Talk:SS Andrea Doria

Missing sources

The section about "Litigation and determination of fault: 1956–1957" contains a list of unsourced statements. Wikipedia is as good as its sources. No sources, no value. Just babble. The section should be removed. 2001:B07:646B:4D36:1542:76B6:FC17:40EC (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Or we could just add tags requesting additional soucing (there is one ref there already). Better that than just deleting all that content. And I'm not sure why you call it "babble"... it's quite understandable. - wolf 17:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Article treats speculation that Stockholm's radar display was set to the wrong range as likely, but this has been convincingly challenged by Halpern (2008)

Several passages in this article mention the speculation that the radar display on Stockholm was set to a range of 5 miles but interpreted as if it had been set to 15 miles. This speculation, which is repeated in several sources, originated from the article "The Andrea Doria–Stockholm Disaster: Accidents Don't Happen", by John C. Carrothers in the August 1971 issue of the United States Naval Institute's Proceedings. Note that this speculation was always denied by the third mate who was commanding Stockholm when the collision occurred. Samuel Halpern's 2008 analysis of the accident, "An Objective Forensic Analysis of the Collision Between Stockholm and Andrea Doria", argues (convincingly, to my mind) that Stockholm's radar display was set correctly, and that Carrothers had misinterpreted Stockholm's course recorder track. Although this source is self-published, it was created for a presentation at the Maine Maritime Academy and presumably accepted by them; also, it has since been cited in some published sources. It seems to me that the article should at least mention this disagreement, rather than treating the Stockholm radar display speculation as likely truth as it does now. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't say "today". Say when.

One passage in the article reads as follows:

"Stockholm's bow was replaced in New York at a cost of $1 million. Today, the former Stockholm sails as MV Astoria and is registered in Portugal. She is the oldest ocean liner still in service."

But that passage contains a reference to something written in 2019. Who knows whether the former Stockholm is still in service in late 2023 ?

It is much better to state at least what year a given statement — that may be dependent on time — is true. It is a very bad idea to write "today" since someone may be reading that four or 10 or 20 years later, when a statement may no longer be true.

Removal of reference in fiction

I've removed the following content from the "Fiction" section under "Books":

In Elora Maxwell's The Shore of Forever (2023), the sinking of Andrea Doria is told from the perspectives of three characters: Eloisa Nicoletti aboard the SS Andrea Doria, Arden Lund aboard the MS Stockholm, and Adeline Darbonne aboard the Île de France.

This was added by an IP address. In one of the edit summaries, they say that they wrote the novel they are referencing (see here) and then went on to add the book's Amazon page as a reference (see here).

I've removed this reference since I feel it violates several Wikipedia policies/guidelines including WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:OR and WP:RS. If anyone else would like to add their two cents, I'd be willing to discuss it here. My Pants Metal (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, WP:OR probably doesn't apply here since it's a work of fiction. Still, I think the other policies apply. My Pants Metal (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with removal Lyndaship (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with removal, also Cuprum17 (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)