Talk:HMHS Glenart Castle

Hospital Ship section

It is vital to the article to establish why the sinking of Glenart was a war crime. -- Esemono (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be pushing a Point of View, and would be Peacockery. If you can source an assertion that this was a war crime, you can add that assertion. But a section on a what a hospital ship is is redundant on an article on a specific hospital ship, and does not need to be replicated on every article on a hospital ship. You should not try to lead viewers to a particular conclusion that may not be supported sources. Benea (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not POV, after the war the captain of the U-Boat was charged with war crimes. -- Esemono (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can source that then that's fine and relevant, that the torpedoing of this ship was considered a war crime. But a section on hospital ships and the Geneva convention does not need to be copy and pasted onto every article about a specific hospital ship. You've put it on SS Rohilla which ran aground with no enemy action even involved, let alone a hint of a war crime. It's not relevant, like an article on USS Constitution doesn't need a section on what a frigate is, and HMS Ark Royal (91) doesn't need an explanation on what an aircraft carrier is. At worst it seems to try to lead the reader to a particular conclusion about the sinking by synthesising some general comments on hospital ships. Benea (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourced the war crimes sought by the British Admiralty. Now can you please remove the merge template-- Esemono (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not the problem I have with the section. A general section on what a hospital ship is and how they were defined under the Geneva convention is all good material for the hospital ship article, but ought not be repeated on every article about a specific hospital ship. A sentence like 'The British attempted to try Captain Kaiserwetter on the charge of having deliberately sunk the Glenart Castle in violation of the Geneva convention's rulings on hospital ships' would be appropriate. Kaiserwetter was not convicted of a war crime, so asserting that it was a war crime, or attempting to lead readers to the conclusion that it was in the absence of this conviction, is misleading. If you had a section on Glenart Castle's career as a passenger liner, but preceded it with a section explaining what a passenger liner was, or a general history of the Union-Castle Line, then I would say that would be equally irrelevant. Benea (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If a reader wants to know what a hospital ship is then they can read the hospital ship article. If they don't care or already know, then it would be irrelevant to the article about Glenart Castle. Explaining a hospital ship in the context of this article veers off the topic of the article. --Brad (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, move it off the individual ship pages. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done -- Esemono (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMHS Glenart Castle. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609140333/http://www.ilfsac.org.uk/glenart.php to http://www.ilfsac.org.uk/glenart.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)