Talk:Sultana (steamboat)

untitled
I slightly rewrote bits of the article and created the archive. Minister of random walks 16:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states that it took place post-assassination but during the final weeks of the civil war. Lincoln was assassinated on the 12th, and most people consider the end to be Appomattox on the 9th-- Sultana didn't happen until the 27th, so is the statement on the article really accurate? - Loeden March 13, 2011 Loeden (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, there's the Robert E. Lee effect. Although Lee surrendered 4/9, he was not (contrary to the belief of many) the only commander the South had.  Several other forces continued to operate in the far south and west for a period of weeks or even months. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Video
The Youtube video is not really appropriate per the external links policy. Generally external links should be to material that is encyclopedia level and that will add to the reader's understanding but which can not be put in the article for reasons of space, copyright, etc. A memorial video of public domain images set to a pop song does not really meet that test. Thatcher 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Was this link removed? Should it be if it has not been removed?
 * Tschau, Dwightol102 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

lopsided article
Other than the intro, there's nothing in this article that isn't about the explosion (and "Tragedy" seems a bit melodramatic). Surely, something happened to the boat in the time between its construction and its final voyage... --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Gravestone refers to US Sultana
The gravestone of Melville Zacharias, indicates he perished in the Sultana explosion. He served in the 8th Michigan Cavalry, Company M and is interred in Neriah Cemetery (formerly Blouch), Rauch Road, Monroe County, Ida Township, Michigan.  Musicwriter (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

online book
Internet archive has a book on this: https://archive.org/details/lossofsultanarem00berr 71.163.117.143 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Naming - Sultana or SS Sultana? - et cetera
''[Discussion copied from Help desk] &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The article about the "SS Sultana" is labeled incorrectly. The title should be simply "Sultana" not "SS Sultana." I am the author of the book Disaster on the Mississippi: The Sultana Explosion, April 27, 1865 and the largest collector of Sultana related memorabilia and artifacts. I am the leading contributor and historical consultant to the Sultana Disaster Museum currently under construction in Marion, Arkansas. I have corrected and added to the article but I am unable to change the title from "SS Sultana" to simply "Sultana." The prefix of SS indicates that the vessel is a "steamship." It was not. It was a privately owned steamboat - a boat, not a ship. Please, please can you correct this. I have tried several times but can not find how to edit the title of an article. I would appreciate an help that you can provide. Thank you, Gene Eric Salecker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.229.19 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It would not be appropriate to rename the article to 'Sultana' - I think it is self-evident that their are more common usages for the word than the name for this particular vessel. At the moment, Sultana is a disambiguation page, listing the various meanings, which is probably the most appropriate way to handle the general problem. As for the specifics, if you are right, and 'SS Sultana' is not in fact the correct name for the vessel, we will have to consider an alternative title - possibly 'Sultana (steamboat)'. The way we do this is described in Moving a page - though you won't be able to do this yourself without registering an account. I suggest that you copy your post above to Talk:SS Sultana, where we can discuss this further (I'd like to confirm that 'SS' is in fact invalid), and I'll make the move for you if it seems appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See the title of this book. Many other hits for "ss sultana". Question is not as black-and-white as claimed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Btw, is it proper to add massive content citing only your own book? How does that differ from original research? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It isn't original research, as the term is used in Wikipedia - it is however possibly inappropriate, though that will partly depend on the acceptability of the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems mighty inappropriate to me. Great way to advertise a book (and, as you're fond of saying, Wikipedia is not a platform for free advertising). Maybe I meant COI. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See Attribution, and Conflict of interest - again it depends on the acceptability of the source. There is no policy expressly forbidding self-citation, and even if there were, we don't expect everyone to immediately understand every facet of Wikipedia policy. I think that per WP:AGF we need to start by looking at the source being cited first, to determine its usability. If Gene Salecker has recognised authority in the subject, and the book is worthy of citation, it isn't 'advertising' to cite it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I guess we won't know until someone here buys (ka-ching) and reads the book. Clearly, he isn't fairly representing a wide range of sources, as evidenced by the fact that he presents his view of the naming question as undisputed fact. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * While Sultana may be the correct form, the reasoning here is flawed as there is no consistent difference in definition between a ship and a boat. And many privately owned ships were called "SS" - like SS St. Marys Challenger or SS South American. Rmhermen (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Aside from the above mentioned problem, content like "In April 2015, on the 150th anniversary of the disaster, the town of Marion, Arkansas will open an interim Sultana Disaster Museum ..." is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:COI, as Mr. Salecker is, supposedly, a consultant of the mentioned museum (according to this author entry: . Removed that part (more should probably be discussed on the article talkpage, if necessary - not here on help desk) GermanJoe (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that almost all of this discussion might be better placed on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

[end of copy from Help desk]


 * Prefer the current title as it is clear to the reader what the subject is and the title is used by other sources such as the Library of Congress www.loc.gov/rr/news/topics/sultana.html, a page move would have to be to Sultana (steamboat) (which redirects back to here) or similar so I would suggest it is left alone. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll just say that 's move was completely out of line under the circumstances. The name was already under discussion here before the move (and, in fact, the discussion was obviously what prompted the move, since the editsum said "acc[ede] to authority"). It's my strong opinion that the name change lacks merit because of insufficient agreement among authoritative sources. It's an indisputable fact that we don't make changes that are under discussion. I won't engage in a move war but I would ask that the editor self-revert until consensus is reached. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been watching this article, because I lost a great-great-grandfather on the Sultana. I was pleased to see this edit last year, because I was aware that the "SS" designation was an error, but that edit didn't complete the process. I support the proposal to rename the article. In my opinion, the fact that the "SS" error occurs in places other than Wikipedia doesn't justify our allowing it to remain here. NameIsRon (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well that's just not how Wikipedia works. We don't make changes according to what we are "aware" are errors. We back them up with authoritative sources, not just one but a range of sources. If you spend a little time looking into it, you'll find plenty of authoritative sources using "SS Sultana", including the book title linked above. Using the same reasoning as is being applied by some here, one would conclude that "RMS Titanic" is incorrect because she is often referred to without the "RMS" prefix. That reasoninng is very flawed. Wikipedia's own article, Steamboat, begins with the statement: Steamboats sometimes use the prefix designation SS, S.S. or S/S (for 'Screw Steamer') or PS (for 'Paddle Steamer'), however these designations are most often used for Steamships. which directly contradicts the OP's claim that SS should never be used with steamboats. I'm no expert on the subject, but I know how to objectively weigh the available evidence, and I know how Wikipedia works is supposed to work . In any case, the fact remains that the move was premature and inappropriate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see possible justification for using the term "PS Sultana", since Sultana was a paddle steamer, but I'm not proposing such a change. I don't see how the "SS" term can be supported, since Sultana was not a screw steamer. I think the use of "SS Sultana" crept in because people had seen "SS" used with respect to other vessels, and just assumed it needed to be included. I think the contemporaneous references, such as in The New York Times, consistently used the name "Sultana". At that time, people were more aware of naming conventions for steamboats and steamships than is the case now. NameIsRon (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey folks. This isn't rocket science.  It seems clear that the vessel was not prefixed SS - steamship. This is a part of the formal name when used. I doubt that PS Sultana for paddlesteamer quite gets it either as that is a descriptive, not a part of the actual vessel designation. It IS, however, a steamboat by any definition and as other uses of Sultana have disambiguation by use of parentheses, I don't see where the vagueness about basic style comes into it. USS, SS, and MV ahead of the name denote an actual designation under some licensing or operating authority, but unless someone can site an actual record or document that confirms that SS was part of Sultana's actual name, then it should not be in the formal title for the article.   This is my view after studying vehicle nomenclature for about half a century. User:Mark Sublette


 * This is my view after studying vehicle nomenclature for about half a century. - Which is precisely the definition of original research. Clearly at least two editors in this discussion are clueless about Wikipedia editing principles, so unless someone else comes along I'm wasting my time here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the move revert. Now if we could simply set aside what we personally "know" and look only at the sources. There seems to be no shortage of secondary sources on both sides of the question, making it very difficult to resolve this per WP:COMMONNAME. So I'd suggest looking for a primary source. There must be some publicly available official document that would be the ultimate authority on the name, just as your birth certificate is the ultimate authority on your name, notwithstanding the "knowledge" of others to the contrary. Show me that document without the SS and I'll support the move. I think the burden to produce such a source is on those who want to make the change. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, you could request a move. I'm prepared to be on the losing side of such a discussion. But we currently lack a quorum here, and that looks to be the only way to get one. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Mandruss -- anyone could tell you the opposite -- why don't you, and the people who want to arbitrarily tack an "SS" on the name, show us that original document? And one "authoritative" book does not a case make. "SS" did not exist on that document, certainly not at that time. At that time, "SS" was used for "screw steamer" and "PS" was used for paddle steamers. It would be simply Sultana or PS Sultana. It was only later, after the paddle steamers became a thing of the past, that "SS" became construed as meaning "steamship" generally. As a source for all these affirmations I have just made, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_prefix All the info you need is right there. AtomAnt (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, wikipedians are advised not to use other Wikipedia articles for reference. Traditionally, we go to best reliable sources and look to see what the majority of those say on the subject. I'll confess I came to this discussion with a preconception. I thought I'd find myself agreeing with the SS position. And it's true that a very large number of sources do use the prefix SS when referring to Sultana. Another group (lesser in number) seems to rigorously avoid the prefix and always refers to her as Sultana. The difference seems to be that the lesser group is directly detailing the disaster and the greater group seems to be covering a survey of events, the Sultana disaster being only one such. To restate, based on my preliminary look at sources, it appears that those sources who seem to have the most accurate and detailed information always omit the SS before the ship name. Those who do use the prefix seem to have less expertise in the subject matter. The OR doesn't ever seem to use SS; contemporaneous and survivor accounts, based on my cursory reading, don't seem to use the prefix. With this in mind, I'm inclined to begin a formal "Requested Move" process, since it appears there may be some controversy based on disagreement in the above section. Since Sultana links to a disambiguation page, I'll propose to move this pagespace to Sultana (steamboat) (currently serving as a redirect to this space). Does that seem the correct move target, if such is supported by discussion? BusterD (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, BusterD, I believe the move you have suggested would be appropriate if the discussion supported it. In June 2014, after the edit by Geneerics, I started to perform a move ("being bold"), but I didn't think of the elegant solution you have proposed, and I just dropped the idea because I didn't want to lose the history of any of the related pages. Anyway, yes, I believe your suggestion is a good one. NameIsRon (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the 'SS' and 'PS' prefixes originated with Lloyd's Register and these prefixes were only applied to ocean-going ships, not to boats whose operation was confined almost entirely to rivers or inland waterways, so the boat in question was probably just the Sultana.


 * The prefixes were devised to give an insurer or shipper a guide to the type of ship being insured or the likelihood of a vessel arriving on time at its destination. Steam vessels were not so affected by winds or by being becalmed. Hence a steam ship was more likely to deliver the shipper's goods on time. For an insurer the steam vessel was less likely to end up on a lee shore and so the risk of loss of the vessel was lower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want to be that picky about it, it should be M/V or R/V Sultana, not SS. (Former Coastie. Yes, I do know of what I speak.) The 'common' practice, however, is and always has been SS ("S"ailing"S"hip or in this case "S"team"S"hip). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.7.66 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

SS Sultana → Sultana (steamboat) – Propose moving this subject to the Sultana (steamboat) namespace. Several editors in the thread above make the reasonable case that during the period in which the steamboat in question was actively plying the waters of the Mississippi River, "SS" prefixing a ship name referred to a screw steamer (which she decidedly was not), and "PS" referred to a paddle steamer (which she was). A G-search for sources finds 1980 listings of "PS Sultana", but none of them refer to this vessel. A similar search for "SS Sultana" brings 13,600 results, many of which are mirrors of this page. In this second search, a few reliable sources do appear, including a documentary on PBS, and Library of Congress (though the sources offered by the LOC page don't seem to use the SS prefix themselves). A search for "Sultana disaster" gives 11,900 results with some apparent overlap with the previous search, but largely without the prefix. A book search for "SS Sultana disaster" gives only 9 results, but a similar book search without the prefix gives 581 ghits. Now these numbers may be misleading, but if we look at the quality of sources revealed by such searches, we see by and large that the most authoritative modern books on the subject, W.O. Bryant's Cahaba Prison and the Sultana Disaster (U of Alabama Press), G.E. Salecker's Disaster on the Mississippi (Naval Institute Press), J.O. Potter's The Sultana Tragedy (Pelican Publishing), Alex Huffman's Sultana: Surviving the Civil War, Prison, and the Worst Maritime Disaster in American History (Harper Collins), none of these use the prefix when referring to the vessel. They use "the Sultana" or more often "Sultana". A cursory reading of these four sources seems to indicate that the vessel was not a steamship at all, but classified instead as a steamboat. Finally, a close look at the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion seems to indicate that immediately after the disaster, officials discussing the tragedy regularly referred to her as Sultana. Perhaps I've missed something but I can't find a mention of SS Sultana in the OR. I'd invite others to look over my cursory exploration. Since I can't find a link to a single contemporary document which lists Sultana as "SS", I believe the article should be moved to the more appropriate namespace "Sultana". Since that namespace is a disambiguation page, the most appropriate move target seems to be Sultana (steamboat), currently a redirect targeting this namespace. I urge those more knowledgeable than I on the subject of ship naming to help me discover the best answer, if any change is desired by the community. BusterD (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ("St. Louis" OR "New Orleans" OR "Mississippi") AND ("Sultana disaster" OR "Sultana explosion") AND "steamboat" gets "About 491 results" in books
 * ("St. Louis" OR "New Orleans" OR "Mississippi") AND ("Sultana disaster" OR "Sultana explosion") AND "SS Sultana" gets "About 24 results" in books


 * It simply says "SULTANA" on the side of a vessel whose hull is shown to extend only about one metre above water level. It doesn't seem to me to be a ship.
 * Support GregKaye 04:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Although in my view she is a "ship", that doesn't make any difference. There is no support from RS for using "SS" per WP:COMMONNAME; as a dab, "steamboat" seems exactly right - it is the normal descriptor for such vessels in US English. No prefix necessary. Davidships (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, proposal is spot on, 'nuff said. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, based on BusterD's summary of ghits and my own research into the topic. SS is a prefix applied to steamships and a look at this vessel is sufficient to determine that this is a steamboat, or riverboat, designed for use in flat, shallow waters rather than for oceangoing service. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support following User:BusterDs well reasoned proposal. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment for full disclosure, I took the liberty of inviting members of Wikiproject Ships to comment here, especially for members' ready familiarity with such pagespace naming. The enormous success of that project (which does cover this exact subject) lies in the collaboration over time of many, many competent members to move pagespace forward. I believe that this pagespace could one day be raised to FA quality, given the numerous reliable secondary sources (both historical and modern) available to a researcher. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support BusterD has stated the case very well. NameIsRon (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

the tragedy/ Bostona II
"While this fight for survival was taking place, the southbound steamer Bostona II, coming downriver on her maiden voyage,[17] arrived at about 3:00 am, an hour after the explosion, and overtook the burning wreck to rescue scores of survivors. " If Bostona II was coming downriver, while Sultana had been heading upriver, I question the use of the word "overtook" in this sentence. It suggests both vessels were hearing in the same direction. Perhaps "came to the site of" would be better. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) I went ahead and changed it to "arrived at the site of". Terry Thorgaard (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * While I don't disagree with your new text, I believe the original was also correct. After the explosion, the burning wreck could not have continued upriver since it had no source of power anymore to drive the paddle wheels; it would have floated downriver with the current, and the Bostona II coming downriver under power would have overtaken it. Biblioteqa (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * “Overtaking” means passing, as you might “pass” another vehicle on the road that’s dawdling along (bow to stern); This wouldn’t therefore be an overtaking but rather a head-on (when you’re bow to bow). Getting to such minutia of describing it as “head on” in this case is a bit silly, but it wasn’t overtaking. navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=Rule13 (the cited rule is from USCG but matches the international definition, down to the degree.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.7.66 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"Crossing the Deadline" Historical Fiction Mention?
The book Crossing the Deadline: Stephen's Journey's final part is directly tied into re-telling the story of the Sultana disaster (from the first person perspective of the titular, real life individual Stephen Gaston). Should it be mentioned under the "Media" section?

Doc Blue Bird (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Confusion about the casualty numbers
In the casualties section, it says "the most recent evidence indicates 1,168". But a few sentences later it says "the most recent research places the number at 969" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.1.167 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * A closer reading shows that the "1,168" number pertains to the number of deaths, and the "969" number refers to the number of survivors. There is no need for confusion. NameIsRon (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And an even closer 'reading' shows that number is completely unsubstantiated. No source, nothing... :) 2A01:5A8:411:AEBA:A97A:B64F:2B36:B77E (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Dates, -a, -um
1. Paragraph 1 & the inset say the accident occurred April 27, 1865. Paragraph 1 calls it the day after Lincoln died. Er ... huh? April 15 and April 27 are consecutive?

2. I write history myself, and here is the kind of datum one might think is helpful, and isn't. I've caught myself doing it tons of times. Paragraph 1 says news of the explosion was overshadowed by Lincoln's assassination by John Wilkes Booth. Nix the assassin's name. It's irrelevant in the&mdash;otherwise interesting&mdash;statement about the concurrency of the two events.

Jimlue (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's what the lead paragraph says: "The disaster was overshadowed in the press by events surrounding the end of the Civil War, including the killing of President Abraham Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Booth just the day before."


 * No, it does not say Lincoln died the day before the sinking of the Sultana. It says what happened the day before was the killing of John Wilkes Booth. NameIsRon (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)