Talk:SF Hydro

Norway deserves More!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SF Hydro article.
The following struck-thru material is misplaced, bcz neither WP nor its talk pages are a forum. The following discussion may suggest to someone ways to make the coverage of the ferry or other aspects of WWII more accurate, but its a long shot, and the strike-thru should lessen the distraction, not to mention the impression that the page is a waste of time for anyone here for what WP exists to do and provide.
--Jerzy•t 04:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The Norwegians helped us win World War 2 and are they aren't even mentioned in 99.999999999999% of the history books. They stopped Germany from gaining nuclear weapons and causing what happened in Japan to happen to us... or worse. BUT DOES ANYONE THINK OF THAT!!! NO!!!!!!!!!! My teacher said Norway was not an Ally of the U.S.A. in World War 2 and France was and Norway did more than them! BUT DO THEY GET CREDIT!!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!! I told her that Norway was controlled by the Axis Powers and rebelled against them and therefore fought against Germany which made them an Ally unoffically. She said it wasn't, even unoffically. What I have to go through to make my teachers realize Norway was the greatest Ally (even unoffically) of the U.S.A. in World War 2. --75.88.42.155 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Norway does deserve more. - Canglesea (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Norway was a country that was ardent in getting controll of curbing peoples alco consumption during the 1930s. Norway built down defences, as the Government was comfortably in the same bed as the broken rifle association. The Germans were allowed to gear in their military machinery in to Norway. Had the "Blücher" succesfully come to Oslo, the PM might have thought it was to give him a VIP party.

So Norway did not really allow any allies to use their bases, but atleast the allies were permitted to bomb the airfields and what stuff was there. In the postwar era, the PM was given a medal. I can certainely swear that the people of Norway could have deserved better than that, though I may be wrong. --83.108.28.91 (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like your teacher and you were just quibbling over the correct use of the word "ally." Don't let it bother you. The world knows what Norway did in resisting the Nazis. I'm a Canadian, and I know it. Deschreiber (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Norway was a country that would to some extent act as if they already were allied with the Germans before the invasion. When the Germans were in charge in Norway, Gestapo was allowed to act without any resistance by military units from within Norway. Germany was allowed to construct navy bases in Norway, and airbases too. A huge portion of Norways shipping fleet acted as if being a taxi service of German troops. The crew of SF Hydro felt ok about transporting military equiptment for the Germans. Just kidding. None of it happened. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

number of dead

The numbers do not add up correctly. If only one of the 12 passengers below deck survived, that makes 11 plus 8 German soldiers plus 7 crew for a total of 26. Maybe there were also passengers above deck who died? Anyway, the total in the article is given as 18. I wonder if there's a mistake in the wording--could it be that all the passengers from below deck survived except one? Deschreiber (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"She"

   Calling ships "she" instead of "it" is a grand old tradition that should be honored

on board ships,

when standing in front of a ship to address a crowd,

when only sailors are present,

where sailors and organizations they control have paid for the microphone or negotiated it with the other sponsors.

It's also confusing, and contemptuous toward non-sailors (not to mention being demeaning of women).
   If there's a well-established policy at WP that says otherwise, that's sufficient to justify reversion of my use of "it" -- as long as a link is provided in this talk-page section. (I doubt such a policy can survive the light of day; for that reason, i shall treat any reversions on the accompanying article as vandalism, in the absence of such a policy citation, below in this section of this talk page.)
--Jerzy•t 04:13 & 07:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

   The preceding tirade by me (while i'm prepared to defend it) is misplaced, and must seem intemperate. I'm commenting on it before copying it to where i intended to write it (i think it was in the separate article on the ferry's sinking that someone reverted my change to "it"). (But i'm also changing "she" and "her" in the article accompanying this talk page.)
--Jerzy•t 04:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Lyons Press

   A straightforward search, where i placed quotes in text pasted from the article produces

About 44,400 results
Showing results for "Guilford, Connecticut" "Lyons Press"
Search instead for "Guildford, Connecticut" "Lyons Press"

and clicking on the alt search's lk produces

About 1,710 results
Did you mean: "Guilford, Connecticut" "Lyons Press"

and lyonspress.com is unambiguous about the town name. Visiting the site for either Lyons Press or Pequot Press indicates they are affiliated. (L is one of a handful of imprints of Globe Pequot Press.)
   Now, the likely causes of confusion are that a Brit was careless in transcribing from the front matter of the source, or (the greater longshot IMO) that "Guildford" is a misprint in the book; in the second case, we should say "Guildford [sic], CT" in the article's footnote.
   In view of the odds, i changed the spelling; in view of the value of precision, i note that someone should check the cited source, and describe the spelling it uses, in this talk section.
--Jerzy•t 06:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete or incorrect information

Heavy water is produced from water by electrolysis, not from Potassium Hydroxide. The plant may have also produced potassium hydroxide but transporting it on the ferry seems irrelevant and subsequent investigation clearly highlight discovery of barrels containing a percentage of heavy water with no mention of potassium hydroxide.