| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MS Hans Hedtoft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from MS Hans Hedtoft appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 5,000 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 30, 2012, January 30, 2016, and January 30, 2019. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
the jinx of the "unsinkable" ship edit
'Dit schip kan niet zinken!' "Het is gemaakt van ijzer, Sir - ik verzeker u, het kan."98.67.187.186 (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Inquest edit
Was there no inquest? - wloveral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.105.203.119 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- They didn't have any survivors and no traces at all of the wreck (a lifebelt washed ashore in the Faroes a couple of months later), while it was clear from the distress calls that the ship had indeed struck an iceberg. Not much material for an inquest there. 195.67.149.173 (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
A ship that took four hours to sink should have given crew and passengers plenty of time to take to the lifeboats. And by 1959 lifeboats would have had emergency radios. It says that conditions were the worst seen. Is it known what the conditions were? Was there a storm that could have swamped the lifeboats, or just heavy fog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.134.50 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MS Hans Hedtoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318005148/http://www.sbib.dk/documents/Skibslister/1959.pdf to http://www.sbib.dk/documents/Skibslister/1959.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212164111/http://iserit.greennet.gl:80/bgbw/contact.html to http://iserit.greennet.gl/bgbw/contact.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}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MS Hans Hedtoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160516001806/http://www.arkiv.gl/Forsiden/tabid/36/language/en-US/language/da-DK/Default.aspx to http://www.arkiv.gl/Forsiden/tabid/36/language/en-US/language/da-DK/Default.aspx
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404050613/http://home9.inet.tele.dk/svhh/Hanshedtoft.htm to http://home9.inet.tele.dk/svhh/Hanshedtoft.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Unsinkable? edit
The claim that ship was regarded as unsinkable is almost impossible to credit given the history of that claim as applied to another ship. The claim sounds sensationalist and the source does not strike me as reliable. Per WP:REDFLAG this really needs to be better sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's an official gov't site. Removing tag.50.111.34.214 (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's a municipal website that does not indicate any source for the claim. I have also been unable to find any corroborating evidence. If the claim is accurate there should be some evidence, somewhere else, that predates the sinking. I remain highly dubious about this claim which sounds suspiciously like it was invented to add some kind of connection to the Titanic. If this is the only source, it's not enough for that kind of claim. Again, see WP:REDFLAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's backed up at least in part by the previous Time reference, which states it was "the safest afloat". Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's not the same as "unsinkable." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's backed up at least in part by the previous Time reference, which states it was "the safest afloat". Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's a municipal website that does not indicate any source for the claim. I have also been unable to find any corroborating evidence. If the claim is accurate there should be some evidence, somewhere else, that predates the sinking. I remain highly dubious about this claim which sounds suspiciously like it was invented to add some kind of connection to the Titanic. If this is the only source, it's not enough for that kind of claim. Again, see WP:REDFLAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)