This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
I have not found any non-copyrighted picture of the Pamir on the web. However, having one or two images in this article would be very nice. Lupo13:14, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Got you a stamp from the Falkland Islands. I think as a stamp it is not copyrighted. Another stamp from the cook islands was here [1], but smaller. The australian government has another photo here [2], for no-commercial use according to their copyright licenses, so I am not sure if we can use that. Hope this helps -- Chris 73 | Talk14:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks. Actually, I posted this on requested pictures in hope of an image of the ship, not of a stamp, but it's better than nothing... At least one can discern the four masts. And as you also noted, most other pictures available on the web have a (sometimes very) unclear copyright status. Lupo14:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
InTall Ships Down Daniel Parrott gives the LAO of the Pamir as only 316ft. Anyone know whether which figure is correct, or whether the "overall length" in this article is actually referring to something other than the technical LAO? BruceRD 10:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
316 ft would be the deck length. See [3]. Lupo 08:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I have again removed a problem sentence. The article had become less POV but the inference that the captain was to blame for not flooding the ballast tanks was a problem. Even if true, it needs citing. If it isn't true, then it is an attack by Wikipedia. The sentence removed said (1) " For unknown reasons, the captain did not have the ballast tanks flooded, which would have helped the ship to right herself again" and was also a problem. You could equally say, in part, (2) "as the ballast tanks were not flooded, the ship rolled over". The primary effect the lack of balance from ballasted tanks had on the disaster was to capsize Pamir. Not being able to provide self-righting was a secondary effect, but as the vessel was already capsized in the middle of a Category 1 Hurricane, it was already history. OK, I know my last two sentences are my opinion, but I would to see evidence why (1) is more accurate than (2). Moriori01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moriori, I'm glad we can have the discussion here... so: 1) Whether or not someone said something is not POV. It's a fact. It may be hard to track down (as in the case of a ship where most people died), but it remains a fact. In this case (the captain ordering or not ordering): Nobody (including the most outspoken supporters of the captain, esp. the shipping company's former lawyer Willner) claims that Diebitsch [the captain] actually gave the order. That's not surprising: On large sailing vessels as the Pamir, and especially in those times, orders are given hierarchically; and the person who would be giving orders with consequences as far-reaching as flooding a tank which was filled with grain (thereby destroying part of the cargo) would be the captain. Due to that very hierarchy, such orders would be followed unless a) they are (physically) impossible to be followed, or b) you have a mutiny. There was no mutiny, and there has not been the slightest hint that the orders could not be followed. Consequently, as the tanks were not flooded, there has not been any reason to assume that the captain did give the orders. Consequently, as of my knowledge, nobody has assumed that Diebitsch gave those orders. (Unfortunately it's logically impossible to "prove" or "cite evidence" that something did not happen. So if you disagree and believe that Diebitsch did in fact give those orders, I would ask you to show me who argues it. Anyway, I think the last version of the article did not even claim he did, it just said he "did not have the tanks flooded" = merely outcome-based.)
2) Whether or not someone should be blamed for saying or not saying something is an entirely different matter. The article has never blamed the captain for not having said anything (and thus did not infer anything about that matter), it merely stated that he didn't. Just pointing out that someone did not do something (i.e. did not have the tanks flooded) is no attack, it's a fact. If you think that it sounds nonetheless like blame: Feel free to rephrase.
3) I don't know what exact difference you see between capsizing and self-righting. As capsizing is simply further down the line, I would prefer to state simply that not flooding the tanks impacted the ships ability to right herself. But maybe that's a vocabulary problem on my part (see your discussion page), then it shouldn't be a problem for you as a native speaker to take care of it. As for the content rather than the vocabulary: The problem of the Pamir was generally that the ship listed more and more, then "fell over" to lie on her side, then capsized and finally sank. These were not independent events, but each was a consequence of the preceding event: The ship "fell over" because it listed too much, it capsized because it had been laying on its side, etc. Flooding the ballast tanks would have counteracted that spiral: It would have righted the ship, thereby preventing the "falling over" part and all the subsequent events. (Whether or not flooding the tanks would have been enough, is mere speculation. Saying that it "would have helped" should be okay, but again, feel free to rephrase.) - BTW, saying "as (!) the tanks weren't flooded, the Pamir capsized" would IMHO be a POV. And to my knowledge, nobody argues that anyway. Not flooding the tanks may have contributed, but it probably did not cause the shipwreck.
As a result, I still believe that there's nothing wrong whatsoever with stating that the captain did not have the tanks flooded, which would have helped to right the ship again. --Ibn Battuta02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use "it's a fact....it may be hard to track down" to try to justify inclusion of any content in any article. If contested content isn't cited, it doesn't merit inclusion. Moriori04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use "it's a fact....it may be hard to track down" to "try" to justify anything. Citing out of context doesn't get you anywhere. I used "it's a fact....it may be hard to track down", followed by a pretty long paragraph arguing why there is no way and no need to "prove" (and hence cite) why it is the captain who does or does not give orders. I can explain it to you again: The ship capsized with the starboard tank not having been flooded. The command to flood tanks is given by a ship's captain. And this is in fact so agreed-upon that you don't even find sources arguing back and forth about it. I don't know if you've ever gone to sea or served in the military or anywhere else where hierarchy matters. If you haven't, please feel free to consult with someone who has. Flooding tanks in the midst of a hurricane and thereby destroying part of your cargo is not something that a cadet will order. And there is simply no literature on this topic because nobody but you seems to contest it. Is that so hard to understand?
You, on the contrary, could maybe elaborate on your opinion. Which part of the sentence is an "inference that the captain was to blame", and where does the "POV" come into play? I've tried to address anything that I thought you could object to. If you aren't satisfied, why don't you try to formulate a bit more precisely what you actually object to? --Ibn Battuta07:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've unintentionally reverted an edit about the Queensbury survey (no idea why I didn't get a message that someone had worked at the article in the meantime):
Subsequently the UK maritime authorities did a very detailed survey of the Motor Vessel Queensbury, before it docked in Liverpool. The "Queensbury had also loaded grain in Buenos Aires and used the same method of loading as the Pamir. She sailed from Monte Video only twelve hours before the Pamir and went through the same storm that sunk the Pamir. The Queensbury had no movement of her cargo and the officers of the Queensbury were convinced that open or broken hatch covers were the most likely cause of this terrible accident.
I'm hesitant to put it back in, though. I've never heard of this survey before, and I don't buy the argument without further information:
Motor vessels should not list along a passage (only in severe storm); they also move differently with the regular swell.
Pamir's bulkhead "along the ship's length" was suspected to "leak" (because this was discovered to happen on board the Passat). Motor vessels usually don't have such a bulkhead because excessive listing is not expected in the first place; the consequences of both the bulkhead and the "leaking" would not be experienced on board the Queensbury.
What does "same method of loading" mean? Loose grain with some sacks? How many and where? Did they fill the compartments the same way the Pamir did (not filling all of them up to the hatches)? It is suspected that the grain was not stowed sufficiently into the corners of the cargo hold of the Pamir - does that also apply to the Queensbury method? How much did the Queensbury cargo settle down over the course of the voyage? Is that known?
It is not clear where Queensbury was at the time of the loss of the Pamir: The Pamir took the trade wind route for the sailing vessels which took her close to the route of the hurricane. Queensbury is likely to have traveled further east, which would have spared her the proximity of the hurricane. Which side of the hurricane was she on? (There's evidence suggesting that the navigable quarter of Carrie had actually higher wind velocities than the others.) Apart from that, it's unlikely that both ships traveled at the same speed. Generally, Queensbury seems to have been nowhere close to Pamir at the time of her loss, otherwise they would have had radio contact (which to my knowledge they didn't); and Pamir's radio message was received by vessels up to some 600 nm away if I remember correctly (sorry, I can't look it up at the moment).
But most of all, what exactly does it tell us if the officers of the Queensbury were convinced of anything?
How about the UK maritime authorities? What did they find?
Why does at least some of the commons literature on the Pamir not mention this survey? (I can't tell about all, of course, but I haven't seen it anywhere yet.)
Again, I don't rule out that this information is very interesting and relevant, but I'd ask for more information and/or (preferably) a valid source before putting it back in. Thanks, Ibn Battuta20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I had originally wanted to ask: Who knows the source of this dubious newspaper article from New Zealand? It was added by an IP, so I can't follow-up on that. I don't like citing it without even knowing where it's from. It could be from the equivalence of the Sun for all we know. Which might go some way in explaining its quality... Apart from that, I doubt its relevancy given that it's getting it all wrong anyways. --Ibn Battuta01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The New Zealand Herald of Auckland is the largest newspaper in New Zealand, and respected; though the article may be a correct quote - but wrong! But the quote/issue should be dated - will try and find out! Hugo999 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is quite unusual in first quoting a report known to be false, at length, and then going through most of its statements to refute them one by one. I think it would be better to rewrite this in such a way that we do not reiterate misleading information before correcting it. -- Theoprakt (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
