos, which is not the intent of fair use provisions.
However, the actual copyright status of the photos (the ship sinking and the survivors in the water) does warrant investigation, since their source is the Chilean Navy. They probably don't release their works as PD like the US government, but I don't know for sure. kmccoy (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I just found the mention of this. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images indicates that AP photos are almost certainly never acceptable as fair use, unless the photo itself is the subject of the article. The two photos should probably be deleted. kmccoy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, the "unique historic event" tag only applies when the photograph itself is famously iconic, rather than simply documenting a famous iconic event. So, if the photo of Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima was copyrighted, it'd be fair use-able, but random photos of Marines hitting the beach would not be, even if no free shots of the event were available. <eleland/talkedits> 02:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

how is[edit]

How did it hit a iceberg off the coast of South America, I mean thats the ecuader, there shouldn't be icebergs there.--Xgmx (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

South America is long, stretching from the ecuador to nearly Antarctica. The ship was very far south. Read the Ernest Shackleton or the Drake Passage articles for more information. - Thaimoss (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There are even some early reports that the Explorer hit an iceberg with somewhat higher density than normal. --Camptown (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Xgmx, they were about 600 miles farther south than the southmost tip of South America. And icebergs have even been sighted almost all the way to Buenos Aires[16], which is 2000 miles north of the sinking location. In any case, I hope you realize that past the equator, the farther south you go, the colder it gets. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dhartung--Xgmx (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

MS Nordnorge[edit]

I've started a page for the MS Nordnorge. Over to the experts to expand. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Did that ship sink to?--Xgmx (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nordnorge was one of the rescue vessels. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya sry, I figured that out, and so I striked it out.--Xgmx (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this eliminates the need for having a photo of that ship in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct Tense[edit]

The article seems to report the event of the ship sinking as if there is still uncertainty as to when/how it sank. I believe their are sufficient facts/references available to now rework the article to reflect a past-tense report on the ship's history and its sinking that can be stated as fact rather than report. CharlieWinston (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Consider the counter-point: Given all the reporting of the sinking, surely someone somewhere would have reported it now if it HADN'T sunk. In any event, the Chilean Navy has confirmed it. - Thaimoss (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ice class[edit]

I'm rather confused by the ice class here, as some of the sources seem to have conflicting information. The GAP page states that the ship had "ice rating 1A1 ice A", but the source that someone else recently added appears to state that the rating was 1C in Baltic classes, as well as seeming rather critical from a very poor computerized translation. I don't see how these two could possibly both be true at the same time, though GAP's claimed rating doesn't seem to make much sense by my reading of the ice class article. Perhaps someone who knows something about these matters could clarify the matter? Could the class have been changed at some time? --Constantine (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with the DNV classification which is 1A1 ICE-A given their authority on such matters. [17] Nick (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with using the 1A1-A rating but maybe with the other rating mentioned as well with both references. UB65 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The GAP website states that she was double hulled but I have read that she was actually double bottomed, not double hulled according to Anybody know for sure? UB65 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"1A1" is the main class notation, given for "vessel for which periodical surveys are stipulated in relation to special (main) periodical survey intervals of 5 years" [18]. The ice class given by DNV is only "ICE-A", which I believe is an older notation. I'd suggest to change the ice class notation in the article to "DNV ICE-A" assuming the ship was classified by DNV and given said ice class. Tupsumato (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's no "HELCOM scale". They're using Finnish-Swedish ice classes. The equivalent Finnish-Swedish ice class for a ship with class notation +1A1 ICE-A is IA [19]. Tupsumato (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Change History[edit]

I removed the factoid about the MS Nordnorge being involved in another rescue earlier this year as this information is available via the link to the page on the MS Nordnorge page and is not directly related to the sinking of the Explorer. I first considered simply moving the information further down in the "Sinking" section of the article because it's current location (middle of the section, end of paragraph 1) made the second paragraph slightly ambiguous about which passengers were being rescued (those from the Explorer sinking or the rescue the Nordnorge particpated in earlier in the year), but I ultimately decided that since the information is available via Nordnorge link that it would be ok to remove completely for the time being until someone has time to rewrite the paragraph to work that little factoid back in without it causing confusion. CharlieWinston (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite a bit of Nordnorge information found its way into the article because the Nordnorge didn't have an article of its own until recently. Your removal of the information seems quite justified to me, as it really isn't very relevant. Your other improvements are also most welcome, but unfortunately I can't comment on them because as soon as I find a suggestion or question, I find that you've remedied it while I was typing it out. --Constantine (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia so I'm just starting to get the hang of it.CharlieWinston (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use photos[edit]

The 2 fair use photos are copyrighted Chilean Navy and Chilean Air Force respectively, and handed out to all that wanted them for "EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS". As such, I have removed the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} tags from both of them as the reason given, that it were news/photo agency photos..., no longer apply. Feel free to retag the photos with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} with a different (appropriate) reason if you feel it's so warranted. KTC (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think no matter who the photos belong to they are fair use if people are not happy with the fair-use as it is not classed as a historic event how about the fact that this ship was 40 years old and the first to be build for antartic travel so is that fair enough for eveyone. Jay2k (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If the photos were by an agency, I would delete them (and I would be well within policy to do so.) Now that their source has been clarified, however, I will not be replacing the disputed tag. Thanks for the clarification, KTC. kmccoy (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

New MS Explorer Pics[edit]

Can someone who know German please translate the new pic as this is the english wikipedia and as i think the pics are great i think the description should be in english as well. Jay2k 08:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the picture of Explorer sinking on the German article, that is a freely available picture that can be added to the English article. The picture of Explorer sinking we already have is a better picture though, as the German one was taken from the sea and is rather dark. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


The insurer of the Explorer is the Steamship Mutual (source), I'm not sure where to insert the info into the article though. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

External links - Andy White[edit]

I'd recommend everyone to read both the accounts at the bottom of the external links section that are by Andy White. Fascinating reading. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Most Wikipedia articles about ships are loaded (some even overloaded) with the names of various people involved. This article, quite oddly, refers to the "Master" many times, but doesn't seem to have a clue as to what his name is/was. I could be wrong (could have missed something), but it seems the only human mentioned here by name is Lars-Eric Lindblad. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus that the proposed title is ambiguous and switching from "MV" to "MS" is unnecessary anyway. Jenks24 (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

MV Explorer (1969)MS Explorer – There is no doubt that this ship was the MS Explorer not the MV Explorer - MS=Motor Ship, MV = Motor Vessel - Both mean the same thing and both would be equally appropriate. However, there can be no doubt that she was actually called the MS Explorer, as per the owners own assertion in the Company Statements section of this wikipedia page. Razzladazzla (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose or move to MS Explorer (1969): Google and Bing seem to think that "MS Explorer" primarily refers to Microsoft Internet Explorer, and so did I. The current redirect at MS Explorer takes care of that ambiguity by leading to a dab page that provides information about that meaning and others. We should only put a specific topic at the name MS Explorer if we think it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term. No evidence of primary topic status has been given by the nom, and it seems unlikely that this ship is a proper primary topic for that term. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose use MS Explorer (1969) if moved. The proposed title is bad, since MS and MV are frequently used interchangeably regardless of the official usage. -- (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no need to move the article. See the discussion at WT:SHIPS#Please Rename Oscar Wilde. Both MS and MV are acceptable prefixes; articles and generally not changed from one form to the other without very good reasons, none of which I can see here. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location of 1979 accident[edit]

The article mentions that she ran aground near "Vicky Island" in 1979. This is repeated all over the web, in a straight copy from this page. However, there is no island of that name in the SCAR or USGS gazetteers. Authorative sources[1][2] mention that she ran aground near Wiencke Island in the Neumayer Channel; that leads me to believe that Vicky is a spelling mistake in the reference, and that Wiencke was intended. I changed the text accordingly, citing the article in Antarctic.


  1. ^ Safety at Sea (2010-06-14). DEVELOPMENT OF A MANDATORY CODE FOR SHIPS OPERATING IN POLAR WATERS. A tiered risk assessment approach to polar operations safety and the mandatory Polar Code (PDF) (Report). International Maritime Organization. p. 112. Retrieved 2016-02-03. MV Lindblad Explorer - 1979 - Wiencke Island - ran aground, hull punctured 
  2. ^ Caffin, J.M. (ed.). "Lindblad Explorer runs aground" (PDF). Antarctic. 9 (1): 35–36. Retrieved 3 February 2016. On her way back to Ushaia, Tierra del Fuego, where she was due on December 30, the Lindblad Explorer passed by Wiencke Island, which lies between Anvers Island and the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula. She was off Cape Astrup at the north-eastern end of the island when she ran aground. A sunken rock with less than 1.8m of water over it lies about 402m north of the cape. 

--Lemnaminor (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, obviously The Times got it wrong. Mjroots (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on MV Explorer (1969). 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)