Talk:Patria disaster

British fatalities

Zero0000 - thanks for a great article. Re: "The majority of persons on board were rescued by British and Arab boats that rushed to the scene, but approximately 267 others, including about 50 crew and British soldiers, lost their lives." - do the sources give a precise number for British only fatalities? --mervyn 06:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the sources listed here give that information, but I'll scan them again. Actually this "50" and who it consisted of is the one thing in the article that I'm least sure about. --Zero 10:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Total fatalities

The disaster section lists 209 bodies being found, while the aftermath section lists 167. Is there any way to reconcile these numbers? Would the British casualties not being included in the lesser number account for the difference? Darkonc (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Moyne

At the time of these incidents, Lord Moyne was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and had no role in the Middle East. None of the histories that cite British internal documents connect Moyne to the Patria in any way. More importantly, these sources name the British officials responsible for the decision-making here and Moyne was not one of them. Popular accounts which claim otherwise are based either on innocent mistakes or on misinformation created by sympathisers of his murder in 1944. --Zero^talk 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The historian Bell, an expert on Moyne and on issues relating to this era, depicts the connection of Moyne and his approach to the Turkish in this incident. The link to Moyne doesn't indicate his responsibility but indicates that Moyne may be a relevant article to read in the general subjects of ships like the Patria and the failure to attend to Jewish refugees coming to the land of Israel. Even if it didn't involve the Patria (as alleged by Bell) it involves the general issue, that's why it's in a "see also".

Your own words refute you. The Patria had nothing to do with the Turks. You are confusing it with the Struma. Moreover, I cannot find any claim by Bell that Moyne had anything to do with the Patria. --Zero^talk 12:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If the ship was not capable of sinking (the Titanic sort) then you need to a cite an expert who will contradict Haganah's claims, or atleast say that there was no way that the ship will sink on its way back. Itzchak Sadeh explicitly claimed that the ship was corrupted and ruined. I doubt they just made it up. Amoruso 00:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any claim except that the ship had an iron hull and was 27 years old. Those are verifiable relevant facts and you are not entitled to remove them. I have no interest in whether you believe the Hagana claim or not. You reported their claim; that's the limit of your entitlement. --Zero^talk 12:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, the age and structure of the ship have nothing to do with the rotten claim. Juxtoposing them together is wrong. Moving it into a different section about the description of the ship meets the requirement, while juxtoposing them together is WP:OR unless a WP:RS made the connection. Amoruso 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

took the liberty and did. Also added Lehi's persepective on this which makes the lord moyne link more relevant. Even if he's not to blame in person, he was blamed as a representive of the british empire (current one, regardless of the past), exactly for an event like this. So a reader can see what reaction certain Jews had in response for the british blame, which was concentrated as a symbol on moyne whether or not he is responsbile also for personal actions. thanks. Amoruso 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should go through the dispute resolution process or possibly arbitration. It would be a dangerous precedent to allow article content to be sourced to foreign language novels written by extremists. --Ian Pitchford 18:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Shamir is one of the most respected Israeli writers. Sure he's not Benny Morris to you but he's not an extremist simply for belonging to the far right wing of the map - in the past belonged to the left, in fact in the time of the events belonged to the left. He wrote a biography in hebrew, which is probably being translated, hardly a foreign language in this case, and it's WP:V and WP:RS. I'm removing the tag, since it's the wrong one as it's not disputed at all - this was the Lehi position obviously. Btw, Shamir is not more extremist than Natan Alterman, nobel prize winner Shmuel Yosef Agnon and so on, all who were part of the same great Israel movement. Not being an extreme left borderline extreme marxist communist half palestinian like Ilan Pappe and others doesn't make you an "extremist" as in illegtimacy. Please Stop inventing wikipedia policies in this regard. Amoruso 01:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Moshe Shamir is a respected writer, however as Ian noted his book on Stern is listed as as "biographical novel" even though other of his books are called "biographies" or "non-fiction".[1] The description "biographical novel" is an indicator that it is based on fact but does not claim to be historically precise. It is a novel (i.e., fiction) based on a background of fact. Such books are not reliable as historical sources even if they are great works of literature. Besides your source not being adequate for Lehi's opinion, I can't see any reason why Lehi's opinion on this operation is significant. They were not in any way involved in it and were not a significant political force at the time. --Zero^talk 05:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is interesting because it's an aftermath/reactions section and it's interesting to see the different reactions of the yishuv. I don't see what purpose it serves not to use it. The Lehi position on this is I'm sure not controversial/disputed and have been widely published - that particular version is nice though. Shamir explains he called it a biographical novel and not a biography because of what it's missing - more on his family and so on and he also wanted to clarify that the responsiblity of what's said is on him and not on yair's family. But Shamir based this particular part on a comprehensive biography of Ada Amichal (not a novel) which also confirmed this citation. Amoruso 05:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this extremely distasteful: "the British are on the same side with the Germans when it comes to the Jewish question and that the British are to blame for the drowning of hundreds of Jews", considering the price of the fight against Nazism for both the British and the Yishuv and considering the fact that the Haganah sank the ship. However, if your main interest is the inclusion of a brief section dealing with the different reactions of the Yishuv I think the following would be adequate "... oscillations in policy, together with the despair created by the White Paper, the land laws of 1940, and the tragedy of the refugee ships Struma and Patria, led to the secession from the Haganah of two extremist groups: Irgun Z'wai Leumi (National Military Organization) and Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (Stern group). ('The Palestine Problem II-New Factors In The Racial Balance Of Power, Growth Of Jewish Underground Groups From a Special Correspondent Lately in Palestine.', The Times, Wednesday, September 26, 1945; pg. 5; Issue 50257; col F.). If you want to keep the stuff attributed to Shamir I'd like to take this through dispute resolution. --Ian Pitchford 10:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Distasteful ? This is Lehi's opinion , not yours. I find a lot of opinions distasteful but Lehi's opinion here is relevant. Your quote is fine though seems factually wrong - the Irgun existed before 1940 of course, so it seems strange. But of course you can add it (the lehi quote should stay). Lehi's quote is relevant. It could be changed though to NMO if we want to be exact, but it's a valid reaction of this section of the Jewish forces. Irgun is even mentioned in the article as in thinking to bomb the ship too so it makes sense to see what they'll have to say. At the time it still was the NMO and closely related to the irgun of course, like it always was. You can take it through dispute resolutions if you like, the quote is relevant... Amoruso 00:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to accept the material or source. If you don't like the alternative offered then yes, let's go for dispute resolution. --Ian Pitchford 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Book of Moshe Shamir

The book "Ya'ir" by Moshe Shamir is a novel. That means it can't be used as a source of historical data. Amoruso claims it is not a novel at all, but since Amoruso appears to have the book we can wonder who is trying to kid who here. The reason I am reasonably confident that this book is a novel is that it says so right on the cover of the book! Take a look at the cover here. The two words in small red letters say "biographical novel". --Zero^talk 04:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"biographical novel". I addressed your concern here [2]. btw, are you and ian pitchford the same person ? You even took the same break from wikipedia at the same time. Amoruso 10:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not Ian. You are not a good editor. Now that we have clarified our roles here, stop trying to use a novel as a source. --Zero^talk 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be funny ? Amoruso 08:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we go by this, and because it's essentially a biography, no problem with it. comment by impartial for comment and it's non controversial and well known, could be replaced in the future but for now like said it's a keep - [3] Amoruso 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You lost this argument. Get over it. --Zero^talk 11:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Convincing argument there. Amoruso 01:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A "biographical novel" is a novel, which is fiction, which is not a reliable source. It's really that simple. However, you mentioned that the novel has "relevant references". Perhaps if you could provide them instead? —Ashley Y 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That would not be enough either. He has to cite material from them directly, not just copy Shamir's claims about those sources. --Zero^talk 10:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Moshe Sharett approved the operation?

A Hebrew site - "Daat" [4], which tell the history from the Irgun point of view, and therefore, is not suspected to be a supporter of Mapai and Moshe Sharett, bring a citation from Dalya Ofer book Derech Bayam (A way in the sea) (page 55), which says that apparently, Sharett did not know about the operation.Tushyk 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article by Meir Chazan that is cited in the article argues that the trail of responsibility cannot avoid Sharett as he was in charge and present at the place the decision was made. Then Chazan quotes from a 1962 letter from Sharett to Rabbi Haim Bloch of New York, which appears to settle the question:

I must confirm the fact . . . that the Patria was sunk by the order of the undersigned and in any event by his authorization.. . . I have never spoken about this matter in public. But I did have the opportunity in more restricted circles to note that the sinking of the Patria occurred by authorization of the supreme national body operative at that time, i.e. the Political Department of the Jewish Agency, headed at the time by the undersigned.. . . Had I been asked on the public stage, whether orally or in writing, about the role I had played in this incident, I would not have concealed the truth.. . . I would not have boasted about an act so bloody. But I would not have considered it an action that necessitated apologizing for. Rather, it was the fulfillment of a duty and the assumption of responsibility. Although authorization was given only for the plan to cause damage to the ship alone and not for anything entailing possible victims, in such actions it is not always possible to foresee the outcome. And whoever authorizes the action bears responsibility for its results, both anticipated and unforeseen. During the period of my tenure as head of the Political Department of the Jewish Agency and thereafter as a member of the Israeli government, I participated in numerous decisions that cost human lives. This cannot be avoided in the political life of a people struggling for survival, where its sons are called upon to sacrifice their lives for its future. [Chazan, p67-68]

--Zero^talk 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To my dull English, Sharett words looks more like taking responsibility for things that have been done while he was on duty, and not necesserily things that he knew and approved. Just for the record, my free translation to the paragraph from Dalya Ofer book (1988), (sorry for the English mistakes):

"…the leadership of the Jewish Agency didn't know about it a thing, neither the political comeetee of Mapai. Apparently, the decision was made at the senior rank of the Hagana, by Eliahu Golomb, Shaul Avigur and Israel Galili – with the support of Berl Katznelson, without those people getting to a real debate with the political rank. From the papers that we have it looks as even Moshe Shertok (Sharett) didn't know the details of the things. In the summer of 1977 Shaul avigur told that during the political effort that was made to prevent deportation, him and Golomb went to Jerusalem to councel with their friends in the Jewish Agency. They met Berl Katznelson and talked with him about their plan and he supported the plan to dammage the ship. Without listening to other views and without talking with Shertok at all, they saw Katznelson words as an approval to the action".Tushyk 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tushyk. Concerning Sharett's letter, we can always wonder if he was telling the literal truth but "by the order of the undersigned and in any event by his authorization" is hard to interpret any way except as an admission that he knew about it and approved it at the time. Anyway, concerning Dalya Ofer, I notice now that Chazan discusses her book:

On the basis of an interview with Avigur, Dalia Ofer is of the view that Eliyahu Golomb (head of the Haganah), Galili and Zisling, acting with Katznelson's backing, gave the green light for the operation. In her analysis, the decision-making process here shows how the Haganah was utilized instrumentally to advance activist positions both in Mapai and the Zionist movement at a time when they were minority views." But as we will see, this view is not borne out by what actually transpired in the Patria affair. [Chazan, p66]

So Chazal regards Ofer's opinion as being disproved by the evidence. Maybe we need to expand the article slightly to note that there is a difference of opinion on this. If you want to see Chazan's article, send me mail by the link at my home page and I'll send you a pdf file. --Zero^talk 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

illegal or underground

Guy changed "illegal" to "underground" in "The Zionist illegal immigration organization Mossad Le'Aliya Bet". First, the source for this sentence (Ofer, see bib.) uses "illegal" and we aren't supposed to second-guess our sources. Second, the offered reason "It was not an illegal organization as the League of Nations Mandatates Commission never agreed to the 1939 British White Paper. Perhaps it was illegal in Britain but that is irrelevent in terms of law" is incorrect. Britain was empowered to regulate immigration into Palestine. There is no dispute about that at all, nor does anyone claim that prior approval from the Mandates Commission was required to establish regulations. Actually it was the other way around: the Mandates Commission did not overturn the regulations so they remained the law. The situation was similar to a law that appears to violate the constitution: it remains the law until a sufficiently high court strikes it down. Of course people have argued that the White Paper violated the Mandate charter and so was unconstitutional in that sense, but we are supposed to report what our sources say and not make our own arguments. Btw, the sentence is saying that the immigration was illegal not that the organization was illegal - that could be clarified if it isn't clear enough. --Zero^talk 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying it was illegal is of course WP:POV of the British. The British had the mandate and its rules obviously, but from the other point of view it was an illegal occupation of the homeland of the Jewish people, for example. We don't use the word "illegal" as a neutral term, but rather "illegal according to..." as in "terrorist actions illegal per Israeli law..." etc. The word "illegal" is of course used in the traditional sense by the Jews too - since it was illegal, then Jews too called it illegal. It was moral but it was illegal according to the British. Probably best to add "" to the word to show it's a quotation and not an WP:NPOV neutral fact. Amoruso 10:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Illegal" means "illegal according to the legal authority at the time". Like it always means. --Zero^talk 11:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Was the sinking of this boat carried out by the Haganah? Also, I see disaster in the title and as one of the sections, is this correct wording. Was this an intentional act? The body of the article leads the reader to believe this but the lead sentence makes no mention of it? Anyways, I am sure I'll be educated shortly, cheers and thanks--Tom 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)!

Also, the Haganah article makes no mention of this incident? --Tom 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Disaster is correct too. Yes, the Haganah sunk the ship. Its intention was to damage the ship so that the ship won't be able to sail away, but it blew up with horrific results. Amoruso 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have brought this up at RfC under Should integrity be a key attribute in an editor? PalestineRemembered 21:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It should, yes. Amoruso 21:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So how do you explain the fact that the culprits in this case, the people who actually sank this ship, costing the lives of over 250 people, have been repeatedly reverted from this article? Are we in the business of accurately reporting history, or are we in the business of deception? PalestineRemembered 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten the article, while building on the previous version, to address some of the issues that have been raised here and to improve the sourcing and level of detail in the article. Hopefully it should now be a bit more rounded and comprehensive. I should mention one issue which I'm sure someone will bring up - I've removed the references to Moshe Shamir's biographical novel Yair. It's not usable as a source; it would be different if it was purely an autobiography, but as a partial work of fiction we simply can't reliably tell which elements are fiction and which aren't. -- ChrisO 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that offend doesn't mean "to insult", but "to provoke anger". I see that you've chosen to use the same wording as in the book, although as you say, I used a 'slightly different form that's a bit less plagiaristic'. Tewfik^Talk 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually my wording is slightly different from the book's. I don't know if you're a native English speaker, but "offend" carries overtones of "insulting" rather than "provoking anger", which is why I felt that it wasn't the appropriate word to use in this context. -- ChrisO 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Patria.jpg

Image:Patria.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, the image is actually in the public domain. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

3 points

• Is it correct to use the word deported in the third line of the article? I believe the answer is NO. I think it is more accurate to use a sentence showing that those Jewish immigrants were prevented from landing in the British Mandate of Palestine simply because they were not living at first place.

• I remember that i read once that the plans were to send those immigrants to Madagascar. is there any one who has an idea about that.

• Adopting the Haganah reasoning and illustration of why and how that disaster happened in the first paragraph is not acceptable. I think we have to present the Haganah narrative in more neutral way, instead of taking it as a matter of fact. --Wisamzaqoot (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. No sure this article strictly qualifies as Military History but leaving tag. --dashiellx (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Patria bombing?

Should this article be renamed to Patria bombing? "Disaster" makes it sound like the sinking was some sort of unfortunate semi-natural occurrence, like a ship hitting an iceberg, but of course the Patria's sinking resulted from a deliberate human action - an act of terrorism, essentially - rather than the natural causes or negligent actions that are the cause of most disasters. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The deliberate action was to stop the ship from being sent back to the Nazi claws, hardly an act of terrorism by any standards. The disaster was that the rescue operation didn't work and had the opposite result. 46 books calling it Patria Disaster [5], 1 book calling it Patria bombing [6] so I think the wording was correct here. Amoruso (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? I thought the "deliberate action" of planting a bomb on the passenger liner was done to prevent the English from shipping the Jewish passengers off to internment in another part of the British Empire. Did the English ever say anything about sending the Jewish passengers to Germany?

And yes, the ship was bombed -- sunk by a deliberate human action, regardless of the explanations given after the fact. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

The title of the article is a typical zionistic eufemism. The correct title is: "THE PATRIA TERROR ATTACK". The Hagganah group was a 100% terrorist group and bombing a civilian ship is off course a terror action. Naming the this terror action by eufemisms as " disaster" is zionistic hasbara( propaganda) ,the only reason of which is an clumsy attempt to hide the truth.

some wording change in the lead

Still says the British considered them illegal immigrants, but the article use the word "refugees" a lot and expands on the whole Nazi history. This has a place in the lead. Amoruso (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, do you have a reason apart from insanity for deleting my comment about the Eva Feld article? -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Zscarpia, as far as I can tell this is your first comment on this talk: page. Can you explain which comment you are referring to, and why you removed Amoruso's comment? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Something has become very screwed-up somewhere. The history sequence displayed to me until now was that Amoruso deleted my original comment. Hence, my comment to him asking why he deleted it. Today is the first time that I've seen Nudve appearing. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

When I look at the Talk page history, I see your first comment on Feb 11, 2009, removing Amoruso's last comment of Jul 7, 2008. Perhaps you had some browser difficulties; in any event, it might be prudent to strike through your comment to Amoruso, who hasn't edited since Oct 6 2008. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be better just to delete everything below Amoruso's comment? -- ZScarpia (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would just strike-through your comment of 18:14, 11 February 2009. You can use the <s> and </s> tags to do it. That way history is preserved, and it becomes clear it was just some sort of mix-up. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment struck-out. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Eva Feld article

To me, disabling a ship implies the carrying out of an act causing a breakdown in its motive or steering systems. I think that it is fairly obvious that a bomb placed next to the hull sheathing is intended to cause a breach leading to flooding of the ship. Eva Feld, in the article The Story of the S/S Patria, in which a detailed description of how the bomb was smuggled aboard is given, says that the intention was to sink the ship, but that a far bigger hole than intended was blown in its hull and the ship sank too quickly for those on-board to escape safely. I have seen claims that the intention was to break a propeller shaft, but the sinking theory makes more sense to me. To sink the ship, the construction and placement of the bomb would have been far less critical. Sinking the ship would have hindered deportation efforts more. And, it would have been more spectacular and therefore had more symbolic power. -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That might be a valuable link , but I can't see exactly what it says - can you provide quotes? PR^talk 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading article Eva Feld's article, I think I saw things that aren't there explicitly. The statement that the intention had been to blow a small hole in the hull was made by Yehuda Lapidot on the Irgun site, a source used by the Jewish Virtual Library:

The Haganah leaders decided to prevent the Patria from leaving port by sabotage. A mine was prepared at Haifa, concealed in a cloth bag and smuggled aboard the ship, where it was handed over to one of the Haganah liaison officers. On November 25, 1940, at about 9 a.m. the mine was detonated. The intention was to blast a small hole in the vessel's side so that that it would slowly take in water allowing time to evacuate all those on board. However, the mine blasted a large hole and water flooded into the hold. Within 15 minutes the ship began to list with only a small portion remaining above water. Some 250 people (200 of them Jews, and most of the remainder British soldiers) went down with the ship. This was the largest number of victims of any single operation conducted by an organization since the beginning of British rule in Palestine.

If read after the Lapidot account, the following sentences in the Eva Feld article do come across as suggesting that the intention had been to blow a hole, but not such a large one:

The Haganah also put up an investigative body to find out why such a relatively small amount of explosives could create such a huge hole in a large ship. That the entire ship would sink within fifteen minutes was incomprehensible. It came to the conclusion that the superstructure was in extremely poor condition and that it was unable to withstand the pressure.

If the Lapidot account hasn't been read first, though, the meaning is more ambiguous. Also, earlier in the article, there is a specific denial that the intention had been to sink the ship:

According to the testimony of Monya Mardor, "There was never any intent to cause the ship to sink. The British would have used this against the Jewish population and show it as an act of sabotage against the war effort."

However, Monya Mardor appears only to have been the courier who took the bomb onto the ship; he didn't plant it and he wasn't the director of the operation. No justifying reason is given why Mardor's opinion should be accepted as authoritative.

The first plan described by Feld involved swimming or towing a bomb out to the Patria and attaching it somewhere near the aft end of the vessel. This would have had to have been a point near the waterline and could have only been somewhere on the hull or the upper end of a rudder. Since the Patria was a liner, though, I think that it's unlikely that the rudder or rudders would have been exposed at the surface. Attaching a bomb to the hull can have only one purpose - breaching the hull - and breaching the hull at the aft end of the vessel can only have been done with the intention of causing the ship to start sinking by the stern. One question isn't answered in the articles: where was the bomb placed? To disable the ship, I think that it would either have had to have been attached to a piece of machinery or to have been placed against the hull (with the intention of blowing a hole). If placed against the hull, presumably the intention was to blow a small hole. In an old ship, the chances were that the hull plates were riveted rather than welded and, of course, riveted hulls are designed to resist pressure from outside by bracing plates against an internal framework, not to resist internal pressures caused by an explosion. If a large hole was blown, I think the chances are that the rivets holding a plate failed rather than that a hole was blown in a plate itself. Speculation on my part, of course, but, hopefully, not uninformed speculation. -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. This was a calculated act of violence that killed more Jews than any Palestinian terrorists have ever managed to do. I see no indication that it was "an accident" (wherein the ship was meant to have been immobilised, not sunk), hence it was an act of mass killing. We don't make excuses for OBL bringing down the WTC, even though nobody expected that to happen. There may be editors who wish to apply "Original Research" to the precise culpability of the perpetrators but their efforts will have no influence over what we write, and the opinions expressed in partisan sources will have little influence either. PR^talk 20:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is full of sources documenting that the intent was to cripple the ship, but that the amount of explosives was miscalculated. Your personal analysis that contradicts these sources is of no interest or relevance. NoCal100 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-read the article. No references are provided anywhere where it is stated that the intention was to disable the ship or that the amount of explosive was miscalculated. We do have a source, Yehuda Lapidot, who says that the intention was to sink the ship slowly. That is of relevance. -- ZScarpia (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)