Talk:SS Czar

Within MILHIST scope?
This article was listed for assessment at WikiProject Military History which hhas resulted in discussions about whether or not this falls within the scope of the project. I'd like to get opinions from other editors on this. I've copied the section below from the assessment page. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Begin text copied from WikiProject Military history/Assessment
 * SS Czar, recently expanded. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is within our scope - a civilian ocean liner (with civilian crew) which was chartered between 1946 and 1949 by the Minister of War, but still managed by a civilian company from Liverpool. Before i'll remove the WP:Milhist banner from its talk page I would like to see some opinions from my other colleagues. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My rationale for including it in WP:MILHIST:
 * It served as HMT Czar during World War I, and was considered a part of the U.S. Navy's Cruiser and Transport Force during World War I.
 * It served as a Polish troopship at the beginning of World War II
 * It served as a British troopship from 1940 (not 1946) during World War II.
 * — Bellhalla (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it actually "served". Even when it was attached to the Cruiser and Transport Force, the ship was under civilian management. Would we include Boeing 747 within our project because its cargo versions are transporting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? --Eurocopter (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * End copied text


 * Eurocopter, comparing this article to Boeing 747 is a false analogy. If I were advocating that ocean liner was within the scope of this project, you would have a valid comparison. So what do we do about a ship like SS Samuel Huntington, an American liberty ship sunk in World War II? It was owned by the United States Maritime Commission and run by a civilian crew under management of a civilian company and carried troops and supplies for the Allies before it was sunk in a German air attack. Did it really "serve"? Is it only within the purview of MILHIST by virtue of the fact that it was unlucky enough to be sunk? Or should it, too, be under consideration for removal? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll bite. For me, the trooping duties from WWII onwards clearly make it under the purview of the MILHIST project. It was designated HMT, and was used during the Second World War to help troops. The argument that it was still under civilian ownership is irrelevant in my view as many ships are during war time. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary are technically merchant ships, but they fall under the jurisdication of the Royal Navy and CINCFLEET. The same can be said here, they are civilian ships under military jurisdication, as such they should be included under the MILHIST project and already are. Consider SS Thistlegorm as well. The precedent is clearly there in my opinion. Woody (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not false analogy. For troops transport, governments used to charter ocean liners in those times, instead of chartering/leasing civilian airlines as in our days. SS Samuel Huntington was a ship owned by the United States Maritime Comission which was an institution of a Government directly involved in the war - also, the United States Maritime Comission was actually the US reserve naval auxiliary force. I would propose moving this discussion/adding a note to the main project talk page, in order to see additional opinions from my colleagues and other members. --Eurocopter (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not actually the same thing Woody, those two ships were both operated by Government institutions/agencies, while this one was operated by a private company - this is my point. --Eurocopter (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * However, this may fall within our scope as it was owned between 1946 and 1949 by the Minister of War. But, I still think that ships entirely own by private companies, which were chartering for different governments during wars, should not be included in our project. --Eurocopter (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)