Talk:MS Estonia

Any proof for the claim of originally being ordered by a Norwegian company?
It says in the first paragraph under "construction": The ship was originally ordered from Meyer Werft by a Norwegian shipping company led by Parley Augustsen with intended traffic between Norway and Germany. At the last moment, the company withdrew their order and the contract went to Rederi Ab Sally, one of the partners in the Viking Line consortium (SF Line, another partner in Viking Line, had also been interested in the ship).[3] The source given for this is vasabatarna.se, which gives no further documentation of this claim. However, other sites say that the ship was ordered directly by Rederi Ab Sally, and that it was on fact the "half sister" Diana II that was originally meant for Norway... Unfortunately the forum where I found this info is no longer available. I say this should be removed, as the source is dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.65.47.201 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory
Conspiracy Theory, most interesting: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=63541 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.217.40.190 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, Completely unreliable and unsourced information with a quite severely extreme theory. Not factual, not neutral. Not worthy of mention in what's supposed to be a neutral and factual article. Dux Ducis Hodiernus (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure you can really say that the samples were illegally obtained as the ship is in international waters 68.203.12.47 (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Flaws in emergency response
Would it be wrong if I just point out that this section looks a little weak.

"Searched liferafts had to be marked so time wasn't wasted by searching the same raft multiple times. In later phases of the rescue operation, this was done by cutting the roofs of the rafts."

Is the above a flaw?

"At least two should be brought along as the rescue work was exhausting"

The above sounds somewhat opinionated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minshullj (talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 September 2005

I've deleted the part about listing preventing the lifeboats from being launched from this section. Clearly this is important (and is mentioned in the previous section), but it is not a flaw in the response. This whole section looks a bit weak to me too...--Sheep2000 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's easy to say that at least two rescue men per helicopter would have been needed, but under the circumstances that was probably not possible. The rescue helicopters were flown in from all over Finland and Sweden (some arriving from as far as Finnish Lapland, nearly a away) as fast as possible, and getting extra personnel onboard would have been extremely difficult. Plus there are only a small number of people with proper training for that kind of mission. Two rescue men would have certainly been preferrable, but having only one per helicopter was hardly a "flaw" but simply something dictated by nescessity.


 * As for the lifeboats, if I remember correctly the problem was not (only) that they couldn't be lowered, but they also simply weren't seaworthy enough. The Estonias lifeboard were small, uncovered boats that capsized easily, very different from lifeboats installed in newer passenger ships (I have a book on the disaster stashed away somewhere, but I don't seem to be able to find it right now. If I remember correctly it claimed the liferafts were actually more seaworthy and offered better protection than the lifeboats). - Kjet 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Having spent quite some time on this, every line of the previous article was correct even if some of the pilot's observations could be confused with the SOLAS response. I felt that the effect on marine safety was so important that the section needed expanding. I changed the title to avoid appearing to cast inappropriate blame on the rescuers. I'd welcome any comments/help on the references. I'm aware that the liferaft reference is to a private firm but it shows the concerns that I know the British MAIB have about the training accidents. JRPG 18:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

New topic: I changed the second sentence to read: The ship's sinking, on September 28, 1994, in the Baltic Sea, claiming 852 lives was one of the worst maritime disasters in modern history.

The reason for the existence of the entry--any entry--should be clear in the lede graf. There are lots of ferries in the Baltic, not all of them have an encyclopedia entry. This one does because it (a) sank (b) claiming 852 lives, and (c) was one of the worst maritime disasters in modern history. This last bit that I added could be made even more specific, for example one of the worst since a particular date, or worst since a particular other disaster or worst maritime disaster in peacetime since a particular date or disaster.

My point is that a reader goes to an encyclopedia entry to answer the general question, What is the M/S Estonia? What was that all about? The very first graf should answer his question, at least in general terms. Example: Who was Stalin? One sentence answer: A brutal Soviet Russian dictator who solidified and expanded the Communist regime while killing millions of his own countrymen and causing inestimable misery. RUReady2Testify 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Current events
I am adding up the stuff on the ongoing re-investigations by the Estonian prosecuter-general and in parallel by the Estonian Parliament as it comes.

With regard to the fact that Estonian MEP Evelyn Sepp declared that re-investigation of the wreckage - meaning lifting Estonia Agreement and new divings (and raising the wreckage if necessary) is "imminent", as well as the fact that she declared possible connection between (criminal - Bete 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)) shipments by the Swedish intelligency and the disaster, this article may need to be designated as current event. I leave it to those more familiar than me with the rules to decide. Bete 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional material
At the risk of sounding far more provocative than I want to be, I believe that for once the conspiracy theorists have a point. I intend to add a line saying that unlike Estonia, both Princess Victoria and Herald of Free Enterprise capsised before sinking and that a number of marine experts (and MEP Lars Ångström) have said that only a hole in the hull below the waterline would have caused Estonia's vertical sinking. That does seem to make sense. The cause of the hole is of course another matter entirely.

Re flaws in emergency response, having read the UK MAIB report on lifeboats, http://www.ukpandi.com/UkPandi/resource.nsf/Files/lifeboat_safety/$FILE/lifeboat_safety.pdf

and many of MAIB's other excellent free reports, I am aware that lifeboats drills cause a disproportionate number of fatal accidents even in port. For that reason, the Captain of a ferry in the Irish sea was justified when he decided not to lower lifeboats in a gale to rescue a passenger overboard.

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/koningin-beatrix.pdf

Is there a source for the 15 metre wave heights stated? I have seen 4 metres. Have any other Swedish wrecks been encased in concrete or is this a change of policy?

Feel free to contact me.

JRPG 20:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... at least according to all reports I have read, the Estonia did capsize before sinking. -- Kjet 15:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kjet. At least you read it! I think the point the structural experts make is that water on the car deck through the bow doors would make the ferry capsize 180 degrees immediateley c.f. Herald Of Free Enterprise, though that landed on a sand bank. Estonia listed increasingly but slowly to starboard and finally went over 90 degrees before sinking. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt11.htm I don't intend to add any conspiracy theory, I just want to avoid implying unnecessarily that Herald Of Free Enterprise events were very similar.

Re: the rescue, I've read dozens of British Marine Accident Investigation Branch reports and don't think any search and rescue would have avoided very heavy casualties in the condition. Lifeboats on davits rarely seem useable once there is a list. The most effective method on fishing boats (most of the cases they investigate are fishing boats) seems liferafts which inflate automatically once the ship has sunk ..but these require survival suits and training, not practical for the passengers. JRPG 23:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I very much respect pointing out the differentiation between Estonia and the Herald of Free Enterprise in the article, so I'm not disagreeing at all with this comment, just making a few pointers. The big difference between Estonia and the Herald was that the Herald didn't have a watertight ramp inside the bow gate. So in that one, when the gate failed the cardeck flooded immidiately. The Estonia had a watertight ramp which was only partially open during the time of the sinking (that is my impression anyway), which resulted in the cardeck not flooding outright but slowly fillng with water, which explains the gradual listing. I guess the wording on the article should be changed from "When the visor broke off the ship, it brought down the ramp" as it didn't really bring down the ramp, only damage it enough for water to start entering the cardeck slowly but surely.


 * I also definately agree about the points about the rescue. Plus I have to add that the Estonia's lifeboats were an outdated type, uncovered and quite small, which made them practically useless in such heavy seas.


 * -- Kjet 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A few points that aren't quite right above, from someone who has just read the official report. It says:

- The ramp was compromised (and water started entering the car deck) almost as soon as the visor was damaged : the damaged visor was in contact with the ramp and each time the visor lifted, it forced the ramp open slightly.

- When the visor broke off, it dragged the ramp open completely.

- Water DIDN'T enter only through the front of the car deck. Once the ship had listed sufficiently to starboard, waves could reach the lower cabin windows. It was when some large windows broke, that enough water entered to cause the rapid capsize, and the final sinking by the stern.

(Chris Jones 15 Jan 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.135.179 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source for the water temperature? I had a Royal Navy helicopter survival course which suggested that September is one of the warmest months. 1994 was also one of the hottest years so the sea should have been much warmer. Unless there are strong objections, I intend to replace the 8 degrees with a reference http://www.iopan.gda.pl/oceanologia/48Ssiege.pdf

In figure 1, the wreck is at around position 17. From fig 5 the mean temperature at that point for the whole of 1994 was over 8. From figure 7, the August 1994 temperature for that position was around 19 degrees. It seems therefore reasonable to say that the temperature a month later was at least 13 degrees. Still going to cause death from hypothermia but more slowly than 8 degrees.

Re the "flawed response", I think the problem is the section title, not the content. The reality is that ships couldn't help. In the UK, RAF and Navy helicopters are used to rescue civilians, but only if available and most of those rescued are sea farers who have had have survival training. I remember one occasion when their engines were removed for spares. I understand the RAF send a winchman down but the Navy expect people to be able to attach the rope themselves! Fishing boat sinkings are often even more sudden and alarm is given by the EPIRB but this didn't happen here. Estonia is of course an extremely sensitive issue but does anyone have any objections to renaming this, "practical limitations of the rescue", and including some of Kjet's comments?

JRPG 16:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Black out?
According to the article, "Due to black-out she could not give her position which delayed the rescue operation somewhat". What is this black-out referrred to? Evil Monkey - Hello 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Loss of power. -- Kjet 11:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. I was interpreting black-out as being Blackout (wartime). Evil Monkey - Hello 23:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently "blackout" is a term commonly used for loss of power in the maritime profession. It was used in the radio communication from the Estonia to Silja Europa (in English, even though most of the communication was in Finnish), which is probably where it found it's way into the article. -- Kjet 09:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a NATO military exercise nearby - so maybe a communication blackout? "MS Estonia catastrophe occurred on the first day of a 10-day NATO naval exercise called Cooperative Venture 94, in which more than 15 ships and "a number of maritime aircraft" were prepared to conduct "humanitarian and search and rescue operations" in nearby waters. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.184.125 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't a reference to comms blackout, but to a total loss of power onboard. BTW, can you cite your quote regarding a NATO exercise in the area? DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * NATO exercise press release Exercise Cooperative Venture 94 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.248.205 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That says it was near Skagerrak and in the Norwegian Sea. Skagerrak is at the northernmost tip of Denmark. That's nowhere near the Archipelago Sea; you may want to look them up on the map in that article. Claiming that's "nearby" is like saying Ireland is "near" France. Snowgrouse (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation box
We have acquired a somewhat unwelcome box relating to citations. I've reworded a section so that only one reference is needed to the New Statesman article on British Intelligence. I've also shortened the item about the murder as there are no English references to it -and it's not what the ship is noted for. Do we really need so many red links to fairly minor items? I don't see them justifying their own entry. I'm happy to remove them if they're not needed. At that point are we allowed to remove the box? JRPG 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

New research '08
There's been conducted some computer simulations by Hamburg University, that sheds new light on the disaster. I'm not a wikipedia writer, but i thought I'd put it here, if someone wants to update the article and/or further reference. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,527875,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.83.165 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and it will be interesting to see what the professionals say in March. I do have doubts however if this will vindicate the official report whose critics include competent experts. Re the inadequacy of evacuation from ferries in a storm, I think this is universally agreed and regulations were changed -but there isn't a solution! Lifeboats are unlaunchable in rough weather, liferafts are dangerous for the crew and helicopters are best when people are already in the water. Possibly the best suggestion is a 'citadel' on board but this can only be done for new ships, and at considerable cost. JRPG (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move
This page, as it is now, is subordinated to M (because of the backslash). I'll move the page to fix this problem; I just wanted to explain the move for anyone concerned. Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that there's a redirect at MS Estonia; I'll have to have an admin do this one. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Subpages are not allowed in the article namespace, so this effort was futile. See also Subpages. –Finlux (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Free surface effect
There is no mention in this article of the Free surface effect that would have effected the ships stability and helped to cause it to sink. It is analogous to trying to carry a frying pan full of water. The instability would have been created once water flowed into the vehicle bay. --Zven (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right! This is the main problem with water on the car deck of these ships. Whilst I'm deeply skeptical about the official version, I agree a word about the mechanism would be useful and I'll add it -unless you have already done so. JRPG (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good what yourve added to the article, incidentally it was also factor in the sinking of the Wahine disaster where hurricane force winds pushed the ship onto a reef first, apparently it forced a re-design of the height of deck vent height in future vessels. I was talking to a retired ship captain who told me that they use the free surface effect to their advantage by manipulating the ballast to make ships slightly less stable which can improve the ride depending on the conditions. He also sailed for 3 years with Captain Hector Gordon Robertson after the Wahine disaster. --Zven (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Independent investigations
I have a big problem with this paragraph as it now stands. Quote: "A number of theories exist to explain the disaster, elements of which have been vindicated by new evidence gained from independent investigations, as well as testimony from witnesses...Davis says the ship was carrying a secret cargo of military equipment smuggled from the Russians by the British MI6 on behalf of the CIA, as part of ongoing efforts to monitor the development of Russia's weapons." Quote: "The plot portrays the Swedish government as being responsible for using the ship to covertly transport Russian high-tech components to the United States...According to Rabe, divers hired by the Swedish government (signing contracts swearing lifetime secrecy) spent hours breaking into cabins frantically searching for a black attaché case carried by a Russian space technology dealer, Aleksandr Voronin (died 2002)." The theories themselves are complete nonsense, and to claim that they have been "vindicated" in any way is just total lunacy.

Considering that these conspiracy theories are pretty notable, though, I'm loath to remove the whole section. Also, for some unimaginable reason, this section has survived for a considerable time. Therefore, I consider it appropriate conserve some description of these theories, though the amount of space they currently have should be reduced considerably. Baeksu (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly support condencing the section about the independent investigation and rewriting their tone. The section would also benifit from additional in-line references. Unfortunately this article "suffered" from a number of edits by a group of users who apparently believe(d) in the theories of Jutta Rabe and others and who took a very hostile stance towards anyone who attempted to rewrite the article with more neutral account of the conspiracy theories. Hopefully the time would not be ripe for rewriting the article in a more neutral and realistic tone. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rewrite is complete.


 * I changed the section title to "Alternative theories". I also moved the movie plot summary to the article Baltic Storm.


 * I think it is enough to describe the alternative theories and the accusation of a cover-up. We don't need to add a paragraph for every instance someone has publicly supported those theories, or accused the Swedish government of a cover up, as that does not add to the value of the article, and also including them would give the false impression that these theories are widely supported and backed by mountains of evidence.


 * Furthermore, I completely removed some paragraphs, for which it was not possible to find any reliable source. I don't think these paragraphs contained any relevant information anyway, so I am not sorry to see them go. Baeksu (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work, the article comes across as better and certainly less biased after the rewrite. Next it would probably be good to check the non-inline references in the References-section, as many of those seemed to be referring the now-removed/rewritten sections of the invenpendent investigations -section. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Having at long last mastered citations, I'll have a go at providing or rationalising them using reputable sources as per Kjet's suggestion. Hopefully we can then remove tags. JRPG (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Disaster, conspiracy theories and national prestige
There's been lots of writing (in the media and on the web) about secret holes and secret arms containers, but the real nasty spots that the disaster points at are how difficult it is to charge a wharf or a shipping line over construction errors/depreciation that have contributed to a ship going under. Once it's sunk, things can be very hard to prove (it may be proven that therw were weaknesses or neglect of upkeep, but proving that these decisively contributed to a ship going down is a whole different thing!), and there is no one who has a sufficiently fat wallet and a strong enough interest linked to such a wallet to take lengthy trials and appeal processes or fund an evenhanded investigation. The insurance firms, such as Lloyds, don't want to brand the shipbuilder or the firm that ran the ship, that could simply push up the sums the insurance company would have to pay out; if it's classed as force majeure there's much less to be paid for Lloyds or for the conpanies where the actual trips (as opposed to lost or damaged lives) were insured.

Also in this case, the Estonia was a flagship of post-Soviet Estonian ship traffic, and´almost a national symbol. Any hint that the Estonian crew or Estonian security people had not been performing with excellence could be regarded as a smear on the nation, which was extremely touchy after the disaster and just three years after Estonia had again become a free country. So it was not really possible, in a disaster inquiry that would inevitably be dominated by people linked to the Swedish, Estonian and Finnish states, to work it through as if it had been a deplorable disaster but one that didn't affect anyone's prestige or anyone's respect. In the absence of a powerful indictment of the wharf and a credible, understandable discussion of how the ship's security had been mismanaged and jeopardized long before the final night, conspiracy theories, often linked to the cold war, took center stage.

It's not sensational to say that lifting the entire ship to the surface or looking up every single body would have been both prohibitively expensive and technically challenging - and very dangerous to the divers. But because the disaster happened just after parliamentary elections in Sweden, about a week before the new cabinet ws due to take over, and some government ministers gave a rash promise to "make every effort to retrieve all bodies that can be retrieved"  - easy to say into a mike, hard to fulfill - that promise became tne Holy Grail of some close-knit groups linked to the survivors and relatives, and when it dawned on the authoritries that the promise was likely unworkable, their reversal became the token "sign" that there was a dreadful secret being covered up at all costs. That's tabloid logic, and I think it's significant that it happened in Sweden but not in Finland or Estonia. Sweden had never been rocked by a transport disaster of this kind and magnitude, and the nation was mentally ill prepared for it. Finland and Estonia had experienced blood-letting wars within the last few generations and there was more of a capacity, or a will, to contain the indignation, accept the disaster as a kind of destiny and move on. In Sweden, the anger and grief of many people mutated into a rage at the government and at politicians in general - such an easy target, and so futile. This still colours the memory of the disaster. Strausszek (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Victims / numbers
Something is wrong in numbers: total 852, but 501 Swedes + 285 Estonians + 17 Latvians + 10 Finns + 44 others = 857 (I think total is correct). --Aulis Eskola (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But the most interesting thing is that, if you check the victims list which exist on Internet, there are indeed 857 names with age and nationality (and with no repetitions or misspelled names) (!)--Olonia (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph states that there were 852 victims but the table total says 853 victims. The final report of the Joint Accident Investigation Commission indeed says that there had been 852 victims including 1 that died at the hospital http://www.multi.fi/estonia/estorap.html#_Toc405839492. The BBC also says "The total number of dead was finally put at 852" http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/28/newsid_2542000/2542093.stm. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Estonia report files
The English text is the authoritative version, as the first document says "Should there be any discrepancies between translations and this English text, the English text is to be considered the authoritative version." There are also Estonian and Finnish translations. The English text was "checked for linguistic correctness by Tim Crosfield MA".

English: WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Preface."
 * Summary
 * Content listing


 * Hi Whisper. Think there have also been a few problems with vandals changing numbers and dead links. This was the first article I made a non-trivial contribution to but I didn't know how to fully cite references and many have now become dead links. Otherwise I would recheck it.  JRPG (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JRPG! To make things easier for us, I'll list the files and show the archives:
 * Home: http://web.archive.org/web/20050207002532/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/ - http://www.webcitation.org/6OwIQkQ3b
 * Preface: http://web.archive.org/web/20050206025433/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/index.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6OwIF1hkO
 * THE JOINT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION: http://web.archive.org/web/20050206025929/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/joint.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6OwIUNqxH
 * Summary: http://web.archive.org/web/20050206030336/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/summary.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6OwIKlLmP
 * Contents: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/conten.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6OwINaW4U

PART I: Factual Information:
 * 1: http://web.archive.org/web/20050206022358/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt01.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6RicV6TCa
 * 2: http://web.archive.org/web/20050206022553/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt02.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6RidlZime
 * 3:
 * 3-1: http://web.archive.org/web/20050206023101/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt03_1.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7L0faG
 * 3-2: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt03_2.html#1 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7N0Foy
 * 3-3: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt03_3.html#1 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7PJlDs
 * 4: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt04.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7FtA42
 * 5: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt05.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7IAQEf
 * 6:
 * 6-1: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt06_1.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7S1kOS
 * 6-2: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt06_2.html#1 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7UJPR8
 * 7:
 * 7-1: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt07_1.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7X1Qvt
 * 7-2: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt07_2.html#1 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7YyJ53
 * 8:
 * 8-1: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt08_1.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7kblbM
 * 8-2: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt08_2.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7naP8b
 * 8-3: http://web.archive.org/web/20050206031558/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt08_3.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7px3Zn
 * 8-4: http://web.archive.org/web/20050206031714/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt08_4.html#4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7uhn98
 * 8-5: http://web.archive.org/web/20050206031714/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt08_5.html#4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7zQKuj
 * 8-6: http://web.archive.org/web/20050206031714/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt08_6.html#4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj83h0wS

Part II: Associated Facts
 * 9: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt09.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj41i3Vv
 * 10: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt10.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj44mzDD
 * 11: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt11.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj7Bgyam

PART 3:
 * 12:
 * 12-1: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt12_1.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8Eg1u5
 * 12-2: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt12_2.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8HLsaA
 * 12-3: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt12_3.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8LEj6R
 * 13:
 * 13-1: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt13_1.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8PMTmN
 * 13-2: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt13_2.html#4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8Saumc
 * 14: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt14.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8VRbfA
 * 15: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt15.html#1 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8XchAE
 * 16: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt16.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8c4uVY
 * 17:
 * 17-1: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt17_1.html#1 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8k6mOQ
 * 17-2: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt17_2.html#1 - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8smIgX
 * 18: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt18.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8xFs9A
 * 19: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt19.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rj8zLUBj

PART 4: WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 20: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt20.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6RifYueiS
 * 21: http://web.archive.org/web/20050205223121/http://www.onnettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt21.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rifz5I5e

"Alternative theories" section needs cleanup/should be removed
It's worded dubiously and is misleading(specific information left out, gives too much weight to small circumstantial irregularities). I have tried to fix up some of it, and to include some of the more important details. Previously the first paragraph for an example talked about just general "Military equipment" whilst in the referenced articles they specified repeatedly how this was ELECTRONIC, and non explosive materiel, whilst the section on the wiki talked about possible bombs, yet somehow left this information out. Also dead links on highly controversial information, which isn't exactly optimal. Highly misleading, and far from the only problems. Tagging the section to let people know. Personally I feel like it should be removed, but first at least it should be given a chance to be fixed before such a absolute step is done. However I don't really see how it contributes to the article at its current state, and feels more detrimental than actually informative.

Dux Ducis Hodiernus (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * New posts go in the end of the page. Tupsumato (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember that, thanks. Dux Ducis Hodiernus (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources gone dark
I'm not happy with the sources of this article. The link to the official report on the disaster is dead. A lot is drawn from web archive. I pulled some documents from IMO's site only to see most of the links being dead. This sources on this disaster are slipping from memory. I dump my memory here, for now that's only more broken links. I was about age 25 when this disaster and its handling made headlines.


 * The idea of encasing the wreckage was first mentioned in press by Bill Clinton. This was remarkable as this happened within days after the disaster while the USA appeared to be not involved in the disaster. Mr Clinton used emotional arguments instead of safety of sea lanes. Source needed.
 * There was a documentary on Dutch television where the ship's builder seeks rectification of the official report on the disaster. In this documentary the ship's builder states the system blamed for the disaster was not installed in MV Estonia. The ship's builder sought publicity as they feared claims while the official report can not be revised. Source needed.
 * On the diving ban: On presentation this treaty was baffling, as it was not asked for by citizens and even then resisted or rejected by survivors. The treaty's initial defence on broadcast television by John Mayor, using emotional arguments, made it remarkable. Source needed.
 * The Swedish Navy intervened harshly in an activist diving expedition. It should be mentioned the Swedish Navy intervened in international waters and abducted activists into Swedish territory. Source needed.
 * In a documentary on Dutch television one of the diving activists tells about the intervention of the Swedish Navy. He also states he and his fellow activists observed the Swedish Navy ignoring or protecting a diving expedition run from an unmarked ship. Source needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Scholtens (talk • contribs) 13:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting that. I'll see what I can find on http://web.archive.org - Many dead sources can be jumpstarted with this website. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death
The article states that the victims died "by drowning and hypothermia (the water temperature was 10–11 °C/50–52 °F)". There's no source for that, and it's obviously impossible to know how the people trapped inside the ship actually died. Most or maybe all of them drowned, but there could have been fatal injuries or even heart attacks etc. Could that somehow be added to the article or is it original research, but the sentence kind of is OR right now as well. Whitetabor (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I modified it slightly to say "most" of the victims died by drowning or hypothermia, but it still needs a source. I also made two sentences out of one, because cramming lists of fatalities by nation in parentheses in a sentence that also describes the temperature of the water in parentheses is too much!Sadiemonster (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a more detailed statistic available at http://onse.fi/estonia/chapt07_2.html (bottom table), but a few numbers differ from the current wiki-version e.g. in regards to the nationalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.142.103 (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"The Visor Separated In Which..."
The "Sinking" section says, "the visor separated in which the ship's bow door opened and the ship immediately took on a heavy starboard list." The syntax is not correct and the meaning is not clear. It should either be something like "the visor in which the ship's bow door opened separated" or "the visor separated and the ship's bow door opened." I'm not exactly sure what is being described here, so can someone else clarify this?Sadiemonster (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The bow ramp was installed in such a way that the separating visor pulled it open (the upper back part of the visor (with the "hinges"?) was lower than the upper end of the closed ramp). I don't have a good wording, though. --LPfi (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Explosions
Hi, I just watched interview with prominent Czech diver Jindřich Böhm in Česká televize (Czech TV). There is question related to MS Estonia at 37:00, archive is already online with very interesting answer. So I used Google and found this video Muž, který se potopil k vraku Estonie (in Czech but with video from diving) where is interview (and shots from diving) related only to MS Estonia. Some interesting points from the video:
 * international team, 14 days, each day 1 dive
 * during the first dive there already found very unexpected things
 * samples send to laboratories in Germany, England, USA. 4 of 5 confirmed that there was explosion - protocols exist. One of Germany laboratories doesn't found some crystalic structures. Other labs found them.
 * probably three explosions to "open" the bow door
 * probably another on the right side of the ship
 * important people who survived and should testify are missing
 * In short Mr. Böhm said something like "It was crime. Somebody sank the ship. It was not investigated properly."
 * In short Mr. Böhm said something like "It was crime. Somebody sank the ship. It was not investigated properly."

„Na nákladové rampě jsme objevili rozsáhlé poškození a díry, které byly na první pohled od výbuchu.“ --Jindřich Böhm, rozhlas.cz, Oct 5,2105.

I'm amateur not interested to digg more, but at least "Conspiracy theories exist about the cause of the sinking." is not NPOV as "prominent Czech diver Jindřich Böhm" is not conspiracy theorist and there is a lot of evidence. --6 March 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.134.118 (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

An English transcript of radio communications?
Is there an English transcript of mayday call etc anywhere? That would be interesting addition to the page. As they speak English, Finnish and Swedish in the tapes, I could make one myself, but that would probably be OR. Kernaazti (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Deadliest/second-deadliest?
We're told this was "the second-deadliest European shipwreck disaster to have occurred in peacetime and the deadliest peacetime shipwreck to have occurred in European waters". This sentence seems to be self-contradictory. "Peacetime" occurs in both parts, and "European" and "in European waters" surely mean the same thing. So was this the deadliest, or the second-deadliest - or has some other distinguishing piece of information been omitted?84.243.236.9 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the first "peacetime." The wartime event was the sinking of the MV Wilhelm Gustloff. A source and support in the article body for all that would be helpful, I'll look around for one. Thanks for flagging that.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RMS Titanic, the deadliest European shipwreck, happened in the American waters. --Klõps (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Much depends on the definition of "European." To me, it means that the event happened in Europe, not that it happened to a European-registered vessel. In any case, that sentence was trying to have it both ways, and I agree with the IP editor.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ship's length
There is serious discrepancy about the ship's initial length between sections "General characteristics" (155.43m) and "Construction" (137m).--176.46.18.212 (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * One is the original length the other is length after extra section was added.

Newbuilding 5.590 (Estonia) was furthermore lengthened compared to newbuilding S.592 (MS Diana II) by extension of the parallel midship section by 18.4 metres. Related differences in the main hull were an increased length of the bulbous bow by 0.83 m and a related increase of the length of the forward ramp by 0.725 m.
 * --Klõps (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Cabin windows
The article says: "water not only flooded the vessel via the car deck, but also through windows in cabins as well as the massive windows along deck 6", citing Whittingham, The Blame Machine, p. 138. The windows of deck 6 were on a "secure" height, so not dimensioned to withstand the seas, but cabin windows? Are there reliable reports of those breaking? What does Whittingham say exactly? With references? --LPfi (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I think the sections on the sinking of the Estonia should be split to their own separate article. I realise that the most notable thing about the ship is its sinking, and that's what most people will think of when they hear the name; yet, the ship and its fate are conceptually separate matters. The sinking-related content currently takes up the majority (maybe ⅔ to ¾?) of the article, and I reckon both the ship and its sinking could stand alone as fully-fledge articles. Although the current size of ~45k isn't enough to require splitting on size basis, the policy doesn't prevent this, either, and on content basis the split would make sense IMO. Views? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A split would make sense only if both articles benefit from the split. By volume, the article is probably 2/3 about the sinking. Once split, the legacy article about the ship will essentially be just a stub. Unless there's meaningful volume to be added about the service history, there's probably not much of a point to split. Splitting did work for Titanic and Sinking of the Titanc because there was plenty to write about the early days of the ship. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment My point was precisely that IMO there is enough content (ss. 1-2, 6, most of the infobox and images) for an article on the ship itself, but clearly you see it otherwise, which is fine. :) I just thought that as it stands, the sinking and its aftermath (esp. now that new investigations are kicking off, etc.) dominates this article, overshadowing the fact that the ship had two decades of service under three operators before it sank (unless, of course, the argument is that those things alone don't add up to enough to justify an article). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , on close inspection, I'd go as far as saying that the current sources for the early service history of the ship to not hold up as WP:RS. They appear to be "fan" blogs or ship listings sites with unclear editorial oversight. Taking the sinking aside, I'd probably reject an article with that sourcing at AfC or at minimum draftify if added into article space as is. Without substantial work, we'd be creating a non viable article. Strictly speaking, there would even be an argument to delete this entire section in the article as it stands today, for lack of adequate sourcing. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 22:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tentative support I support the principle of a split, which would bring English Wikipedia into line with the way this is handled in Estonian, Swedish, Finnish etc. In practice I can't see much point in this unless there is an intention to expand both potential articles, as described by above. Tammbeck  talk  08:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tentative support I agree with what Tammbeck says above. Additionally, the fact new investigations/inquiries are being made into the sinking shows more continued interest. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Jake - If split only a small stubby article will remain. Obviously makes more sense to keep the article as is. 86.169.55.232 (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tentative support While I completely understand the criticisms regarding the split, opposers also need to understand the fundamental differences between the ship itself (a thing) and the sinking (an event). The article is about the ship, so technically speaking, the sinking is only supplementary material. This is especially evident if you take a look at the infobox, which is tailored towards the details of the ship and not details of the event (e.g. does not list amount of deaths). I would argue that the ship article (after the split) does not neccearily have to be a stub, it can include short paraphrases from the article of the event (as supplementary material). Not to sound all rhetorical, but 852 people did die from this; this is obviously a significant event that warrants its own article. Obviously, you can use the Estonian (etc.) article to your advantage, if lack of information is the problem. And perhaps some more primary source research needs to be conducted as well. But other than that, I support this split. NeonHD7 (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The sinking had an impact that goes far beyond the ferry itself. For example, the reformed regulations like SOLAS that impacted building of future ships. And then, the various investigations revealed so many issues with safety regulations, inspections, technical maintenance, transport of military equipment, etc. that affect the involved nations, authorities and companies. The newly planned investigation may add more. The work of the accident commission itself may almost warrant an article by itself. The MS Estonia article can be enriched with information uncovered about its history as a result of the investigation (design, building, certification, operation). The only concern I have with splitting: how hard will it be to stop contributors from further adding accident information to the ship's article? Sommozzatore (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Ship vs catastrophe. Several Wikipedias already have it, see wikidata:Q3360074--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is a good idea, since several other ships that have been lost have separate articles on their sinkings, and the sinking of the Estonia is a pretty well-known event. CriticalMaster95 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The general text about the ship is only there to support the story of the sinking. If there hadn't been a sinking, the ship 'per se' would not have merited a wiki page. Valetude (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support Marko8726 (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support. More than half of the article seems to be about the sinking. The ship had plenty of history even before it was named Estonia. J I P  &#124; Talk 16:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The sinking is notable on its own. Elshad (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support. The ship does have a curious history beyond the sinking. I, for one, would like to see more material on the two (!) murders that took place on the ship when it was still called Viking Sally. We could have information on the murders on the main article (that should satisfy the folks who worry that the main article would become too stub-y), and create a page of its own for the sinking. As others have pointed out, this is already being done on the Estonian, Swedish and Finnish Wikipedias. Bringing English Wikipedia in line with the other countries' practices would make it easier to link between the articles in different languages, for a start. Right now, if you want to read about the sinking in, say, Finnish, clicking on the Finnish Wiki link on here will take you to an article about the ship itself, and you have to click around again to get to the article about the sinking. Splitting the articles would make this whole thing more straightforward.Snowgrouse (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been going on for over half a year now, with ten support votes and three oppose votes. Would it be time to form a consensus by now? J I P  &#124; Talk 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support. The sinking should have its own article. Moondragon21 (Talk) 03:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks like the majority opinion is for splitting. I will try to find sources to support the 'pre-disaster' section of this article so that it is notable in its own right, to address that particular concern. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair warning — split likely to happen soon per majority view. If anyone has particularly strong opposing views, please air them now. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Sinking final report earliest URL
I found http://web.archive.org/web/19981203150420/http://www.edita.fi/aib_finland/estoneng/index.html which seems to be the earliest known URL online of the report WhisperToMe (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It very much looks incomplete, however. The images and child pages are missing.--Sommozzatore (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Previous trouble with the visor reported by ex-sailor
I'm not sure if this would make a good addition to the article, but I'm providing a translation anyway, as it IMHO provides a good argument against the conspiracy theories that have been going on. You decide. Basically, a Finnish TV personality said in a 2015 interview that when he used to work on the ship in the 80s as a sailor, they already had plenty of trouble with the visor; it was leaking water onto the car deck and they used to have to sledgehammer it shut (!)

Reliable? Verifiable? Who knows. But this sounds far more plausible than the conspiracy theories do. Snowgrouse (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Split carried out
I moved very nearly all of the material about the sinking to sinking of the MS Estonia per the decision to split the article. The article about the sinking is about two times as long as what remains in this article of the ship itself. The article about the sinking now also has six interwiki links, to Estonian, Italian, Russian, Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish. J I P &#124; Talk 21:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency in decks section
The section about decks says the ship had eleven decks, numbered from 0 to 10. However, only ten decks are listed. Deck 10 is missing. Which is it? Eleven or ten decks? J I P &#124; Talk 17:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right. And the info box says 9 decks! The deck plan found in this summary lists the roof of the bridge as an 11th deck. The term for that seems to be "Monkey Island". Although this deck is technically there I wonder whether it is common to count.--Sommozzatore (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

z
The ship that sank (the Estonia)sank to 85 meters,and all i actually wanted to know was,in miles,how deep is 85 meters,i no i no,ha.thank you,kind regards to whom it may concern! 82.132.184.82 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Mistake concerning the tonnage of the ship
The article tells us: Tonnage 15,598 GT. Source for this info is the JAIC investigation report.

Acoording to the report the tonnage of Estonia was 15,598 BRT, not 15,598 GT. These figures are not equal, so this mistake should be corrected. Kukkis75 (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)