Talk:PS General Slocum

correction
I removed this "fact" : "Van Shaik was pardoned by Theodore Roosevelt (not Taft as reported) in 1908."
 * According to contemporary NY Times reports he was convicted and sentenced in 1906, he entered Sing Sing prison on Feb 27, 1908 and was paroled 3 years 6 months later. He was pardoned by President Taft on December 19, 1912, but the pardon became effective on Christmas day that year.

Ydorb 17:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

St Mark's
The St. Mark's building is now the Community Synagogue/Max D. Raiskin Center at 325 East Sixth Street. The congregation of St. Mark's eventually merged with that of another church at 339 E. 84th St. which is now known as Zion St. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran Church. 

I wasn't sure this belonged in the article but put it here in case anyone might be interested. --Cam 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes/References
I thought I could 'fix' the references - there is a bare (1) and (2) in the text that probably refer to items in the references section, but I am not knowledgeable enough to 'fix' this. Perhaps someone else can take up the challenge? --Dumarest 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I converted the footnotes to use the ref format. The references could probably be better, but now that the ref format is applied, it'll be easier for someone to expand upon them. --JerryOrr 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how and where to place this wiki-wise: I am the director of the German documentary (1998) about the disaster and cannot confirm having seen any evidence that the life saving devices did actually have iron bars in them. I would have made use of any proof of this utterly cynical aspect, had I found any. This is not to say that it wasn't so, but I didn't come across anything but a few allegations or foggy recollections of people who thought they'd heard anything. -- Christian Baudissin, Munich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.160.94 (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Repetition
It seems like the "Significant Events" section should be incorporated into the rest of the piece, as it just reiterates and/or details things that could reside under existing headers. I don't feel like I know the story well enough to edit myself... but someone must! Snarfa 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Battery
In the section describing past problems, the link for "The Battery" no-longer points to a location but some Japanese film. I'm not sure what the correct place known as "The Battery" is, so I haven't corrected the issue myself. I think it needs something though, because I'm not sure many people easily understand the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.49.238 (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A few changes
I've copyedited it a bit, and I've also added some references from O'Donnell. --NellieBly (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

History
Just want to say how happy I am with the article as it stands. I did a lot of initial research and editing, including the original reference to J Robert Nash (Darkest Hours) and Eric Robinson entry (NY Historical Society). If I can find the original email I received from Eric, I will post it for those interested. I admit to a lot of the "significant events" entries (most from Nash's wonderful book) and do like the inclusion of these now into the general narrative format as a result of some smart editing from others. For those interested, pickup the Nash book if you can find it. Its never been reprinted and hard to find, but worth the effort if you come across a copy. 24.246.189.162 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)RSB

Ship or boat?
It's my recollection that nautical people get very touchy about whether something is a ship or a boat. As I understand it, a ship is generally a larger, grander vessel, and ships tend to be ocean-going. A boat is smaller and can't generally go to sea (among other apparent distinctions, except that a submarine is always a "boat"). From the descriptions, it seems that this vessel was not seaworthy, sticking to the rivers and harbors of the port where it was built (correct?). If so, it might be better to call the Slocum a steamboat (and she looks like the Robert E. Lee, etc.) instead of a steamship (like the Titanic). Thoughts? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkin' Bear Mountain Picnic Massacre
Could this incident have inspired the Bob Dylan song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.137.18 (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, as Bear Mountain is on the Hudson River about 60 miles from where the Slocum disaster took place on the East River. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the lyrics, I suppose the Slocum disaster might have provided the germ of the idea for Dylan's metaphor, and that he moved the action to the Hudson & Bear Mountain so as not to confuse people about his point and avoid the emotions still attached to the Slocum disaster -- but if any of that is true, we'd have to have a very specific citation from a very reliable source (like Dylan himself) in order to mention it in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. Here is the explanation for the Bear Mountain song Talkin' Bear Mountain Picnic Massacre Blues. Dabbler (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice research. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken is still correct. The newspaper story accounts for the 6000 fighting passengers in the song, but not the sinking. Any sinking cruise ship (not necessarily The Slocum) could have inspired the "plot" of the song (even the Lusitania). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.130.88 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Clive Cussler book
I'm changing the reference to Clive Cussler's "Sea Hunters 2" from "novel" to "book". A novel is defined as a fictitious narrative, and I understand "Sea Hunters" to be non-fiction. Elsquared (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on PS General Slocum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101109192634/http://www.numa.net:80/expeditions/general_slocum.html to http://www.numa.net/expeditions/general_slocum.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on PS General Slocum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106014315/http://forgotten-ny.com/YOU%27D%20NEVER%20BELIEVE/brothers/brothers.html to http://www.forgotten-ny.com/YOU%27D%20NEVER%20BELIEVE/brothers/brothers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Repaired the archive link "404", by retrieving an earlier archive
 * Repaired original link, the page had been moved to a different URL  WurmWoode  T   03:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

this article needs more references
There are swaths of text where references do not exist. Per WP:V, "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Please do not remove maintenance tags without addressing the underlying issue. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 06:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, "challenged or likely to be challenged", not "every fact must be referenced". Tagging facts which are not "likely to be challenging" is WP:OVERTAGGING, and often an indication that the tagger is ignorant of the subject matter. BMK (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hence why I tagged the entire article now. It still needs to be referenced more. If you need to see how its done, look at any FAC about ships. Llammakey (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I did in the first place (a section, not the entire article). "Likely to be challenged" is a matter of opinion, but it's best to write from the assumption that the reader is indeed "ignorant of the subject matter". — howcheng  {chat} 18:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

PS General Slocum
We defer on accessible&mdash; your bolded reply seems a bit cheeky.


 * 1) Bolding *IS NOT* access, it is merely eye candy
 * 2) By access, I meant the *commonsense* (web) kind, as in clickable, linked, as in being able to jump from the TOC to where ever the viewer would care to go, more quickly.
 * So, may I ask why are you playing at guardian over layout and access? The section in question is two long listings, that is, they are not both viewable at the same time within one easy gaze. So, why shouldn't the typical viewer have access to the portion they desire?  WurmWoode  T   01:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This layout is superior, please do not change it again. There is no reason to clutter up the TOC with popcult sub-categories. Access (top anyone) is provided via the heading, and it's more than simple to scroll down the section.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow! A little quick on the ? Isn't it supposed to be 3RR, *NOT* 2RR??
 * It is my understanding that one is allowed for a simple situation to edit the article and respond on the talk page&mdash; assuming a quick solution was alright.


 * Relative to my point of accessibility via the TOC:
 * Your first response was an edit comment, weasel on: bold is *access*
 * Your second response was another weasel: *superior* layout, and something like "let'em eat scroll"
 * Your humor, if that is what it is, is not coming across. And your superlative *superior* layout is a bit of a reach. And considering that the TOC is not that long, nor that deep, and, it already has that other feature, your superlative *clutter*, that is nesting to the same depth as I have been attempting to do. Visually the subheading provides the same eye candy as your bolding with the addition of access: a TOC link, no messier than the current nested structure.
 * So, to the issue: why are you against giving the reader direct access?

Overlinking in in first sentence
Do we really need the same wikilink TWICE in the first sentence of the article violating the MOS in several ways. I acknowledge that the MOS is not gospel but it has good practices and double linking to the same article in the first sentence seems over kill especially when one of the links is part of the bolded article title. Dabbler (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's what I wrote on my talk page:
 * The links serve two entirely different purposes, one to explain what "PS" means, and the other to explain what "steamboat" means in this context - and the connection between those two terms is far from obvious. If the same word or term had been linked twice in the same sentence, you'd have a point, but as it is, it is valuable to readers, who are unlikely to click on both links.
 * However, you have a point that linking is discouraged in the bolded text in the lede sentence, which I think is a reasonable rule, so I'm going to convert the link into a footnote. I hope that's an acceptable compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to fight over that, but I have widened he bolding to include the entire article title. Dabbler (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, gee golly willikers, thanks for "not fighting over" a perfectly reasonable compromise. Wow, I'm glad this wasn't over something really substantive, you probably would've brought your lawyer with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to fight over that, but I have widened he bolding to include the entire article title. Dabbler (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, gee golly willikers, thanks for "not fighting over" a perfectly reasonable compromise. Wow, I'm glad this wasn't over something really substantive, you probably would've brought your lawyer with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Numbers
The number of passengers is given differently in different sources. This would not be a problem if the text were properly written. However, when you state as a fact that there were more than 1400 passengers in one spot but also state that there were exactly 1388 people on board you make the article contradictory. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)