Talk:SS Andrea Doria/Archive 1

Archive 1

May 2005

With more information on the ship itself and some proof-reading, I think this article is a good candidate for "Featured Article" status. Any thoughts? Pentawing 06:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This is one I started, and I'd enjoy seeing it developed further. Vaoverland 06:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Images

The image has a questionable copyright issue. Could someone please confirm if it is indeed fair use and change the tag accordingly? Pentawing 01:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I found the source of the wreck image and it definitely has a copyright. However, I cannot find the exact source of the wreath image. If someone knows its source, please note it in the image description. Pentawing 23:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Found the source of the wreath image and noted the reason for fair use. Pentawing 00:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Copy edit in support of FAC

I came across this as an FAC and did some extensive copy editing. I hope that my revisions are seen as improvements. One thing that I did that may be controversial was to eliminate the use of "the" when referring to the ships by name. The article was inconsistent in that style (likely the result of public editing), and it looked better with it out. And I think that is in the wiki manual of style, but I am not sure --I'm being bold here on the night shift.

I have some comments about how the article might be improved upon:

1. Is “gained” the right verb for acquiring a list? Or is it developed?
2. When was it discovered that the ship listed severely when it was hit by significant forces? During trials? Operational voyages?
3. Was the tendency to list “caused” by empty fuel tanks or exacerbated by them?
4. Who decided to build Andrea Doria? The Italian government?
5. Was Cristoforo Columbo ever built?
6. Did it start as “Yard” or “Hull” ?
7. How can we demonstrate its popularity during its 3 years of service?
8. Do we not know how many people died?
9. Is there a link to the Pulitzer-Prize-winning aerial photography?

Also, my copy editing ended at the end of the History section. I may have a chance to come back to it on my next shift. --Mddake 05:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for copy editing. Here are the answers to your questions:

1. The proper term I believe is "developed a list".
2. From what I read, it was first discovered during the maiden voyage, though it was predicted during model testing. I placed a footnote pointing to where I found the information.
3. I am not sure about this, since the source says the fact that the tanks were empty partly explained the listing. Maybe exacerbated by the empty tanks.
4. There is no mention that the Italian government explicitly decided to build Andrea Doria. I'll look this up.
5. Cristoforo Columbo was built. In fact, if Andrea Doria didn't sink Captain Calamai was supposed to take command of that ship after Andrea Doria's return voyage to Genoa.
6. The hull started as "Yard".
7. Again, I only read that the ship was always filled to capacity (article used was Andrea Doria at greatoceanliners.net).
8. There are firm statistics. I will fix that.
9. Not sure about that. Even so, I can't get a copy that is of GDNL license.

Hope these answer your questions. If not, please let me know. Pentawing 06:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I have found:

1. Though there is no explicit mention that the Italian government decided to build Andrea Doria, the Italian Line did commission its construction.
2. The Pulitzer-Prize-winning aerial photography can be found at www.pbs.org/lostliners/andrea.html. Pentawing 23:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"One thing that I did that may be controversial was to eliminate the use of "the" when referring to the ships by name. The article was inconsistent in that style (likely the result of public editing), and it looked better with it out."

It can go either way, and I go with what sounds better in that particular sentence. I noticed saying the Stockholm sounded better over Stockholm which sounded awkward usually. MechBrowman 20:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks good. I made two small changes to your edits. Once a "the" got left behind, and I have never heard of a ship turning "towards the starboard" as opposed to "to starboard." Using "the" or not in referring to the ship by name is a real "writer's ear" thing, but I like your version better. --Mddake 23:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"list"

Ist list the same as German de:Rollen? --Pjacobi 09:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Ja. Meine Deutsche ist kliene, but I think so. --Mddake 11:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"list" means that it was leaning to one side, in other words, tilting. It eventually rolled over, that is capsized. Hope that helps. Vaoverland 13:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

To one side, not oscillating left and right? --Pjacobi 18:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Usually to one side. Pentawing 18:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've found some expert to ask and he suggests de:Krängung as correct translation. But that article is initerwikied to Heeling. Confusing. --Pjacobi 07:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

SS

Regarding the SS Stockholm, there was a question of which ship prefix to use. From what I can generally tell SS is a primarily American designation, technically derived from steam ship; MS (or M/S) and MV are primarily non-American designations, derived from motor ship or vessel. On the one hand Google says SS Stockholm is by far more common, but some contemporary sources seem to indicate that officially, in Swedish parlance, MS Stockholm was correct. On the other hand, Stockholm's successor the Gripsholm was said to be the first "motor ship" in commercial passenger service, which seems to confirm that Stockholm herself was a "steam ship". So I think it's OK to use SS Stockholm because a) it's common American usage; b) SS may be technically correct (in American terms); c) replaces MS and MV with SS anyway. Any merchant marine experts wish to comment? --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

About MS Gripsholm being the first motor ship in commercial service there have been two great ships called Gripsholm and the one that was the first commercial motor ship was the one built in 1925 and not the successor of Stockholm. --Dahlis 14:13, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

But it should be TS Andrea Doria, for she was a turbine steamer! Pibwl ←« 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

GPS

Someone keeps adding a paragraph about how we have GPS now, while they didn't in the day of the accident. I do not see how this is relevant. GPS was not a reform that resulted from the Andrea Doria. Moreover GPS does not actually help with collision avoidance. You may know your own position perfectly accurately, but if you do not know the position of the other ship then you can still have a collision. I'm going to remove this para unless the contributor comes up with a reson why it should be there. Likewise the antiquity of the plotting equipment is irrelevant. It would be true for any ship of the time. DJ Clayworth 21:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The information explains the "technological advances" that have occurred since the accident (otherwise the list is nothing but rule changes). If you still believe that the GPS information should not be included, the passage concerning technological advances should also be removed.

It could also be argued that with GPS, in concert with radar and proper radio communication, the bridge crews can better determine and plot the position and path of their ships relative to each other, which could also prevent a possible collision. Pentawing 21:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we list any changes that flowed directly from the incident. GPS didn't, and took decades to arrive. If some upgrade to systems was implemented as a result I would have no problem withincluding it. I don't see any passage about technological advances to take out, or I would do it.

It could be argued that GPS would do this, in concert with radio and radar, but in fact if you added better radio and radar then the GPS would be more or less irrelevant; knowing exactly where you are does not prevent you hitting something if you don't know where it is. DJ Clayworth 21:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant the term "technological advancements", which is still in the section. I am not aware of new technologies that came out of the disaster (the GPS notation was there before I started working on this article in the first place). Since you didn't mention any technological advancements and continue to maintain that GPS should not be included, I decided to remove that phrase. Pentawing 21:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gross tonnage

Why is the gross tonnage of the ship mentioned twice in the first two paragraphs? I understand it is useful in a one-paragraph summary, as well as with the fuller specifications, but maybe could we vary things up a little? Perhaps "the gross tonnage of the ship equaled 29,100", or something more creative and clever? Just a thought. Congrats on the FA status. -Sunglasses at night 20:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew-language version

I added a star to the Hebrew interwiki link because the article is featured there. It's a good-quality translation of this article. It doesn't have additional information though (in case anyone wonders why I added, then removed, template FAOL on this page). --Hoziron 02:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

port to port meeting

The article previously stated that stbd-stbd is the traditional meeting arrangement for head-to-head situation, which is not correct. while true that they would have safely passed stbd-stbd had they held their original courses, this is not the preferred arrangement, and most captains would want confirmation via either radio or whistle signals. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 05:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The article does not state that the turnings of the Sweden ship were not signalied by the whistles, as required, and that her capitan was anable to understand the actual position of the Italian ship due to the incorrect knowladge of the scale of the radar and beaouse her ship was moving in a zig-zag course and so the Italian ship was seen on radar sometime on port and sometime on starboard. Morover the Stockholm's captain turned right, not knowing that the two boat was rather closed and near collission, but thinking they were rather distant and that with his manovring was intended to pass far away, not to avoid an head to head.

Toourning right is the preferred (by the Navigation Rules) manoeuvre when two boaut or ship are approaching head to head in parraller course. This is not the preferred (and the most useful) manoeuvre when the two boat are not head to head in paralleler course. For instance if the two bost/ship are approaching in paralleler course, in opposite direction in such a way that if no manoeuvres are taken both boat/ship will pass the other leaving the other on her starboard side, but not at a safe distance, the better thing to do is to bend toward port to increase the distance.

He didn't understand the signals

You are right. In fact the officer who commanded the Swedish ship at the moment of the clash was only 26 years old. He had few experience and didn't understand the radar signals. He was usually helped by three sailors, who absented themselves before the impact. The Swedish ship rammed the Italian ship and a tragedy took place. But the blame was put on the Italian captain and his officers. Today the truth about this old tragedy, that shows how false the affirmation of the Swedish officers were, has been proved by many nautical experts, government bureaucrats, maritime admiralty lawyers and even the same US Navy (Alive on the Andrea Doria, a book written by Pierette Domenica Simpson, 2006) Jul-23-2006. 12.15 p.m.

Yes, it has been proven, also by American studies, that the disaster's fault was entirely on the Swedish ship. Still, I see that the article casts doubts on the Andrea Doria's safety. And - go figure - the sources cited on this are Swedish. For the record, the Andrea Doria took 11 long hours to sink, despite suffering a hull damage about four times what was considered, by safety standards, the most damage a ship of her size should endure without sinking. That's how "unsafe" the ship was. I think each and every claim coming from Swedish sources should be removed from the article. I won't do it myself, because I know that - being Italian - I would be accused of not having a neutral point of view. But I do hope somebody who actually knows the facts will set the article straight.--88.149.232.81 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Si, si, it was proven. All was swedish fault. If the logbook of the Andrea Doria would be examinated, it would be clear. But, unfortunately, since the captain only had 11 long hours before the ship sank, he could not save the logbook.62.247.4.34 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

--Although I agree that the primary responsibility lies with the Stockholm, the Captain of the AD cannot be fully exonerated because he did not reduce the speed of his vessel to anywhere near the recommended speed in fog. As saliently evidenced with the Titanic disaster, the pressure placed upon captains to meet projected schedules (or even to better them) is unconscionable. Nevertheless, the ultimate responsibility in all such cases lies with the captain. Even if a car is speeding, an accident can still be the fault of another driver who runs, for example, a stop sign. The fact remains that the speeding vehicle bears contributory negligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality of the wreck

A caption in this article refers to the Andrea Doria as "considered by some the best preserved shipwreck in history" and the article itself mentions the "relatively good condition of the wreck." This is in direct conflict with this authoritative blog entry which states:

Although Titanic is deteriorating while subjected to the natural force of the Atlantic Ocean, it has been preserved relatively well throughout the past ninety-three years. More recent shipwrecks, like the ill-fated Italian luxury liner Andrea Doria which sank in 1956, is in much worse shape structurally than Titanic. The Doria lies in 240 feet of water about 40 miles southwest of Nantucket Island. The relatively shallow depths, strong currents, aluminum-alloy- based superstructure and weather conditions have battered the Doria to the point where the top five deck levels have fallen down to the bottom of the ocean. With its entire superstructure gone, the Doria is now a huge steel hull with all of its once-beautiful infrastructure lying next to it on its starboard side in a vast heap of metallic wreckage.

So I'm confused. Is it in good condition, or isn't it? -Etoile 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything I have ever read about the ship as a wreck diving site has indicated that it has suffered serious and progressive deterioration. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All recent reports agree that the wreck has deteriorated significantly. This needs to be reflected in the main article with appropriate attribution. Jetlife2 (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I realized the current condition of the wreck is covered well already at the end of the paragraph. I edited the beginning to say "the initially good condition....". Now it reads better, and it is clear that the wreck was in good condition but is no longer. While I was in there I expanded on the description of why it is a difficult dive. Jetlife2 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Designed around a painting

My source is a documentary by "Ulisse" aired this evening on Rai Tre (Italy).

The first-class lounge is shown, using virutal reality, to have a wall, sized around 41m by 3m (height) containing one huge painting by an Italian painter (I do not recall the name unfortunately), featuring Ancient Greece scenaria, and is said to have been the inspiration for coining the SS Andrea Doria as "a ship designed around a painting".

I have not added this since I presently do not have the time to search a source online to cross-check and use as reference. I confide someone else will :)

_└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Radar screen

Poseidon01 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Both the ships turned right? Then what may have happened was that the ships mis located their positons and turned the wrong way. Instead of turning away from eachothe they turned towards each other. I mean it's not very hard to go the wrong way even with radar screens. I reasearched these radar screens and they read differently so the must have read it wrong turned towards eachother and hit. The only problem is how do we prove this if the Andrea Doria is at the bottom of the ocean with her radar screen busted. It was a highly likeable thing and even without fog the ships still would've hit but not as badly.

from, Poseidon01

cussler book

I recall the opening of a Clive Cussler book opening with the crash of the Andrea Doria- I don't remember which book. I don't suppose it counts as a reference but it was an interesting read if I recall (read it long ago). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btrotter (talk • contribs) 05:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Wreck Depth

The use of the phrase "shallow" to describe the depth of the wreck (160-260 feet)in terms of diving is very misleading as 120 feet is the upper limit for amateur sport diving. Anything requiring extended periods of decompression is not within amateur range. RoyBatty42 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

40m/135ft is the upper limit of amateur diving actually (well, no-deco limit diving) and this is 9m beyond that... so I don't think the statement is misleading. And why does shallow imply 'within recreational limits'? In the scheme of things it isn't a deep wreck, as you can dive it on air and you would not have a huge amount of deco time for, say, a 20min BT.

Seinfeld and George Costanza

Should anything be added in pop culture about the Seinfeld episode in which George loses an apartment to a survivor of the Andrea Doria? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly relevant for this article. --Denniss (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's actually already mentioned under References#Online and Film - more than a bit odd, it's hardly a reference for the article, is it? On a more general point of view I'd agree with Denniss that it isn't really relevant from the point of view of this article. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the apartment ended up with someone entirely different who bribed the superintendant with $50.00Ptrask 17:04, 6 June 2008Ptrask 17:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrask (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:Andrea Doria poster.jpg

Image:Andrea Doria poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 death

Reports of another death on the Doria today - will update the article once reliable confirmation of details are published. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Crew abandonment???

This is totally new to me, and I believe it needs at least some sources to be considered valid, or it should be removed altogether. It is a very serious accosation indeed. I tried to mark a few sentences with the fact template, but probably something more is needed here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.235.199 (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just finished reading the book Collision Course, and can confirm the claim. However the members of the crew who left were stewards, waiters, dishwashers and other "hotel staff," not the sailors who worked the ship. Not only did the sailors stay with the ship until all of the surviving passengers had gone, some of them formed a human chain at the ship's stern to prevent frightened passengers from jumping overboard. I'll see if I can find an on-line edition of the book that can be used as a reference for this.JDZeff (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The article still (Nov 2019) simply says (Rescue operations, para.4)

the launching of the eight usable lifeboats on the starboard side was yet another calamity of the night, as many of the boats left Andrea Doria only partially loaded with about 200 panicked crewmen and very few passengers.

This still seems to invite misunderstanding? - that the crew left the passengers to their apparent fate. The source we cite, to fix this, doesn’t need to be online. Does anyone have a copy of the book JDZeff mentions, Collision Course (or any other tht helps)? and willing to edit to fix?

– SquisherDa (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It is misleading and should be fixed. I thought the same thing. It makes the reader wonder if it was true or just sensationalist reporting by people with memories of the war still fresh in their minds, designed to make Italy look bad. I also think it needs to clear up the role that the Stockholm played. I read the entire article wondering what on earth the second vessel was doing this whole time. The description and narrative has the two ships colliding, and then the Doria floating around in danger of sinking until sometime hours later when rescue vessels arrived, the whole time without enough lifeboats to hold all the passengers if the ship goes down. It makes the reader wonder "so why didn't they take them onboard the Stockholm? What was the other ship doing this whole time? Didn't they have any lifeboats?" It seems like they could have crammed all the living people on board the second ship that was still afloat rather than leave them to drown if the Doria went down. It wouldn't be comfortable, but they'd be alive, and they wouldn't need all the lifeboats in service then. They had plenty of time to transfer the passengers using the usable half of the boats, especially if the Stockholm loaned them hers as well. As they point out in honest books about the Titanic, that vessel was totally ordinary in having only room for half of the passengers. Lifeboats weren't meant to take the entire complement onboard when the ship went down, they were intended mostly to transport the passengers to the rescue vessel that would surely arrive before the vessel sank. It wasn't until afterwards that they decided that they'd better give them enough boats to hold everyone all at once just in case. Anyway, it finally DOES say that the Stockholm sent their boats to help, and that many passengers were taken onboard the second vessel, but not until well into the article. It ought to say in the description, in the general narrative that the vessels collided and the Stockholm immediately began rescuing passengers until larger vessels arrived to take over. Then the reader wouldn't have to wonder and scan the whole article looking to find out what on earth the second ship was doing the whole time.

Idumea47b (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Tomb Raider 2

This is the liner that Lara Croft explores in a level from Tomb Raider 2 on the Playstation. Like most young people, I didn't realise it was actually a real ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.136.207.135 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Andrea Doria the admiral

There should be an explanation of where the ship got its name. And the admiral probably deserves his own Wikipedia entry. I've just noted that Italian Wikipedia has a lengthy article about him. The English version should be shorter, of course. Ishboyfay (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm suggesting unneeded changes. Both the info and link are already there in the article. Ishboyfay (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath; Litigation and determination of fault: 1956–57; Findings

“The navigation rules required speed to be reduced during periods of limited visibility to a stopping distance within half the distance of visibility.” [is no rule in the book that says this], only that speed must not exceed that safe for the conditions (indeed the rules actually say that under the conditions Andria Doria and Stockholm were operating under, they should have come full-stop with only maneuvering speed on). ¿Where does this claim that they could proceed at a speed that permitted stopping within half the distance of visibility come from?174.25.121.131 (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

Discovery of the Fog Bell

Over the course of the last year since the fog bell was found, there have been several edits to the facts of that event. Most facts have been set straight, but, of note, the information regarding the discovery of the artifact versus the recovery of it is being reverted to an incorrect statement. The bell was discovered/located by one diver, Carl Bayer. One of the boat mates, Ernie Rookey, was then called over and assisted with recovery. The cited article (and hundreds of others) supports this set of facts. It is corrected as of this writing.Trukdiver (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The section continues to change by an unsigned IP, although I seem to have help keeping it accurate from another contributor. This is my second attempt to have a discussion about it. If anyone would like to discuss the facts, this would be a good place to discuss. Thanks in advance. Trukdiver (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Greatest disaster since earlier distaster

I disagree with this edit that has the statement, "This accident remains the worst maritime disaster to occur in United States waters since the sinking of the S.S. Eastland in 1915." The Andrea Doria lost 46/51 people. It pales in comparison with SS Sultana in the 1800s. Saying something is the greatest disaster since some greater disaster puts an odd spin on the comparison. We could say the 1975 wreck of SS Edmund Fitzgerald was the greatest disaster since something else. The comparison does not belong in the lead. The actual statement is unsourced; the two references are to bolster a claim that the wreck was in US waters rather than high seas, and that requires reading US waters as US EEZ within 200 miles. US waters are 12 miles offshore. See also territorial waters. The US waters statement is synthesis. There is no source for a statement about AD being greatest disaster in US waters since X. The AD is a famous disaster, but not the greatest on any reasonable scale. The edit should be reverted. Glrx (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Darkened bridge

The article reads: "Stockholm Third Officer Carstens-Johannsen misinterpreted radar data and badly overestimated the distance between the two ships. The poor design of the radar settings, coupled with unlighted range settings and a darkened bridge, makes this scenario possible."

As far as I know, "blackout" bridge at night is a must on all ships. If there is any light on the bridge it limits the ability of the crew to see out of the bridge and may also reflect in the bridge glass and be misinterpreted. BadaBoom (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

The IPA pronunciation and the phonetic "an-DRAY-a" give afterwards do not agree with each other. The IPA implies Andrea to rhyme with 'sangria', while the phonetic spelling implies a rhyme with 'man player'.

Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.85.248 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The IPA pronunciation is heavily anglicised, and hence has no business here - I'm sure that's how the name was pronounced in English-language news media at the time, but that's surely irrelevant. The 'æ' and 'ə' sounds don't exist in Italian, and the Italian male name Andrea is accented on the 'e', unlike the English female name Andrea. The phonetic spelling given in the article isn't 'an-DRAY-a' as the previous comment states (this pronunciation would be more or less correct) but 'an-DRE-a', with an 'E' whose sound is uncertain in English but suggests 'an-DREE-a' (which would be wrong).188.203.49.105 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Steely Dan reference

Denniss has rather brusquely removed my added reference to the Steely Dan song "Things I Miss the Most" (Everything Must Go), in which the pathetic protagonist says: "I'm learning how to meditate / So far so good / I'm carving the Andrea Doria / Out of balsa wood." This is declared "Trivia not related to the real ship."

I'm not sure what definitions of "real" and "related" are being posited here. An imaginary character in the song refers to a carved model of a particular ship with a particular place in late-Twentieth-Century history. If that's too many removes from the hunk of iron presently on the seabed, why does the page include a reference to Seinfeld?

One person's cultural reference is another person's trivia, I suppose. Many Wikipedia pages on "real" things and people include lists of references from popular culture. (Try Amelia Earhart or Empire State Building or USS Enterprise (CVN-65).) Such lists are a way of tracking the influence of the actual on the imaginative—part of the tissue of which a culture is made. Village Explainer (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The character in the song is obviously meditating while building a model of the SS Andrea Doria out of balsa wood. A model of the ship has everything to do with the real ship.TH1980 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

Way too much detail especially about the MV Stockholm

This article is too detailed and difficult to understand. When reading about the collision with the Stockholm it goes into detail about the why the Stockholm was built with fewer cabins so as to compete on declining transatlantic trade by being more luxurious. Nice but this should be on the other ships page.

in casualties, there is no list of passenegers killed just paragraphs of info like a story book with their backgrounds and whole life stories.78.147.134.176 (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

 Done: link is now to the History section of the COLREGS article

The claim that "Andrea Doria had not followed the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" is certainly a mistake. The IRPCS is dated 1972 and effective since 1977, i.e. respectively 16 and 21 years *after* the 1956 disaster. Possibly a similar "turn to starboard" rule was already in force, could be, I'm not an expert in maritime navigation laws, but the reference to the IRPCS is factually anachronistic. Should be checked by somebody more knowledgeable than me about the international laws in force in 1956.--Arturolorioli (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes - citing the COLREGS 1972 like that is clearly not appropriate (and the link to the COLREGS article didn't help, simply because that article is basically about the present Regs). I've amended to link instead to the History section there (and dropped the anachronistic Navigation Rules Online (12 July 2005). U.S. Coast Guard – Navigation Center ] reference]).

I've rephrased the rest of the sentence, too, for clarity and to avoid seeming too exact. My impression is tht the Regs current at the time didn't deal with radar, and thus applied only to vessels in sight of one another. So, given the fog, the rule didn't apply, as a matter of Regulations, in those circumstances. (As a bloody-obvious rule of seamanship . . that's a bit of a different thing, of course - but we can all have comfortable opinions ashore in daylight!) Without very good references we can't get involved in nuances like that!

The article suffers very generally from lack of references. And from an understandable tendency to emotional rather than encyclopaedic phrasing.

The COLREGS article could do with being a fair bit sharper too!

--SquisherDa (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The claim that "Andrea Doria had not followed the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" is certainly a mistake. The IRPCS is dated 1972 and effective since 1977, i.e. respectively 16 and 21 years *after* the 1956 disaster. Possibly a similar "turn to starboard" rule was already in force, could be, I'm not an expert in maritime navigation laws, but the reference to the IRPCS is factually anachronistic. Should be checked by somebody more knowledgeable than me about the international laws in force in 1956.--Arturolorioli (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes - citing the COLREGS 1972 like that is clearly not appropriate (and the link to the COLREGS article didn't help, simply because that article is basically about the present Regs). I've amended to link instead to the History section there (and dropped the anachronistic Navigation Rules Online (12 July 2005). U.S. Coast Guard – Navigation Center ] reference]).

I've rephrased the rest of the sentence, too, for clarity and to avoid seeming too exact. My impression is tht the Regs current at the time didn't deal with radar, and thus applied only to vessels in sight of one another. So, given the fog, the rule didn't apply, as a matter of Regulations, in those circumstances. (As a bloody-obvious rule of seamanship . . that's a bit of a different thing, of course - but we can all have comfortable opinions ashore in daylight!) Without very good references we can't get involved in nuances like that!

The article suffers very generally from lack of references. And from an understandable tendency to emotional rather than encyclopaedic phrasing.

The COLREGS article could do with being a fair bit sharper too!

--SquisherDa (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)