This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RMS Empress of Ireland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 29, 2005, May 29, 2007, May 29, 2012, and May 29, 2014. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
"The disaster led to a change in thinking among naval architects with regard to the design of ships bows. The backward slanting bow design of the day (see picture above) caused, in the event of a collision, immediate massive fatal damage below the waterline. The effect of the Storstad's bows on the Empress of Ireland's has been likened to that of a "chisel being forced into an aluminium can" Designers began to employ the raked bows that we are familiar with today, ensuring that much of the energy of a collision is absorbed by the point of the bow impacting above the waterline of the other ship ensuring less damage under the surface."
This sounds suspicious to me, firstly because the bow does not "slope backward" -- it's vertical (this is obvious on the plans of many ships) -- and secondly, ships were built right up until the thirties with vertical stems (the Empress of Britain being an example). I've always thought raked stems were sea-handling feature. John.Conway 11:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree and question this without a source cited. I beleive there are some relatively modern ships with vertical bows, and those tend to be vessels with described ice handling capabilities. I will cal it the fore foot- where bottom of bow meets the the keel. Near all morenr ships have there being bulbous- alters how/where the bow wake is formed and reduces drag/friction power needs. Some modern warships have ;arge bulbous soanr domes there, too big to proerly reduce power requirements. the Size of the sonar dome dictatates a large forward rake to the box so the anchor can be dropped without hitting the sonar dome. The backward slanting bow will return in the US Navy DD(X). I wonder if the origin of the backward slope is basically from the anchient ram forward and underwater. Like the torpedo on the CSS_Hunley. Wfoj2 00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
See note at Talk:1914#Empress of Ireland where a different number of dead is quoted. KenWalker | Talk 02:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
In the "Collision" section, this one-sentence paragraph seems odd to me:
Exactly 1,012 people died.[3] Of that number, 840 were passengers, eight more than the RMS Titanic.
Is this sentence some kind of a grammatical blunder, or a failure of fact? Surely it cannot mean to say more passengers died on the Empress than on the Titanic? Is this "fact" going to turn up in some sixth-grader's report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltlakejohn ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The number of casualties on Titanic has been determined accurately by modern researchers, notably Lester Mitcham. Titanic carried 1,317 passengers, of which 817 were lost. See Report into the Loss of the SS Titanic: A Centennial Reappraisal.
Dave Gittins. Co-author of the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.186.180 ( talk) 08:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I was part of a team that recently reviewed the sinking for a Canadian film company. The dynamics of the collision do not support the 'Empress' view that they were stationary and had been for some time. Evidence to the Inquiry from a number of sources spoke of the Storstad coming in at an angle on the starboard bow of the Empress, penetrating and then pivoting around the impact point so that she ended up drifting aft with her bow pointing towards the Empress. I would suggest this is only possible if there is a moment applied to the Storstad by movement of the Empress. There was also some technical evidence given to the Inquiry that showed that Storstad's bow below the waterline had been wrenched to starboard - the bow above the waterline had been crushed to port. The conclusion was that Empress was moving when Storstad hit and that the above water movement of the bow was caused by the Storstad's anchor bolster hitting the Empress's hull. -- Subsea 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
From:
http://www.shmp.qc.ca/main.aspx?lang=en&page=empress
they cite 134 children dead, not 314 as cited here. Simple transpo?
68.35.71.6 15:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC) John C. Mosher
This edit changed the nationality from Canadian to British. No source is provided. I was tempted to change it back for that reason, but instead I raise it here. Unless there is some source for the change provided, I will revert the change sometime soon. -- KenWalker | Talk 00:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Good question. Like everything at this time period, this could be debated. It was built in the UK, registered there, owned by a Canadian Company and sank in Canadian waters. If it was registered in the UK, probably that would win out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaldarade ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I wonder about this link:
If there is any dispute, the link can be restored easily enough. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
See explanatory comment at Talk:RMS Empress of Canada (1928) -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
In the lead section this article currently states that "this accident claimed 1,073 lives", and references footnote 3.
Then the section "Collision" says that "exactly 1,024 people died" and again references footnote 3.
Then the table in the section "Number of people on board and death toll" says that 1,012 people died.
And footnote 3, cited by the two sections I mentioned first, actually agrees with the other one -- the wording is "BBC documentary, The Golden Age of Liners, states that 1012 died". (Someone apparently had in mind the kind of "footnote" that gives auxiliary information rather than the kind used to cite a source, as expected in a Wikipedia "References" section.)
For disasters of this size it is common enough for sources to contradict each other on such points, but the article needs to discuss the contradictions, not incorporate them! And, of course, the contradictory sources should be cited.
I've added a "contradict-self" tag. -- 208.76.104.133 ( talk) 07:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Oh, by the way, the article "Empress of Ireland" in :James H. Marsh (ed.). The Canadian Encyclopedia (2000 ed.). McClelland & Stewart. p. 762. ISBN 0-7710-2099-6. says that the number was 1,014. -- 208.76.104.133 ( talk) 07:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, it only qualifies as the "deadliest maritime disaster in Canadian history" if victims on land don't count. Admittedly that is not usually an issue when ranking maritime disasters, but the Halifax Explosion was the result of a ship collision. So the wording here needs to be made more precise. -- 208.76.104.133 ( talk) 10:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
OKAY her is my new topic - i think that it needs to be large like lustania . my second topic. - I think it needs to be unsinkable like titanic. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.233.6 ( talk) 02:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Lots of good info here but there is a general lack of references from the Collision heading down. Also, should the legend of Emmy be removed? Seems superstitious, unimportant and is not cited. I think the RMS prefix shouldn't be in the summary at the top. Not very relevant and it shouldn't come before the sinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaldarade ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Tragic Story of the EMPRESS of IRELAND by Logan Marshall is good for fruther reading because it has first hand accounts from survivors of the wreck. It's taken both first hand accounts and facts from other wrecks similar to it, for a greater understanding of what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHR mlm1134 ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
What has been said in the literature regarding those who lived vs those who drowned? Almost 60% of the crew survived whereas less than 1 in 5 passengers in second and third class did! Why has this fact never been brought up? This seems like extreme negligent on the crews part? In fact those in first class only had a twice as likely chance of living as those in 2nd or 3rd. Furthermore why has no one questioned the motives of the captain of the Empress? His survival smacks very much of the captain of the modern-day Concordia (which did not result in similar tragedy of numbers, just 30 dead), he saved his neck when 80% of the people on board did not! At least Capt. Smith on the Titanic had the decency to go down with his ship in lieu of his pitiful seamanship.
Who on earth removed the Titanic reference??? It's a fact that on that more famous ship 828 passengers dies whereas on this ship 840 passengers died. It's in the articles, so do the math!!!!! You don't need references when the facts are there....or do we need to know that the sea was cold that night? 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.66.142 ( talk • contribs)
Can a new picture be sourced? The image used is actually a retouched photograph of the Empress of Britain, the sister ship. You can tell easily because of the enclosed forward superstructure rather than the completely open promenade decks.
For reference, here are two definite photographs of the Empress of Ireland for comparison:
https://www.dansdiveshop.ca/images/photo-empress1.jpg
http://bilan.usherbrooke.ca/voutes/voute2/empressofireland.jpg
The retouched photo was used at the time for promotional purposes, and this has resulted in it being reprinted hundreds of times with the incorrect name.
(Note: Below content is merged into this same topic thread in order to avoid confusion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC))
Despite the name on the bow(most likely added by a newspaper later), the main picture is NOT the Empress of Ireland, it's the Empress of Britain. The easiest way to tell the difference is basically the same as between the Olympic/Titanic. In the current picture you can see the promenade decks are enclosed up forward, the Empress of Ireland's were open along the entire length of those decks. TheMadcapSyd ( talk) 14:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I see this pic., taken from German WP, shows the forward promenade decks open. (Pic. is tagged "circa 1914.") Sca ( talk) 15:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is the picture on the homepage not available on this web page?.....
The preamble states that EoI was commissioned by Canadian Pacific Steamships (CP) [should this be CPS?] ... but the first para under the Construction heading states that "the vessel ... was to be delivered to C.P.R." - though it's not until the fourth para that the reader discovers that C.P.R. = Canadian Pacific Railway! This just makes hard work for the reader. (Incidentally, the same para also states that EoI "was commissioned by Canadian Pacific" - is this the same as Canadian Pacific Steamships? Why restate (and add confusion) to what has been stated earlier?) Moreover, it's only when the reader goes to the Canadian Pacific Steamships [now CP Ships] site that s/he realises that CP Ships was part of the CPR conglomerate until it became (in 2005) part of Hapag-Lloyd. Do you agree that there's room for improvement?
Prisoner of Zenda ( talk) 12:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
... renovations to relieve her superstructure of its enclosed forward promenade decks.
Included under the Construction heading is a comment about EoI striking a sunken vessel or an unknown submerged rock at the northern end of the St. Lawrence on 14 October 1909 ... how is that a construction detail? It might fit if there was some supplementary info such as repairs or modifications as a result of the collision, but there isn't, and ref [16] doesn't help; there's not even an indication of the extent of damage. If the comment doesn't fit under Construction, where should it go? It can't fit under the next heading (Collision), because that's about what happened about 4½ years later! Prisoner of Zenda ( talk) 11:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
EoI "was designed with a passenger capacity of 1,580, with accommodations for 310 First Class passengers located amidships, 470 Second Class passengers aft, towards the stern, and 758 Third Class passengers ... " - but 310 + 470 + 758 = 1538, not 1580! Prisoner of Zenda ( talk) 11:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The table shows there were 420 crew and 1057 passengers (1st class 87; 2nd class 253; 3rd class 717), making a total of 1477 people ... but under the Construction heading, EoI when launched had room for a crew of only 373, and 1542 passengers (1st class 320; 2nd class 468; 3rd class 494; 4th class 270) ... how could there have been 717 3rd class passengers when the ship could only have 494? Were 3rd and 4th class passengers grouped together? Or have the design and launch capacity details been transposed? (The design capacity was: 1st class 310; 2nd class 470; 3rd class 758). Prisoner of Zenda ( talk) 11:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
“ Ultimately, the swift sinking and immense loss of life can be attributed to three factors: the location in which Storstad made contact, failure to close Empress of Ireland's watertight doors, and longitudinal bulkheads that exacerbated the list by inhibiting cross flooding. ” This is unsourced in the text; do any of the sources make this claim? If OR then it should go. I raise the issue as the closing angle and speed of the collision is generally highly significant - that’s a commonplace, so not OR as such - but should be sourced before adding to this article in case in this particular case it’s not relevant any for some odd reason. Regards all, Springnuts ( talk) 16:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)