Talk:The captain goes down with the ship

Another example

Hi, Please add the following incident to the "Examples" section on main page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Khukri_%281958%29 Regards 203.99.197.70 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• T?hanks. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

his or her

what is this nonsense with "his or her" all the time. it's unreadable. this is not how language works. if you want to fight for feminism do it somewhere else. this nonsense needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.199.173.176 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Captain Sully

I am wondering if we should list examples like Chesley Sullenberger... men who staid on board until all passengers and crew evacuated their ship? He didn't go down with his ship, but he fulfilled the protocol as willing to do so. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek

As fiction also subscribes to this notion, this should perhaps be included. In Star Trek (2009 movie), acting captain George Kirk, father of James Tiberius, goes down with the ship.

In Star Trek Into Darkness, Khan Noonien Singh (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) taunts James Kirk 'No ship should go down without her captain'. Charlemagne.1971 (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Let's stick with real events. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to have films like James Cameron Titanic and examples given by Drmies (talk) Star Trek movies to demonstrate the penetration of the phrase in popular culture. Erzan (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, we should stick to real events. If something in popular culture is relevant it requires more than a statement establishing correctness--it has to be of encyclopedic relevance. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Use of "Be British" as Smith's last words

Under the "notable examples" section, the last words of Captain Edward Smith was said to be "Be British" yet in the main article on Captain Smith, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Smith_(sea_captain) ) it is noted that this may be as result of the British Press. So should a note be added here as well to that extent?

Military captains

"If a naval captain evacuates a vessel in wartime, it may be considered a capital offense similar to desertion, mutiny, or sedition unless he subsequently destroys the ship or permits it to sink."

Umm, this phrase confuses me. I would assume that if the captain let the vessel sink with sailors inside, he would be charged with desertion right? This sentence maybe is confusing abandoning ship with scuttling a war vessel to keep it out of the hands of the enemy, perhaps? 173.160.189.21 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

ROKS Cheonan

Mr. "Seonsaengnim," please stop deleting this entry as a counter example. It is the truth, whether you like it or not. Koreans must accept this trend in the recent history of Captains abandoning their ship. Only with acceptance, can you bring about change. Hiding it on wikipedia will not erase the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusader6 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr. "Krusader6", did you contribute Wikipedia using IP 147.71.155.10? Are you the same person who included the Cheonan incident from this edit [1]? At least, I found that your use of word "these cowardly officers" is a violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, what made you think that the ill-fated Cheonan deserves a mention in this article? --SSN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seonsaengnim (talk • contribs)

• I can't really establish that the IP is also the Krusader. But I urge editors to read WP:EW: if I have to, I will block offending editors and (semi-)protect the article. And verbiage such as "cowardly officers" is of course completely unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I had reverted an IP user's edit only once[2], and was criticized for being a censor by User:Krusader6. --SSN 18:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (talk)

I wasn't aware of this discussion, but I removed the entry. I checked online and found no evidence that the included quote is real - it was only four years ago, so if the quote is real, at least some news sources would still have it online as a valid link. Also, there is no mention in the article about officers vs sailors dieing in the disaster. We need some cites to reliable sources before putting this one back in. Also, the link provided should be to the article about the sinking, not the ship. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is Krusader6. Yes, there are many news sources online that still tells how every officer of ROKS Cheonan escaped, while 46 of the sailors died. [[3]], CDR Choi reprimanded by the Korean Admiralty, but not judicially punished: [[4]]; Denying any and all responsibility during an interview with Donga newspaper [[5]]; Because all of these are written in Korean, western media does not draw a line of continuity between Cheonan and Sewol: two captains both abandoning ship within 4 years of each other from the same country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusader6 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Why can't you contribute using your own id? Why are you trying to cowardly hide your identity? Any reason??? Remember, what you're doing is WP:SOCK and is not acceptable practice. You've been Warned! --SSN (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, dear seonsaengnim. I contribute during my spurts of free time during a busy work day.. Sometimes I publish while forgetting to sign in. But I do own up to all of the above IP address comments. You can see that they occurred in one sitting. I will do my best to remember to sign in from now on.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusader6 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

South Korean Law

It is suggested that South Korea has explicit law that makes abandoning ship illegal however the cited article does not prove that, merely asserts it on the basis that the captain has been arrested on some charge possibly related to abandonment (and again that is not certain) - "South Korea’s law, however, appears to be explicit, allowing the authorities to arrest Mr. Lee for abandoning the boat and its passengers in a time of crisis".

Appears to be explicit, but not proven to be explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.252.194 (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

ROKS Cheonan, revisited.

For about two weeks, I have reverted inclusion of the ROKS Cheonan entry from the article for four times in total. (See these edit history for my reverts: rv.1, rv.2, rv.3, rv.4) This continued reverts shows that adding/deleting the ROKS Cheonan entry have become an edit war obviously, thus I thought that opening another discussion and asking for third opinions is necessary. Here's what I'm think about this entry:

• First and foremost, I don't see "why ROKS Cheonan is a good example for this article". The other editor disagrees with me, and questioned my motives for deleting his contribution, saying that I'm embarrassed [6] and that's why I keep deleting it. Maybe. But for my defense, I haven't touched recent tragedy of MV Sewol and its captain's irresponsibility. That is, I didn't recklessly emptied the entry just because ROKS Cheonon is an incident where I'm from. I deleted the entry, because Cheonan simply is not a good example for this maritime tradition. I deleted the entry, because the entry could possibly be the other editor's WP:OR. More specifically, WP:SYN. Here's what he wrote in a previous discussion:Diff

"Koreans must accept this trend in the recent history of Captains abandoning their ship"

From what he wrote, I personally think that he wants to include ROKS Cheonan to prove his agenda, even if the incident isn't a perfect example. (at least to my bias.) I tried to asked this question before by saying that: Diff

"Furthermore, what made you think that the ill-fated Cheonan deserves a mention in this article?"

Sure, he agreed to remove a non-neutral word like "coward" from this edit Diff. But I have not heard why the other editor thinks ROKS Cheonan incident deserves a mention yet.

• Second thing I have to question here is a factual accuracy of the exact sentencing. The entry states that as if all victims were enlisted soldiers while all the officers have survived. From what I found [7], it depends on how we define "Officers". There were total of 104 sailors aboard ROKS Cheonan, among which 46 of them didn't survived the attack. It is true that all seven of commissioned officers have survived the attack, like the other editor wrote. Thirty three non-commissioned officers, however, didn't survive, and some of non-commissioned officers had a comparable or even longer military career than some of lieutenants aboard the ship.

Therefore, presenting the entry as if "every officer escaped to survival, while 46 sailors died" is misleading.

MOS:OPED was also an issue before, but some Weasel word have been ironed out from this edit Diff.

• Third issue/question I have with the entry is that "why the Commander Choi of ROKS Cheonan has to blamed and what for?". This could be really my bias, but it seems like the entry tried to chastise Choi for not being Suicidal enough and saved his life for his loved ones.Diff If you do some research on ROKS Cheonan, the ship was attacked by a N. Korean torpedo, and broke into two pieces. It should be obvious the ship sank quickly, and there was much time for rescue operations for many trapped sailors. Many source tells that Commander Choi was the last person who abandoned ship, not the other way around. It would be sensible to thinks that Choi did his part under the tragic circumstances.

Therefore, I don't see why Commander Choi have to be blamed morally or why his being free of legal charges need to be mentioned in this article. If some vehicle belongs to U.S. Army had been ambushed and IED attacked in Afghanistan, should the company's commander always die with the government-issued Humvee bravely?

• The last one is a minor WP:RS issue: I understand the original report [8] comes from MK news of S. Korea, but this cited Ti-story is a S. Korean blogpost. That is, it is not WP:RS and we have to replace it with the original report.

I feels like I'm spamming this talk page with all the minor details with a relatively unimportant entry. But please understand me that taking time to comment and pointing out problems I spot was the last thing I wanted to do here. I welcome any editors' third opinion, and will restrain myself from further reverting/blanking the entry (until a consensus is made). (P.S. I notified this discussion by leaving a comment in his User talk page already. Diff) -- SSN (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• To answer your points: is this a good example? as an encyclopedia, this is definitely one of very few examples of a captain NOT going down with a ship, and therefore must be included. It is moot whether he was the last person leaving or not. Look above and you will see several Japanese and American captains that went back into a sinking ship, or otherwise simply refused to leave, all during combat scenarios. Cheonan was not the only ship ever sunk by an enemy. Yamato and Musashi, carrying far more men, were sunk and both captains refused to leave.

• Second point on officers and petty officers.. You clearly have not served in uniform which is okay. Petty officers are not considered officers. Cheonan remains the only case of a sinking naval military vessel in human history where every single officer survived while many enlisted sailors drowned. But this is besides the point. the main point is that the captain escaped while his men drowned which is a counterexample of this very article. Why should this not be listed? Because Korea wants to hide this ignominious fact? As Korea's navy is young and lacks much history, perhaps they are still developing customs and traditions. Doesn`t matter as far as record keeping goes. We report facts and record history here.

• Commander Choi has to be reported as one of several captains in history who abandoned his ship while his men drowned. He made the choice and he must live with that choice, as other more honorable men did in the paragraph preceding. Why don't you defend any of the other captains who also abandoned their ship? Why are Koreans always erasing things on Wikipedia that shows shameful moments in their history?Krusader6 (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: This matter is unsuitable for a third opinion, as it is a continuation of the discussion above, in which at least four editors have taken part. Accordingly, I am declining the request at WP:3O. May I remind you of the warning from Drmies above, concerning edit warring, and may I point out that you are also engaged in personal attacks in the edit summaries, which are also completely unacceptable. I must also point out that the section at this moment has no citations, which are essential when allegations of misconduct are made or implied about living people, and that you cannot know whether it "remains the single example in world naval history" of anything at all, since much of world naval history is lost in the mists of time. Stfg (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Stfg. As an admin I don't really care to get involved in a content discussion, but I have again removed the addition since it was unreliably sourced (this, whatever it is, was given as a reference), and the main articles, including ROKS Cheonan sinking, don't even mention this apparently unique maritime event. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Kamikaze mission?

His son followed in his footsteps ten days later as a volunteer kamikaze pilot.

Just out of curiosity, I want to question why do we need to mention "Kamikaze" suicidal missions? What's the use of it in the Maritime tradition article? Is it just me who find it weird? --SSN (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

sometimes always

The concept may be expressed as "the captain always goes down with the ship" or simply the "captain goes down with his ship."

I cut that sentence; Is it necessary to list transparent little variations?

Uruiamme reverted; Yes, of course. It is because the world is increasingly based on search engines and word lookups. Well, variations help with dialectic differences, too.

And search engines increasingly return variations of the input string (often to one's frustration). I'm not sure I understand the last sentence.

If we must have the variants, the initial the (if present) goes inside the quotation marks. —Tamfang (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant dialectal differences. There are a lot of slight variations in phrasing due to the many dialects of English. Therefore, it would be common for a phrase to have local (but equivalent) variants. And phrases can change over the years. I would bet you dollars to cobwebs that you have never heard the preceding phrase unless you are an aged person, but you might have heard a similar one. And if you are from the U.S., you might know of a Tax per head, but call it a capitation tax, or if taken at a polling place, it is simply a poll tax. These variations could and should be alternatives. Otherwise, your Myanmar would be my Burma. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying either that your reversion was in error, or that the addition of always or his is a difference of dialect that could cause confusion? —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Landlubbers' equivalent

The Russians had an equivalent for their army -- generals who lost a battle were expected to die with the vast number of men who died following their orders. Some encyclopedic page should be made (I can't recall the examples) and a link to it placed at the bottom of the page. 173.162.253.101 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

USS Indianapolis is NOT a counter-example

Unless someone can explain how Captain Charles B. McVay III and Indianapolis constitute a failure of a captain to go down with his ship, I will remove this bullet. McVay did not abandon his ship and crew. Even though he was unfairly court-martialed, and eventually exonerated, he was never charged with shirking his duties during the sinking or leaving crew members behind whom he could have tried to save. Holy (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Seeing no objection here I have removed the relevant entry. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

I noticed this article is unassessed, someone should assess it. From my own observations, it seems like a good candidate for a Start-Class article. Samnotanonymous (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Tradition

The actual maritime tradition is not that the Captain goes down with his ship, but rather that in a situation where the ship is sinking the Captain is the last to leave the ship, and while other crew or passengers remain he must stay, unless it is a naval ship and he orders 'every man for himself', whereupon he may leave after ensuring that as many as possible get off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The actual meaning is explained but, unfortunately, the misleading phrasing (which, taken literally, implies the captain is obliged to let himself die no matter what) is the way the tradition is referred to, practically universally. WP Ludicer (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

“Abandoning ship is a maritime crime that has been on the books for centuries in Spain, Greece, and Italy.”

Really I doubt it, certainly in the bald sense that it is stated here. An article on the CNN website is hardly a reliable source for international maritime law, surely? Springnuts (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail

@Robby.is.on: reverted my addition of this article from the Daily Mail which explicitly supports the statement in the article that "Sullenberger was the last person to exit the partially-submerged aircraft, and performed a final check for any others on board before doing so". That article is clearly, from reading it, a reputable news report. It was by far the best article I found in a two minute web search. The editor said "No, it is not reliable. WP:DAILYMAIL is clear.", but WP:DAILYMAIL says "The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." Does any editor really doubt this particular article for this particular claim? And think that leaving the statement (which I don't think is arguable) uncited is better than citing this source? If someone wants to find a better source, go for it; I don't care enough to do more than find a source that, in my view, clearly works for this purpose and is not against the consensus as stated in WP:DAILYMAIL. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I think as long as the caveats apply, there shouldn't be a total ban on using the Daily Mail as a source. Some editors seem a bit over-zealous in preventing any use of the Daily Mail. I don't agree with reverting references which use the DM just because. Exercise caution, yes, but in some cases it may be the best or only source for a statement.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It took me literally 10 seconds of searching to find a better source for the claim that Sullenberger was the last person to exit, and that he checked for others. [9]. There really is no reason to use Daily Mail as the only source on this (or indeed, any) article. If it's worth mentioning, it's been covered by a real news source. If it has only ever been reported by the Daily Mail, then it can't be trusted and probably isn't worth mentioning anyways. Just use that ABC News source and get rid of the DM source. --Jayron32 16:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian repeats the same claim too [10] -- Calidum 16:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

See also "Pilot Is Hailed After Jetliner’s Icy Plunge" from The New York Times (RSP entry): "When all were out, the pilot [Chesley B. Sullenberger III] walked up and down the aisle twice to make sure the plane was empty, officials said." There is no reason to use the Daily Mail (RSP entry) when superior sources are available. This discussion was posted at WP:RSN § Daily Mail article for specific claim. — Newslinger talk 16:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added citations to the above articles from The Guardian (RSP entry), The New York Times, and ABC News at Special:Diff/1014885695. — Newslinger talk 16:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ashill:, @TrottieTrue:, WP:DAILYMAIL states: "its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion". Echoing the point Jayron made, if you find that it is "the best or only source for a statement" then you should reconsider whether the statement belongs in the article.

And think that leaving the statement (which I don't think is arguable) uncited is better than citing this source? I added the "citation needed" tag to give people a chance to find a suitable reference. The alternative would have been to simply remove the content. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Did anyone here read the actual article in the Daily Mail instead of applying a blanket stereotype? The actual article is well-researched, well-sourced reporting with numerous interviews and a good (if a little cheesy) original illustration. The Daily Mail has a well-deserved reputation as a rag, but to me this particular article very clearly meets WP:V, and this "consensus" that this particular article should simply be thrown out is not consistent with the spirit of WP:V. I admit to digging in my heels a bit here on principle and have spent more time (we're still talking minutes here) debating the in-my-view-errant consensus than it would have taken to find other sources, but I'm pretty pissed that I put the effort into reading the article and evaluating it on its own merits to have overzealous enforcement of a broad rule eliminate it. When I made the initial edit, I did indeed do a web search for the term and skimmed the ten results on the first page; I chose the best of those articles, which was the Daily Mail article. I'm a not-terribly-active but I think quite careful and policy-bound editor, and having my time evaluating a source wasted by this enforcement is awfully frustrating.

Anyway, @Newslinger: has added other sources, so the citation needed tag for this article (which was more than a year old, not a new one), and this isn't the place to change reliable source consensus (a process I have no interest in engaging in), but this consensus (which, again, is not reflected as an outright ban in WP:DAILYMAIL) is just not helpful to editors, in my view. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I sympathise, Alex. I'm hardly a fan of the Daily Mail, but I think each source should be considered on its own merits. Some editors do apply the 'rules' rather stringently, and I feel it really depends on the article in question. The consensus on the DM does seem to make citing it difficult though.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Even a blind dog can still hit a tree once in a while, even if he usually pisses on my leg. It is possible to find good articles in the Daily Mail, but not so reliably, which is why we require such material to be found elsewhere. Randomly finding an occasional good article doesn't make it a reliable source. --Jayron32 17:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, I find the revert-on-site mentality evidenced here by @Robby.is.on: and others unconstructive. A much better approach in a case like this would be to add an unreliable source tag or for the objecting editor to find a source they consider satisfactory. It's very unclear to me why reverting to an uncited tag (for a statement that had been in the article uncited for at least a year but obviously didn't fail WP:V) is better than those two options (or easier than the first). As a reader/editor who has no particular interest in this article and was simply trying to quickly fix a citation needed tag I came across, this is very frustrating and antithetical to the core principles of Wikipedia. Again, I'm well aware I've spent more time reacting than editing, which is largely due to frustration at the wasteful revert in the first place and its broader impact. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, but some editors seem more fixated on following the "rules", to the detriment of the site's overall ethos of sharing information. Fine, avoid the DM. But consider each source on a case-by-case basis.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hood

Lancelot Holland was not the captain: should he be in the list of examples? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of phrase

To me the phrase means that the captain stays to the end while others disembark: he is the last to leave, or not if fate thinks otherwise. This article includes several captains who do not fit that description because they had no choice. The captain of the Hood is a good example. How was he able to show exemplary bravery and duty? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes a captain doesn't have time to do much of anything If the vessel sinks very quickly. Captain McSorely of the Edmund Fitzgerald did eveything he could to keep the freighter afloat, and to save the lives of his crew. The only reason he didn't try to lead the crew off the the Fitz is because she broke in half, and sunk in mere seconds. Again, he did everything he could do, up until the very last second. To suggest someone like McSorely wasn't able to show "exemplary bravery and duty" just because his vessel sank within seconds is an insult to him. Staying in the wheelhouse to try and save his crew was as brave as can be. Your definition is monumentally narrow. 67.140.234.11 (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Blockship?

In the examples section, we have

March 27, 1904: Commander Takeo Hirose, in command of the blockship Fukui Maru at the Battle of Port Arthur, went down with the ship while searching for survivors, after the ship sustained a direct strike from Russian coastal artillery, causing it to explode.

According to Blockship, it's a ship that has been deliberately scuttled. That may not rule out that it is still manned, and may be hit, but does the story hold up? Nø (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

SS Flying Enterprise

OG TEXT "* January 10, 1952: After his ship was struck by a pair of rogue waves, Captain Kurt Carlsen of the SS Flying Enterprise remained aboard his ship once her passengers and crew had been evacuated in order to oversee attempts to tow the crippled vessel into port. He was eventually joined by Ken Dancy, a member of the salvage tug's crew. When the time came to abandon ship, Carlsen said to Dancy that they would jump together; Dancy refused, saying he should go first so that Carlsen could be the last to leave the ship. The Flying Enterprise sank 48 minutes later."

Neither Kurt Carlsen or Ken Dancy died in the sinking. Kurt lived until 1989 and Ken lived until 2013. It is an interesting story but the only person who died was a passenger, Nicolai Bunjakowski, during the rescue. If the entry remains it should super link to both of their wiki pages so people know that neither died in the sinking. 108.183.193.234 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)