Talk:Halifax Explosion/Archive 1

Archive 1

PD images

There are some great PD images of the destruction here: http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/he2_ruins/index.html

– Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Storage

Hi The picric acid entry says it should be stored wet, becaues -otherwise- it is highly susceptible to shock...maybe a correction is in order? Madcynic 12:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

---

It was stored wet but the extreme heat from the fire dried the picric acid and the gun cotton make them highly explosive.--tgpaulNY

Merger

There are two pages about the Halifax Explosion. How should one merge the two pages to provide tidy results? -- BillBell

The two pages are Halifax explosion and Halifax Explosion.

That merger's been done already, but currently there is also a vote to incorporate the Imo article into the current one. Any opinions? I vote yes. Crisco 1492 21:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing this out perhaps?

equipment and they quickly abandoned ship upon the Captain's orders. Fleeing in two rowboats, the crew reached safety on the Dartmouth shore as the burning ship continued to drift toward the Halifax shore. As it was burning other ships came in aid, and onlookers gathered on the shore to fuck teen girls.

From the article. I trust this is incorrect and should be edited out?

Definitely

Explosion's force

It is worth noting that the explosion had an estimated force of 2.9 kilotons, making it (at the time) the most powerful explosion ever caused by humans. Hugo Dufort 20:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Ref: http://www.halifaxfiremuseum.org/explosion.html

The map

I'm going to be bold and remove the oddly proportioned, amateurishly edited map that adds virtually nothing to the article. If you want a map of Halifax, click on Halifax. As it is, this map does not contribute to the subject at hand.--Dmz5 06:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was moving it down farther in the article, but it's really just not a good map. If it showed Halifax within Canada only, perhaps. Certainly it should not be the main image of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Even better, I should say, would be a map of Halifax and the harbor showing the location of the collision and the extent of explosion damage. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Anyone any good with photo editing? I did the first one, so I'd rather not take a shot at the next one. As for a complete removal of the map, I think that isn't fair for people who are visual learners, as explained in my rational above (Under "The Map is US-Centric") Crisco 1492 08:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for calling your work amateurish! Didn't mean it as a dig. I agree that a map is helpful but I have a bit of a pet peeve about fuzzy maps that look like they might have been done with MS Paint (not that I'm saying this one was, but you know what I mean, a lot of maps look a little too cartoony and can detract from the subject.)--Dmz5 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken Dmz. For the sake of curiousity, I did that using GIMP. I understand there are better maps. Perhaps there is a map in Halifax which can be used for a location. Where is the best location? Crisco 1492 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: The map in the Halifax article is totally America Centric. I'm Canadian and I can't make heads or tales of that map. Can someone supply me with a good, non-cartoony Canadian map so I try and make something decent? Crisco 1492 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Donald Crowdis

this guy should be linked here:Donald Crowdis

"Magic explosion"? Expert needed.

In the current revision of this article, the text segues from "prelude to disaster" directly to describing the explosion, leaving this reader to assume that it was the result of an angry genie or somesuch. While I acknowledge that the (somewhat lengthy) introduction text clearly states that the two ships collided, it is still relatively non-standard for the introduction text to contain crucial information not found elsewhere in a large article - and positively inexcusable to neglect any mention of what actually triggered the entire event! Anyway, I'm no history genius, but I'm tagging this page as needing attention from an expert on the subject, and hoping that Fate will see fit to bring an improved article to humankind. --Action Jackson IV 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

no magic here.. except the genie who made the whole section I had painstakingly set up, disappear.. I put it back.. enjoy.. WarBaCoN 07:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Adjusting for inflation

According to the article, the explosion caused $30M in damage. Does anyone know for sure that this is 1917 dollars, and is it US or Canadian? If it's 1917 US, I ran a quick adjustment and came up with US$508,553,700 in 2005 dollars. Can anyone verify the original currency? Ocon | [[User talk:Ocon|Talk]] 15:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The CBC indicates that it was $35 million 1917 US Dollars, and converts that roughly to $430 million in today's USD. http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/he3_shock/he3_shock_destruction.html --Potatophysics 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, shouldn't the cost be in Canadian dollars, because it's a Canadian event?

Yes, it should be in 1917 CDN, then a modern day (2005, whatever) CDN. And then MAYBE in modern US dollars. But it shouldn't be 1917 US dollars. 142.176.241.131 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Which ship was leaving?

Which ship arrived at the entrance from outside? In this article it's the Mont Blanc. But in the German version of the Halifax-Explosion they say the Mont Blanc wanted to leave!! I think that makes more sense. Why should a french ship bring ammunition to Canada? So please check.

The "official" story at http://www.halifaxexplosion.org/dayof.shtml also has Mont Blanc leaving and Elmo entering. - Alureiter 11:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify that website....it says the Mont Blanc was leaving the harbour to join the convoy in the basin. The basin is the most inland part of the harbour and still technically part of it, so the Mont Blanc was in fact entering, not really leaving. The Imo had departed the basin and was heading out to sea. The article is poorly worded for anyone who is not aware of the geography of Halifax Harbour.  :)

Stephanie

The Imo was leaving, and the Mont Blanc was entering (due to the submarine nets). 142.176.241.131 00:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mont Blanc had spent the previous night outside the harbor because it arrived at Halifax from NY after 4PM when the submarine nets were put in place. It was entering the harbor the next morning in order to join a convoy to England. The Imo was heading out to the open ocean. --tgpaulNY

Explosives

Is 300 rounds of ammunition correct? It seems so much smaller than the quantities of the other items. --rmhermen

---

Really TNT? I don't think it was in widespread use in WWI, not even sure it had been invented then. In any case it doesn't usually detonate as a result of fire, it just burns. From other sources read and forgotten long ago, i think the main explosion may have been due to Ammonium Nitrate, a cheap chemical widely used as fertiliser, and in civilian explosive applications. This forgotten source said the freighter was carrying perhaps thousands of tons of the stuff, which is about what would be needed to cause such a large explosion.

---

I did some fact-checking: 300 rounds is correct. And the TNT is also correct. It's likely that what you read about ammonium nitrate was refering to the chemical being mixed with the TNT; see http://www.encyclopedia.com/printablenew/24223.html. -- Stephen Gilbert

---

Either way the explosion caused by the Ammonium Nitrate would likely provide enough ignition energy to set off the TNT. -L3p3r 09:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---

The ship carried no ammonium nitrate. It carried picric acid which exploded because of the fire. The picric acid detonated the dry gun cotton and the TNT. --tgpaulNY —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blast Wave

"and the pressure wave reportedly knocked a soldier off his feet in Cape Breton Island (minimum distance 205 km east)" not to belittle the event, because it was a massive explosion, but I think this is more of an anecdote than a fact. The pressure wave would have to sustain itself for roughly 10 minutes at 1,235 km/h (roughly supersonic or speed of sound, which would be the longest reaching force wave). Cape Breton is rather far away, and that just doesn't add up! WarBaCoN 10:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this struck me as odd, especially noting the explosion was heard from a maximum distance of 175km. Since the pressure wave is in fact just a powerful sound wave, the maximum distance the is wierd would have been heard must have been at least equal if not far greater. The figure may be 25km, but 205 is somewhat unrealistic. A reference would help settle the matter :) -L3p3r 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The pressure wave traveled through the earth at a speed of 13,320 mph (23X the speed of sound). People on Cape Breton reported hearing a low boom which would be the sound of the pressure wave passing under them. Perhaps a startled soldier felt the vibration and tripped.--tgpaulNY —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian or Belgian?

www.halifaxexplosion.org is unsure about the fact wether the Imo was Norwegian or Belgian. Which is correct? --Martin

The museum in Halifax says it's a Norwegian ship heading for Belgium, which makes sense. It's also cited in John Irving's latest novel 'Until I find You' --- EgbertB

This issue came up again so I added a line with source explaining the Norwegian ownership but Belgium contract. Letterofmarque (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Language barrier?

The article states that the language barrier between the french seamen and the Halifx inhabitants prevented the warning of the imminent explosion from being ditributed through the city.

Nova Scotia is a french-speaking province - so what's going on here? No citation and I don't believe it for a second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.160.2 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some communities have more French established, however Nova Scotia is predominantly an English speaking province, as is Halifax. http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/he2_ruins/he2_ruins_collision_course.html explains the language barrier between the crew and onlookers under the section "Fire on Mont-Blanc". WarBaCoN (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Largest man-made non-nuclear explosion?

If you read again you will see it says it is AMONG 1 of the worlds larges man made explosions

After WWII, the British occupation forces placed 4,000 surplus torpedo warheads, nearly 9,000 depth charges and over 91,000 artillery shells in the tunnels and bunkers of Heligoland, altogether about 6,700 t (british accounts: 8,952,961 lbs) of explosives, and detonated them on [18 April]] [[1947] to destroy the island. Well the British Bang failed, the rock was tougher than expected, but IMHO and according to some sources ([1], [2], [3]) that was the largest non-nuclear, man-made explosion so far. - Alureiter 17:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, how can one claim that the Halifax Explosion even counts as the largest non-nuclear manmade explosion? The Texas City Disaster involved 7700 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. That's a heck of a lot more explosive potential. Of course, it only killed 581 people. Rei 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ammonium nitrate is just an oxidizer, also since it was for agricultural use it was only concentrated to about 35% (according to the article). The explosion is estimated to be equivalent to 2-4kt (article) of TNT, which would be about as large, as the Halifax explosion (found 2.5kt and 3kt), but see below. (Strange coincidence: Both times a french vessel exploded..).

Here's what's stated in Ground Zero:A Reassessment of the 1917 explosion in Halifax by Alan Ruffman and Colin D. Howell:

• Texas City: 1.3kt
• Port Chicago disaster: 1.7kt (this time no french ship ;))
• Halifax: 3kt
• Heligoland: 4.2kt

(second hand information, I don't have that book)

Oh, BTW, we have a List of the largest non-nuclear explosions article.

I think the reason that the Heligoland explosion is often overlooked is because the explosion was largely underground. the explosion there, as far as I know, didn't actually kill anybody. the halifax explosion did.

Another reason that Heligoland might often be overlooked is that it was, technically speaking, a detonation. Explosion implies that it was a single explosion, and not a series of explosions, as was the Heligoland. So although the overall blast created by the Heligoland explosion may be more powerful, Halifax Explosion was a single blast, rather than a series of ones.

Don't forget the RAF Fauld explosion as well, by pretty much every account I can find it was the largest man-made explosion at the time (obviously before heligoland and the nukes). 78.86.18.55 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the book Ground Zero: A Reassessment of the 1917 explosion in Halifax edited by Alan Ruffman and Colin D. Howell which is a pretty detailed comparision by historians and scientists of 130 conventional explosions which was presented at a scholarly conference: a good example of a wikipedia verifiable and reputable source. They still ranked Halifax as the biggest by an overall measure (power, radius, lives lost, destruction) but did conclude measuring such explosions is difficult. I have summarized their conclusions in the article with footnotes and links. Letterofmarque (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

typo?

Christmas - Every Christmas since 1971, Nova Scotia has donated a large Christmas tree to the City of Boston in thanks and remembrance for the help ...

-shouldn't the date rather be 1917, since the disaster occured then???

--213.54.142.88 09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the city didn't send a tree 19 days after the explosion, it was a tradition that didn't start until 1971. http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/extension/christmastrees/bostontree.htm Wonnkabe 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Halifax first sent a tree in 1918; in 1971, it was decided to renew that practice and continue it yearly thereafter.Irish Melkite (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Industrial fires and explosions

I added Category:Industrial fires and explosions to this article. Both a fire and an explosion were involved in this disaster. There was a sugar refinery, an industrial facility, demolished in this disaster. If somebody does not like Category:Industrial fires and explosions in this article, you can take it out. H Padleckas (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical relief train from Boston

If the train left Boston at 2200 in the Eastern time zone and arrived in Halifax a day and a fraction later at 0300 in the Atlantic time zone, wouldn't that be 28 hours later? Am I missing something, or is the text erroneous in saying the trip took 30 hours? Did someone add instead of subtracting? Hertz1888 (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Referenced sources give the 30 hour figure. Even if the departure time, 10 PM, is expressed in Halifax time like the arrival time, that would still be only 29 hours. I have reworded the text to take out any exact transit time. If more information comes to light, the text can be adjusted accordingly. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Location of Blast Cloud Photo

Several locations have been given for this photo by various sources: the Northwest Arm, a passing ship 13 miles away and Bedford Basin. Zemel's web article does the most considered job of comparing them and concludes Bedford Basin is the most likely candidate.Letterofmarque (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The map is US-centric

According to the map, this "Halifax" is somewhere in a place called "Nova Scotia". From the lack of a map of the world indicating where this "Nova Scotia" is, I assume it is propably in the US. This is in fact something that irks me with many Wikipedia maps - As soon as something is placed in the US, everyone all over the world is supposed to know every hinterland village in the US...

It clearly states in the first line that Halifax is in Canada. There are also links at the bottom of the page to canadian atlas sites for more complete maps. Jack 217.7.132.21 10:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Still, the map doesn't make it immediately apparent to those who are visual learners. Also, it is disorienting since one part is on a standard north to south orientation, while the other appears to have been rotated. I added a new map that hopefully fixed that. Crisco 1492 22:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. Is there a rationale for the removal of a map showing the location of Halifax? Doesn't matter which one, as long as it shows a) Halifax's location in Nova Scotia and b) A general location of Halifax globally. I believe it would aid visual learners being able to glance exactly where it happened, rather than having to read blah blah Nova Scotia, Canada, blah blah East Coast... it's a little easier, I believe. Crisco 1492 08:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a map would be useful. It took me a while to find the precise location in Google Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatfield977 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A few changes....

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_062100_montblanc.htm -states that the Mont Blanc was heading for France not Belgium. In fact, it was ordered to go to Halifax because it was too slow for the convoy heading from New York where it had been loaded. A slower convoy would be departing from Halifax Harbour.

The Imo was a Belgian relief ship. It said that in bold letters on it's side.

The time of the explosion was actually 9:04:35 am local time, not 8:45.

The CBC website also has monetary values of all the explosives on board at the time for anyone who is interested. :)

--Stephanie

The Imo had Belgian relief in bold letters on its side because it was carrying relief supplies to Belgium. This ship and crew were Norwegian.

Also I do not believe the photo of the explosion cloud is correctly captioned. It is my understanding that that photo was taken from the Northwest Arm on the other side of the main peninsula of Halifax.

--Andre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.222.24 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Boston gratitude/Christmas tree kerfuffle

There's a current thing going on here in Canada where the Haligonian (what we call people from Halifax, honest) found out that Boston is now calling the donated Christmas tree a "Holiday Tree" and he wants the darn tree back. Referenced here: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510132

Probably not warranting an inclusion in the article, but it is an interesting coda.

Come and get the damned thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.7.207 (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath info lacking

Is there an expert who can address the aftermath of the explosion? Areas I feel are missing are 1) rebuilding the city 2) how recovery was effected by the influenza epidemic 3) the Relief Commission running until 1976 with money leftover. Also, I seem to remember a show talking about some of the survivors in the line of the explosion had debris embedded in exposed skin so that years later their skin had a bluish cast. Anyone know if this was true & have a source to back it up? Kea2 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For your last point, the most common blue or gray skin color would be imparted by silver, either elemental or easily reacted by the body and absorbed. As for the former, I saw no total of seriously (as in hospitalized) injured estimates (one doesn't count bodies in the midst of a mass casualty event).Wzrd1 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Public inquiry info

I just came to read this article after watching the Shattered City: The Halifax Explosion mini-series. The article, although fine, seems rather incomplete without mentioning the public inquiry and its outcome anywhere in the article.--95.176.154.33 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the comments, the relief wasn't completed until 1976. An inquiry would have been sidelined, due to the war and might even be classified even today.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

notable survivors?

So is Ashpan Annie/Annie Liggins/Mrs. Anne Welsh - a notable survivor that should be documented? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so, due to the unique conditions and the extremity of conditions! Or do you consider an infant blown under a hot stove, during a major explosion that killed her entire family not worthwhile? If so, NOTHING is worthwhile and we should eliminate Wikipedia, all libraries and all writing! Or, we permit that which is NOTEWORTHY IN A DISASTER ZONE.

In most disasters, infants and toddlers are shredded, literally. Hence, her survival is noteworthy, but not particularly worthy of an article on her on that basis. Unless you also think that after a major disaster, it is a normal thing, in December, in Canada, in particular, Halifax, an infant should survive for at least 26 hours until she was found and rescued. Sorry, she was noteworthy in survival in an "impossible situation", in short, where she should NOT have survived, but did.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin unfardle this category assortment of mutual exclusion?

As an example, the article is tagged B-Class History of Canada articles High-importance History of Canada articles

OK, WHICH is it? A MAJOR disaster, which erases a substantial amount of a major city seems important to history, but, it's B-class? Or did I miss quality tags (I just thought of that, but it's rather late to look it up)? Then, there is the Heinz 57 of other categories that rather conflicted. Again, a major city being partially erased is of import for history of said city, culture and current development. One rather doubts that any family that was impacted back then would STILL not be sensitive AND there are events resurrected that remind all of it today and are ongoing, which signifies a larger importance to the province. Your thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. The article is tagged as high-importance for the reasons that you give. However, it is B-class based on its quality, not importance. See here for details on assessment. What other categories do you feel are conflicted? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As Nikkimaria notes, "class" and "importance" are two different concepts. This is very much a high importance event to Wikiproject Canada, though perhaps a lower importance one to one of the other 11 projects whose scope this article falls. The B class is a relative indication of its quality. I've been slowly working this article up (taking a break right now to focus on other things), but eventually (hopefully by end of summer) wish to have it to good article class. Eventually, I hope to see this article reach featured article status, which would indicate that it is one of the best articles we've written on Wikipedia.

Current Revision

This looks pretty well done. I congratulate whomever did this current version. However, I believe it might be neater were the table of contents to the left, and the picture to the right, like most wiki articles. How is that done? Crisco 1492 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, thanks for the comments.. I had attempted to do what you suggest, but was in a rush earlier and thought it would do for the time being.. it looked really bad on the left, without floating.. but I set it to float left now so the Halifax in wartime section and everything below it doesn't get pushed below the table of contents box (you can see what I mean on this previous version [4]... anyway.. feel free to suggest any other points.. long way to go on this article! WarBaCoN 04:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it effects the bulleted list in an odd way.. doing some reading, wikipedia advises "A left-floated TOC may affect bulleted or numbered lists. Where it does, float the TOC to the right, or do not float it." So I guess there is a decision to be made.. I don't know.. none of the options really appeal to me.. If anybody could comment on which layout is best A, B, or C. WarBaCoN 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Version A is the standard wiki format, from most of the articles that I have seen. B looks absolutely terrible to me, and is rather confusing for those of use used to things being in a standardized format. C isn't that bad, but A seems better. The ones which do not follow A generally have a table on the right which extends below the table of contents. Possibly someone with really good wiki-skills could do that, maybe in the style of facts in a box, with the major points: Location, Date, Time, Casualties etc. I'll take a look at how to build a table, maybe that would be okay. Looking good though. What if this were to be a wikiproject of the month for those interested in disasters? Crisco 1492 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

K, just spent half an hour trying to get a table in there. I'm now looking for a template for natural explosions, but all I've seen is for terrorist attacks. Theoretically, that could work. I'll give it a shot. Crisco 1492 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I give up... I got a table up there, but I can't get the text in a good looking position. Tag, your it WarBacon. :p Crisco 1492 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to create one, doh.. which is out of my current scope and brainpower tonight.. I'm surprised there is nothing for disasters really.. looks good though so far. Oh I put a little of the intro back in that you took out.. just because the explosion part is really the important part and it's enticing details I think!.. and I used the standard no-float layout method again.. WarBaCoN 03:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There we go, looks pretty good. I'll check the help page how to ask for a template, unless anyone knows how to make one? Crisco 1492 23:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a go on the weekend.. pretty sure we can get something set up quicker than asking for it (I hope)! WarBaCoN 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking good. Next would probably come a couple edits for organization and what not. I personally believe there are too many subsections in the article, some of which are too short (Specifically subsections in the Explosion and Aftermath section, as well as in the Rescue Effort Section.). Crisco 1492 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Looking good, eh? Crisco 1492 04:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This looks great! (I'm the "Stephanie" that posted above in 2007). The new revision is fantastic and well researched. Just a tidbit for anyone who is interested (and this is not worth being on the main page).....there was a documentary a few years ago about the how researchers went looking for the crater which they expected was left after the explosion. Sonar did not pick up one so they sent divers down and discovered a couple neat things. Firstly, there is surprisingly no sludge at the bottom of the harbour from raw sewage, there is lush, green growth down there......the currents present in such a deep natural harbour have taken all the sewage pollution out to sea. The harbour is of course, polluted but most is at the surface and the result of oil and other industrial practices (shipping, transport, etc.). The second thing they found was that there is in fact, no crater. The base of the harbour is down to the bedrock so that also contributed to the devastating effects of the explosion.....the force was entirely deflected up and out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordova88 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Largest man-made explosion before Trinity?

Probably not. The source for the claim, Time Home Entertainment, does not strike me as an entirely reliable secondary source. The Port Chicago explosion was estimated at up to 5 kilotons, compared with the 3 kilotons for the Halifax disaster cited in this article. The Mount Hood explosion was probably comparable in magnitude to the Halifax disaster. --Yaush (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions and its citations for comparative figures. Estimated TNT tonnage equivalent of Port Chicago is 2 kt, vs. 2.9 for Halifax. It's well-sourced. We don't have to take Time's word for it. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for the Port Chicago disaster being estimated at 5 kilotons? The article itself asserts only that "In all, the munitions on the pier and in the ship contained the equivalent of approximately 2,000 short tons (1,800 t) of TNT". I would consider Time to be reliable, but that does not mean they aren't in error. But we'll need to assess sources that verify your claim. Resolute 13:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The US Navy report on the Port Chicago disaster says "The 4606 tons of cargo contained 1780 tons of high explosives and 199 tons of smokeless powder." and "The 429 tons of cargo on the pier contained 146 tons of high explosives and 10.75 tons of smokeless powder.". A careless reading of the first sentence could lead to a 5 kt estimate. LouScheffer (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed in the "Largest man-made non-nuclear explosion?" section in the talk page. The "Explosion" section in the article explains the question in more detail and is sourced to a reliable scientific and historical study. The Time Home Entertainment footnote is a somewhat redundant secondary source, but the largest ranking is well sourced and factual.Letterofmarque (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As there now seems to be general agreement on that, I will take the initiative to remove the tag. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Halifax?

This article starts:

The Halifax explosion occurred on December 6, 1917, when the former city of Halifax in Nova Scotia, Canada, was devastated by the detonation ...

I don't get this former city bit. This isn't an article about Canadian local government structures, it is an article about a huge explosion. In that context, this sentence will be read by most people as meaning that Halifax no longer exists as an inhabited place, and probably by quite a few people as meaning that Halifax was so badly destroyed by the explosion that it never came back. Especially as this article is now featured on WP's front page, and hence likely to be viewed by lots of people who only vaguely know where Canada is.

Common sense tells us (surely) that Halifax is not a former place, but still very much with us. So this article should be rewritten in the present tense and Halifax should be hyper-linked to our article on Halifax-the-place. Only trouble is, I cannot find such an article. The impression I get is that we seem to have spent so much time splitting hairs by writing different articles on the different forms of local government that have ruled Halifax that we forgot to write an article on the place itself.

If I've missed one, please feel free to correct me, but in the meantime I'm going to delete that former and link Halifax to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Yes I know that points to a dab page, but until somebody points a better one out, that dab page looks like our best article on Halifax-the-place. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Johnny Tempest The Reason it says Former City of Halifax is Because of the Amalgamation's Act of 1996 which merged the Cities of Halifax, Dartmouth and the Town of Bedford under one municipal Government, it was meant to be a cost saving measure. Surprisingly most citizens did not like the change. The City of Halifax no longer exists per se, but it is still commonly referred to as such, it's official and legal title is now Halifax Regional Municipality. Also I was born in The then city in 1994, two years prior to amalgamation. So I am accurate in what I said here -- Johnny_Tempest (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2013 (AST)

Culpability inconsistent with the other article

The SS Imo article says that Imo was initially held blameless and then the court found joint responsibility. This article seems to describe crazy piloting, going too fast, wrong lane, refusing to yield, narrowly escaping disaster only to reverse and cause it, then reverse again and set off sparks. Now, my experience in piloting is limited to a rowboat, which not infrequently bumps into logs on the lake, so maybe my interpretation is confused, but it seems like this article and that one are completely at odds. Who's right? Wnt (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The actions described in this article are what I found in sources. However, that the official inquiry initially found the Imo blameless is not necessarily a contradiction. As noted, the commission changed its decision on appeal, assigning equal fault. This is something that is not yet explained very well in this article, however. Resolute 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Resolute's assessment - I guess It could be worded better to explain the time line of conclusions.Moxy (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

Explosion

Every building within a 16-mile radius, over 12,000 total, was destroyed or badly damaged.[38] vs. The disaster had damaged buildings and shattered windows as far away as Sackville and Windsor Junction, about 16 kilometres (10 mi) away.

Vic joseph (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed to put the metric length first, in consistent fashion as the surrounding numbers. I got partway through refreshing this article, but really need to get back to it to catch things like that. Thanks for pointing it out! Resolute 15:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

They were more than likely pointing out that the article says "Buildings 16km away had windows shattered" and "Buildings within 16 miles were destroyed or badly damaged". That's inconsistent due to 16km being smaller than 16 miles. If a building 16 miles (22km) away was destroyed, it is amazing that a building 16km away only had a shattered window.83.70.170.48 (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The first quote has EVERY building "badly damaged", but then describes a closer building with broken windows. Broken windows != badly damaged in my book. 128.244.42.5 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points, both of you. I'll have to get access to the sources and fix that up. Cheers! Resolute 21:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Reason for Renaming Article?

Why was the name of article changed, albeit slightly, from "Halifax Explosion" to "Halifax explosion"? Pretty much the entire historiography of the region treats the name as a proper noun as a formal name for a distinct event using an upper case for "Explosion". The Great Chicago Fire is not titled "Great Chicago fire".Letterofmarque (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks dheffernen for fixing this.Letterofmarque (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Post-explosion picture - Imo or Mont Blanc visible on opposite shore?

The caption for the picture of Halifax two days after the explosion says "The Imo can be seen aground on the far side of the harbour." However, the description attached to the photo identifies the ship as the Mont Blanc. I believe it is the Imo (based on the the fact that the Mont Blanc was pretty well blowed up, as well as the statement from the article "The Imo was carried onto the shore at Dartmouth by the tsunami." Can't figure out how to update the picture description, though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.3.151 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is fixed now. You have to go to Wikimedia and edit the description there.Letterofmarque (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Halifax explosion inconsistencies

There seem to be some inconsistencies in the statistics, perhaps as a result of merging the two pages.

• Over 2,700 tons of explosives vs. 5 tons of benzol + 10 tons of guncotton + 2,300 tons of picric acid + 400,000 pounds of TNT (= 2,515 tons of explosives).
• Over 2.5 square kilometers leveled vs. 325 acres (= 1.3 km²) of the town destroyed.
• 1,635 deaths vs. 1,000 people killed immediately and over 2,000 within a year
• Five to six thousand injuries vs. 9,000 people injured

Cjmnyc 07:23 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

one Wikipedia entry gives the following load for Mont Blanc:

   #  5 tons (4.5 metric tonnes) of benzol
   # 300 rounds of ammunition
   # 10 tons (9 tonnes) of gun cotton
   # 2300 tons (2100 tonnes) of picric acid (explosive)
   # 400,000 pounds (180 tonnes) of TNT

and another entry gives these numbers:

   * 5 tons (4.5 t) of benzol
   * 300 rounds of ammunition
   * 122,960 pounds (56 t) of gun cotton
   * 2300 tons (2300 T) of picric acid (explosive)
   * 4,661,794 pounds (2,115 t) of TNT

The Nova Scotia government website on the Halifax explosion details the following cargo on Mont Blanc:

   * 35 tons of benzol
   * 300 rounds of ammo
   * 61 tons of guncotton
   * 2300 tons of picric acid
   * 200-225 tons of TNT

The discrepency between the three sources is largest in regards to TNT: one source claims almost 5 million pounds of TNT on board Mont Blanc while others are content with @ 400 thousand. Taking the numbers from the local government, the explosion at Port Chicago in 1944, involving the detonation of at least 5000 tons of munitions, seeems to be the bigger non-nuclear event. The death toll and over all destruction of Halifax was larger due to factors of population and geography.

It's incorrect to say that this event caused the highest single-day casualties on North American soil between the Battle of Antietam in 1862 and the September 11 attacks. The Battle of Gettysburg (in 1863) left a minimum of 8,000 dead over 3 days; I don't know the day-by-day breakup, but on at least one of those days the casualty toll must, mathematically, have exceeded 1,635. And then there's Pearl Harbor, with 2,403 dead; the Battle of Chancellorsville, 1863, with 2,358 dead on the bloodiest day of the battle; the Galveston Hurricane in 1900, which killed around 8,000 people in one day; etc. (Source)

---

Some more data (I'm not the author of the text above):

	[5]	[6]	[7]
benzol	35 tons (32t)	35 tons (32t)	223,188 kg (223t)
ammo	-	-	-
gun cotton	10 tons (9t)	61 tons (55t)	56,301 kg (56t)
picric acid	2300 tons (2087t)	2300 tons (2087)	1,602,519 kg
			+ 544,311 kg (sum:2147t)
TNT	200 tons (181t)	200 tons (181)	226,797 kg (227t)
Sum	2545 tons (2309t)	2596 tons (2355t)	(2653t)

Also

[8]: 2766 t of picric acid, TNT and guncotton.

[9]: over 2,500 tons of benzol fuel, TNT, picric acid and gun cotton (over 2270t)

The Mont Blanc was a ~3000 ton ship, so any number larger than 2800t is unrealistic. - Alureiter 16:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just changed the numbers according to those I found above, taken from all external web sites we point to. - Alureiter 16:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

who was the hero of the explosion??

Where are these numbers now? I can't find any tonnages in the article, let alone an explanation of different reports about it.165.121.80.134 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What Happened to Medical Relief??

After searching via Wayback Machine (because I can't seem to develop any adeptness at viewing history here, unless the change I'm seeking is very contemporaneous), I confirmed a nagging suspicion that something was missing. Sometime between 5/2010 and 7/2011 a section titled 'Medical Relief' (and a sub to it titled 'Facilities') were removed in their entirety and I don't see any discussion here regarding that. Bits and pieces were incorporated into other sections, but much was not. The section appeared after that on Firefighters and before the Survival Stories. I strongly suggest that the deletion be reverted and then it can be edited to eliminate any of the info that has been incorporated into other sections. Irish Melkite (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See http://web.archive.org/web/20100530022314/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_explosion Irish Melkite (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's reverted, all edits since would be gone anyway. That is the heart of reversion. If you have the citations, I'd support a merge of the deleted content, edit out of now extraneous content and keep newer content that is also cited. I'd far prefer not tossing the baby out with the bathwater.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice thought, but unlikely and unsourced

"Besides the annual Christmas Tree donation, a notable proportion of Nova Scotians (and Haligonians in particular) identify as supporters of Boston's major professional sports league teams, a loyalty which is often traced to the relief effort of 1917."

Never, ever, have I heard this one and I doubt its author can find a source for it. Nova Scotia/Boston/New England links go way beyond the 1917 explosion, with familial ties everywhere one looks. As well, the sports team loyalties were further enhanced by the availability of Boston/New England televised sporting events in NS. I've deleted the sentence. Irish Melkite (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd have left the Christmas tree donation part and removed the rest under your rationale. Christmas trees are relatively new in the US as a universal item, dating to near that time as I recall. Still, if any citations support any part of that sentence, I'd support restoring that part of the sentence.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wzrd, The Christmas tree donation is the subject of the entire paragraph preceding the deleted sentence, which is why I didn't bother to leave the stub.Irish Melkite (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The discussion above used incorrect claims about grammar and about use in sources. The "Halifax Bang" or similar coined names (if in use) would be proper nouns, but the "Halifax explosion" is not considered a proper noun by professional copyeditors and reputable publishers.

It seems we're going to have to add a separate section for this kind of issue to the MOS if this is not a clear case even for admins. We cannot waste time rediscussing such clear cases for thousands of articles. Almost all articles in the category 20th-century explosions are lowercased, and books published by university presses and other reputable publishers on the Halifax explosion use lowercase, eg The Halifax Explosion and the Royal Canadian Navy. --Espoo (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You do realize you cited a book that uses the uppercase in the title as justification to use lowercase? Or did you mean that the book publisher isn't reputable?--Auric talk 00:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems you didn't look in the book itself, which consistently uses lowercase. It also seems you don't know that blurbs are written by people from the marketing department, who are rarely professional copyeditors and who often deliberately ignore or don't even know about the publisher's editing decisions. In any case, such blurbs don't go through the rigorous copyediting process all texts go through before being published by a reputable publisher. --Espoo (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I just realized i misunderstood what you said and that you don't know the basics of this issue: 1) the capitalization style used in titles of books is never used in the text 2) Wikipedia doesn't even use that style in article titles. --Espoo (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are only going to accept "professional copyeditors and reputable publishers" as sources, you are ignoring WP:COMMONNAME. You don't have to go far to see that a capital E is favoured by sources. 117Avenue (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Survivors - Bill Owen

Bill Owen is definitely not the last survivor. There are other living survivors who actually lived at ground zero, the north end of Halifax on the day of the explosion. One of these survivors is Mary Murphy who attends the memorial service on Fort Needham every year.

Kathleen Marjorie (Kaye) McLeod is another, she is alive and well today (born April 21, 1912) and has been interviewed about this story in the Telegraph Journal recently: https://www.telegraphjournal.com/telegraph-journal/story/39781782/?nopromo=1 I have tried to edit the article to get her name listed but it never gets added. Not sure why. Katoux3 (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Chantal Dupuis

Citation style

The article currently uses a mishmash of citation styles. To ensure consistency, I propose standardizing to the {{cite}} family of templates, supported by {{sfn}} for shortened citations. Any thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I like it. More uniformity makes for easier reading flow.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Was Imo to blame ?

This article reads as if Imo was totally to blame : wrong side of channel, going too fast, refused to give way. Yet no mention of any proceedings against her crew; instead those in charge on Mont-Blanc were blamed, despite no evidence in this article that [they] did anything wrong. So - why the apparent inconsistency ? Rcbutcher (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ships as "she or her" vs. "it or its"

An IP editor has changed all references to ships as "her" to "its", with the explanation "updated to gender-neutral language (ships =/= women)". I have reverted the changes, pending possible discussion here. In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she"), editors were divided, with several making the points that "she" for ships is linguistic usage, traditional, in no way an objectification of women, and to force a gender neutral "it" would be POV. Let us not be too quick to throw the conventional usage overboard. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Even in this day/age ships are gendered as "she". Regards,  Aloha27 talk  03:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also agree. At the heart, this is a marine disaster. Professional mariners, male and female still call ships she as this is acceptable Wikipedia style in marine related articles.Dan Conlin (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy in monetary figures

I note that in the human loss and destruction section, it is claimed that $25 million was donated for reconstruction efforts and the like. the Africville sub-section, however, gives a figure of $21 million. I think we'll need to either determine which figure is correct and use for both, or clarify what each number is referring to if they are meant to represent different figures. Resolute 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the Africville source to verify, do you? I've been going through and working on sourcing but haven't gotten to that section yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No, and neither does my local library system. Resolute 19:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. The Armstrong source (p. 213) says around $30 million from all sources, including individuals. Shattered City (p. 83) gives numbers that add up to $24 million but also mentions donations from other sources for which numbers are not provided. Canadian Encyclopedia says $30 million. I think we'll go with $30 million total. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halifax Explosion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk · contribs) 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a very well done article. The feedback I have below is mostly an attempt to suggest improvements which are roughly in line with GA expectations. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the suggestions and any comments you might have, but I don't think it will require much work to pass this article.

Style

• There are probably a bit too many citations in the lede. In some cases they make sense--e.g. citing the record for largest man made explosion prior to nuclear weapons. Other cases are less clear.
• The article is probably mildly overlinked. This isn't a GA critereon, but something to keep in mind. Look particularly to cases where we link out in a hat-note and then again immediately in the body text. Similarly, some links in "See also" are linked multiple times in the text.

• Going to partially disagree with you on this point, as WP:OVERLINK specifically allows for repetition of links between hatnotes/footnotes and body text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• The lede does a fair job summarizing the article but doesn't have much to say on the investigation, reconstruction efforts (a sentence), or legacy. Rescue efforts are mentioned, but summarized briefly. This doesn't mean the whole lede needs to be longer, sentences like "In a meeting of the Royal Society of Canada..." could be trimmed in favor of other things to summarize.

• Everything is necessarily summarized briefly, but I've done some reorganization here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

content

• The disaster section begins by introducing two ships, which is important, but I feel it should give the reader some context for the disaster. We remand a discussion of the Narrows to the next section and bury the lede a bit by noting "Ships carrying dangerous cargo were not allowed..." late in the section. We also devote a lot of attention to the reasons for her delay.

• I'm not sure what else you are looking for in terms of context? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: I wasn't 100% sure either. :) I think ideally the section should begin with the preliminaries. We've got where the ships were going, but we're missing a few things (or we've remanded those below), namely: a discussion of the Narrows, the requests from the Mont-Blanc's pilot to offload explosives or get an escort and a short discussion of the rules of the road. I think the article might be improved by moving some of those to the top of the section, which would both give the reader context up front and allow the bit on the collision itself to read a bit more smoothly. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• We mention Mackey's experience but not Hayes. Do we not know?

• Reviewing the sources I have to hand, the best we can say is "many years" - they place much more emphasis on Mackey's experience. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• "The evening before, 45-year-old Francis Mackey, a harbour pilot..." this paragraph starts with an odd shift in diction. The narrative of the Imo's transparently reckless and sloppy path down the Narrows is described clinically, as though we're summarizing a report or marine logs (or summarizing sources that do). The next paragraph starts by summarizing a personal narrative of the pilot. After a few sentences, the paragraph returns to the previous style.
  • One source, the System Failure Case Study, notes that Mackey asked about escorts or other precautions the night before. That might be more useful to know than his being a guest of the captain.
• "transverse thrust of her right-hand propellor" I'd say a wikilink might help here, but there isn't great coverage of propeller torque on wikipedia. Closest is a section. We also define "in ballast" in the lede but the impact isn't immediately apparent. Imo was high in the water because it had little cargo, so the torque applied by the propeller was enough to spin her. I don't think that's clear from this section.
• The explosion section is quite good.
• "Adding to the chaos were fears..." The paragraph starting with this sentence should be moved above the railway worker para.
• Not a substantive comment, but I'm surprised given the sequence leading up to the explosion that the Imo wasn't found at fault. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• What is a "canonical novel"?

images/sources

• Images all check out. No apparent problems with licensing.
• "...rose up as high as 18 metres (60 ft) above the harbour's high-water mark..." This is a pretty precise statistic to cite to Britannica. It's there, but still.
• I have a few other quibbles about sources being used where you likely have good alternatives, but they're just that, quibbles. Spot checking of sources reveals no problems.

Thanks for your time! Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam (Wiki Ed), thanks for your review. Except where noted above, I believe I have addressed these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I'll take a look this morning. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Largest conventional explosion

This page lists the Halifax as the largest conventional explosion in history, yet Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions lists it as third. This is a problem. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead states that "the blast was the largest man-made explosion prior to the development of nuclear weapons" - Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions#Rank_order_of_largest_conventional_explosions.2Fdetonations_by_magnitude lists other explosions as being larger, but these all post-date the development of nuclear weapons. Later in the article we state that it is the largest ever only according to White's five criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's really misleading. Why is the development of nuclear weapons a meaningful date if not to juxtapose nuclear with conventional explosives? You may as well say "the largest explosion prior to the development of chemical weapons" or maybe "the largest explosion prior to the development of tnt" is a better example. If tnt doesn't eclipse the event in question, then there's no reason to mention it. If there were larger conventional explosions then the development of nuclear weapons is a completely arbitrary marker. As it turns out, the Maine was in fact the largest explosion in Cuba following Mark growing a mustache and prior to Mark deciding that mustaches look stupid. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as it explicitly says largest prior to nuclear development, I can't agree that it's misleading, but what would you propose instead? The development of nuclear weaponry is relevant as a contrast to conventional explosions, and as eclipsing them. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would propose that the article lists it as the third largest single conventional explosion in history, as that seems to be the consensus. The statement as written is explicitly correct, but implicitly misleading. The development of nuclear weapons is relevant if you are comparing conventional explosions to nuclear explosions. The development of nuclear weapons is completely unrelated if you are comparing conventional to conventional. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that the consensus, though? Many sources name Halifax as "the largest man-made explosion prior to Hiroshima" or similar, relating this event to the development of nuclear weapons. That would be the origin of the phrasing this article currently uses. Any other watchers have thoughts on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have never cared for placing anachronisms into articles, and prefer to note what was true at the time. It is, of course, necessary to note when a 'record' is eclipsed, but that makes this a matter of semantics: Is it better to note it was the largest man-made explosion before Hiroshima? Or that it was the largest "conventional" explosion until Heligoland? Personally, I would favour retainin the current wording. First, because it doesn't artificially eliminate the nuclear events, and second, because being "third largest 'conventional' explosion" in history is rather meaningless in context - the ones ahead of it (and there were three, not two) were just tests done in unpopulated areas. Most importantly, however, is what sources say. And the ones I have read also favour current wording. Resolute 20:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the sentence is in any way misleading and is quite accurate for the lede. The force of the explosion is discussed in detail further down in the article. If any semantic clarifications are necessary they can be added there. The sentence is fine as it is. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Not misleading at all. It is often talked about in just such a manor. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed- Regards,  Aloha27 talk  19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Pre-collision sequence

An editor claims that the pre-collision sequence as presented is inaccurate. I've checked a few different sources and the current description appears to be supported by them, so I've invited him to expand on his concerns here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Response copied from my talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC) With all due respect, you have not looked closely enough. It is also not good form to remove my cited source yet keep my text and not revert to the older version. However, let's leave that alone for the time being.

The following two key items in the paragraph were misrepresented or missing In the previous versions and are the ones I corrected:

Firstly, the Niobe pinnace and the HMS Highflyer whaler were not in close proximity to Stella Maris at the same time as stated. The pinnace came out from Pier 6 as Stella Maris was returning to Mont Blanc after Captain Brannen had towed the whaler part way to Imo so Triggs could assess damages.

Secondly, the older text went on to state the decision to tow the stern of Mont Blanc from Pier 6 was made by Mattison, Triggs and Brannen. This is not correct - obviously, because Acting Commander Triggs was not there.

You must remember that not every author has read, let alone absorbed, all of the over 2100 pages of inquiry transcripts. They mostly refer to specific sections. The pagination numbers also differ from those in the shorter Appeals Book.

Loke Bird, MacDonald is a journalist. Both books contain invented dialogue. Bird's account on pp. 59-60 of "THe Town That Died" is almost entirely fabricated. Although very interesting and useful to some degree, these are trade books. Most times, it is difficult to ascertain where the fiction ends and the actual history begins and vice versa. Laura MacDonald's story on pages 50-51 is also fabricated. No notes whatsoever are included on these pages to offer any credibility to her presentation.

John Griffith Armstrong's book is a wonderful academic work and quite comprehensive. However, the aforementioned facts are also not represented accurately in his book on pp. 37-38. JGA cites Bird's book as his main source of information - in this instance, with a caveat in his notes that "the book describes itself as a novel."

Although he also cites the testimony of the two mates, he still places Triggs on board Stella Maris at the wrong time - even though Walter Brannen makes it crystal clear in his testimony that they had towed Triggs' whaler towards Imo well before the pinnace appeared and the use of the 5 and 10 inch hawsers were considered. Knowing John, I can assure you this was mere oversight. He is by all accounts, a meticulous researcher.

As well, according to the first-hand testimony, at no time were any lines ever attached to Mont Blanc.

It should be noted that these three books have been in circulation for several years. Some key points naturally become outdated as new information is unearthed and more attention is paid to the transcripts. Often, the transcript testimony becomes convoluted and the timelines seem as though they are bounced about like rubber balls. It is easy to understand how even the most experienced researcher can find the record confusing.

Presently, the accurate facts regarding the matter under discussion are found in two published sources only: "Imo vs Mont Blanc" (1919) which contains 800 pages of first-hand inquiry testimony, including that of the first and second mates, Walter Brannen and William Nickerson (resp.) of Stella Maris. The second source, and most recent serious book having to do with the Halifax Explosion, is a comprehensive, fully notated and indexed monograph, "Scapegoat, the extraordinary legal proceedings following the 1917 Halifax Explosion" - self-published, 2012, with a newer edition published by New World Publishing, 2014; also awarded the 2014 Dartmouth Book Award for Non-Fiction and 2015 Bronze IPPY (Independent Book Publisher Awards, NYC).

In this instance, it was appropriate to choose "Imo vs Mont Blanc" as the cited primary source. This is an underused (with the exception of JGA's book) but exceptional resource. If you wish to view the content for yourself, the transcripts are available online at http://eco.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.9_05977/2?r=0&s=1 (pp. 376-381 and pp. 484-486, specifically) or read "Scapegoat" - available at Amazon.ca, Chapters/Indigo, 49th shelf, New World Publishing or bookstores in all four Atlantic Provinces.

My research has been thorough. Primary sources are always the most sought after and utilized. I intend to reintroduce the transcripts citation once again and also put the reference in the bibliography this time - lengthy title et al. I trust my communication has had a positive effect and that you will show restraint and, at least, some appreciation by leaving this material intact. These days, I only contribute to the pages on a relatively small scale. I believe the precept of Wikipedia is: if anyone can make the pages better, then he or she is welcome to do so. That is all I have endeavoured to do.

Thank you and regards,

dheffernen Dheffernen (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources are fine if they are accurate. In this case, the three often cited sources are not accurate on this particular aspect that requires updating. If Wikipedia prefer secondary sources over primary sources, then I will cite the book, Scapegoat as the source because it is the most accurate source of this information to date. Thank you.

Regards, Dheffernen Dheffernen (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC) End copied text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dheffernen, thank you for your detailed response. However, I do have some concerns:

Scapegoat has a non-scholarly publisher and an author more noted for his work in music than his history background. Because of that, I would be very reluctant to prioritize that source over Armstrong or others

This is particularly true given the weight of sources that agree with the particular sequence presented - it's not just Bird, Armstrong, and Macdonald, but pretty much every source that discusses the sequence agrees that Triggs headed for the Imo after the decision was made to tow the Mont-Blanc and efforts to that effect had begun.

We could explain the disagreement among sources in the text - ie. this source says X but other source says Y. But we shouldn't ignore that most sources say X. It's not our job to decide that most sources are wrong, but to present what is reported by secondary sources.

The issue of primary sources we have discussed elsewhere, but suffice it to say that in the context of Wikipedia they are not the most sought after and utilized. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Your skewed logic is most disconcerting. Only a fool judges a book without reading it first. Even worse: making arbitrary conclusions based on what someone has done previously in his or her life, again without reading his work is just plain stupid. Many of the scholars of the explosion including Janet Kitz, Alan Ruffman, Garry Shtlak (Senior Advisor of the Nova Scotia Archives and John Griffith Armstrong have acknowledged the veracity of this work.

However, I am going to save you the trouble by reverting back to versions without any input from me. dheffernen Dheffernen (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC).End copied section. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's why I'm not proposing removing the work entirely, nor asking you to revert all of your edits. But we need to balance what different sources say. I've made one suggestion above; we could also say that at the time of the explosion Trigg was near the Imo, as sources appear to agree on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Halifax Explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=2862
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.halifax.ca/HalifaxExplosion/Monuments.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}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

TFA next year?

Might be a little early to mention but the 100th anniversary is next year. I'm not on here very often now, so when the time comes, I was hoping someone else can nominate this article for article of the day on the 100th anniversary, in case I forget... --T1980 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you could put a placeholder/reminder in the potential TFA list -- what do you think, Nikki? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Survivors

I think something needs to be added about what the survivors faced and where they went.

For example, my next door neighbor's grandmother and her family were survivors who walked to Maine to seek relief and were relocated to New York City then later to Washington, D.C., and then again to North Carolina.

Her grandmother was only a year or two old at the time and did not remember the event. She only remembered living here in the States. As such, she thought she was born here. It wasn't until she applied for a passport that she discovered she was actually born in Halifax.

I'm pretty sure that this is not the only family who sought relief and refuge and ended up living in the U.S. And I think some mention of these survivors and what they went through will give an even better idea about the impact and aftermath of the explosion. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I only contributed a review for this article so am not especially familiar with the subject. Your suggestion sounds fair in principle but we'd need to cite reliable sources rather than anecdotal material -- do you have any such references in mind? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't seem very likely that a survivor of the Halifax Explosion walked from Nova Scotia to Maine for relief. Sources are needed for such a claim.--Auric talk 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A few were helped by an American Medical ship....yes some moved. But most stayed....never heard of anyone walking. Will post a source for all to see....just have to go through my library find it.--Moxy (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, I am of the opinion such a claim would be dubious at best. It's almost 700 kM from Halifax to Bangor, let alone any larger cities. Regards   Aloha27  talk  00:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Page move: Halifax Explosion in popular culture

I nominate the page Halifax Explosion in popular culture be moved into this one, as it discusses aspects of the explosion. Several Wikipedia pages include "In popular culture" or "Legacy" sections on the same page as the main topic. Yoho2001 (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yoho2001. What you're proposing is a merge, but I disagree with your reasoning. This article already has a "Legacy" section that includes some key cultural works on the topic. However, there are many more cultural references that could be mentioned about the explosion, and including them all here would be undue weight on a single aspect of the topic. That's why the more extensive pop-culture content was split to a standalone article. There are many other examples of standalone "in popular culture" articles - take a look at Category:Topics in popular culture. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Yoho. Not only is the "in popular culture" article hardly notable, it's also short enough to easily merge in. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If it is 'hardly notable', then it sounds like trivia that should be deleted, not merged in. Resolute 15:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the things on the in popular culture page would not pass MILPOP and be deleted. Llammakey (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently added a link to a use of the Halifax Explosion in the plot-line of a 1943 film. This link was removed. That seems to be quite out-of-line with other Wiki topics where such information is welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.176.204 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The problem with your link addition was that it was from imdb and not considered a reliable source. Hope this clears things up for you. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  16:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was silly of me ... given that there is a Wiki page which describes the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.176.204 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?

"Approximately 20 minutes later at 9:04:35 am, Mont-Blanc exploded." - The specificity given for time warrants further comment for two reasons - precision and zone. I would suppose it has been derived from the seismographic record or some other regular monitoring, but how was the time established so precisely? At the time, the Hipp-Toggle electric clock was state of the art with an accuracy of about 1 second a month, so it was possible to measure time so precisely, but by whose clock? Time was defined by the rotation of the earth as measured by astronomical observations. Whoever set the clock(s) used to derive this specific time must have synchronized them somehow. The now-familiar time zones were in their third decade. Alternately, we could just say, "At about 9:05 A.M. Atlantic time," but I haven't verified that that is correct. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The clock at city hall stopped at 9:04:35 a.m Atlantic time ..was a point of interest until it was fixed in 99. See.....Dianne Marshall (27 September 2013). Harbour Hopper's Best Halifax Stories: Hangings, Explosions, Tunnels, Romance, Politics, Riots and More!. Formac Publishing Company. pp. 8–. ISBN 978-1-4595-0281-9..--Moxy (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That exact time was established by the seismograph at Dalhousie University. The precise time has been of considerable interest to scientist studying the physical effects of the explosion and how they radiated out from ground zero in different ways. There is a whole chapter about this in the book Ground Zerp, a collection of scholarly articles about the Halifax Explosion.Dan Conlin (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halifax Explosion. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jogc.ca/abstracts/full/201107_GuestEditorial_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626135453/https://www.historica-dominion.ca/content/heritage-minutes/halifax-explosion to https://www.historica-dominion.ca/content/heritage-minutes/halifax-explosion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Energy

There shouldn't be a problem with using a template to convert kilotons to joules. IMHO I have a good scientific education and I have read alot of books, but I have no idea what a kiloton of tnt exploding would look like (Youtube next stop). I do have a pretty good idea, however, of how much energy is in a teraJoule. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP, it looks like someone was a bit overzealous in undoing your changes - the ktTNT to GJ conversion in the lead is now back. Sorry about that. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Who responded with an Ambulance?

Halifax had a medically trained ambulance service in the city for over 100 years in 1917 there were seven hospitals/centres in the city. The VG ambulance had two medical teams and a medical dispatcher Alice Cox, but there is no mention of any ambulance responding or being damage in the Halifax explosion? Did all the medics stay back at the hospital? I have yet to read any research looking to ambulances that responded. The only year that the VG annual report didn't record any ambulance calls was in 1918. Which makes me believe that the ambulance and their crew were destroyed. Has anyone looked into this?JBignell (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There has been a fair bit of research at the Dalhousie University Medical School about the medical response to the explosion. Perhaps some of those papers mention the role of those ambulance teams. It is unlikely they were destroyed as the Victoria General Hospital was far from Ground Zero. However given the massive scale of injuries after the explosion, it is likely that they were just one of hundreds of vehicles that accounts of survivors describe in moving wounded to the city's various hospitals (Army trucks and ambulances, personal cars, delivery wagons etc.) and thus the VG ambulances were lost amidst the many accounts of injured transport.Dan Conlin (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The VG Hospital EMS Dispatch was contacted when the local fire departments were called. The hospital dispatch was one of the few places in the city that had phones. I have going through the book of remembrance and found ambulance personal listed and died in the explosion. Sadly the Dal medical Historical Society only focuses on Physicians and nurses....paramedics are not on their radar. Most things that are written about EMS are written from the perspective of what role the physician played in development or administration of the system and not on the people in the ambulances. Snowy Badger (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hospitals listed in Halifax

There were a number of hospitals in Halifax at the time of the explosion and there responses to the event were all different. With each playing a role in helping the victims of the event. What is the best way to list and describe the health centres in the city?

• Victoria General Hospital
• St Mary's College Hospital
• Nova Scotia Hospital - Dartmouth
• Ladies COllege Hospital
• YMCA Hospital
• Camphill Hospital
• Cogswell Street Miltary Hospital
• Roseenburg Hospital
• Station Hospital
• Bellevue Hospital
• Morries Street Hospital
• Children's Hospital
• Edgemere Hospital
• Naval Hospital Halifax
• Ship Hospital - Old Colony

Perhaps in a daughter article? To describe the individual responses of each and every centre would likely be undue for this summary article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The Narrows

The second sentence of the article says "the Narrows, a strait connecting the upper Halifax Harbour to Bedford Basin", implying that it's not part of the upper part of the harbour (and it's obviously not in the lower part of the harbour). We've got a complaint at WP:ERRORS that the Narrows is in the harbour and that the TFA blurb is wrong. Is it part of the harbour? - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

According to my chart (CHS 4237) Halifax Harbour includes all navigable water to the A. Murray MacKay Bridge. Therefore "The Narrows" is part of Halifax Harbour. Hope this helps.   Aloha27  talk  02:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

(after ec) Hm. The statement at ERRORS that "the Narrows are located between the harbour and the Bedford Basin" is correct - see for example this map. This to me seems consistent with the statement you quote from the lead? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Awien suggested "at the north-west tip of Halifax Harbour" at ERRORS, that seems safe, going with that for now, back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 05:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Damaged area

The lede now says: "Nearly all structures within an 800-metre (half-mile) radius ... were obliterated". Down in the article it says: "Every building within a 2.6-kilometre (1.6 mi) radius, over 12,000 in total, was destroyed or badly damaged.[61]". Is this the same statement, and if so: how do they correspond? Or is the 800-metre claim from elsewhere? -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

They're two different claims - buildings closest to the blast basically completely disappeared from the combo of blast and tsunami, while those further away suffered severe damage but the shock wave had been dampened by that point by distance and topography. Check out this map. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but where does that lede claim come from, then? -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC) DePiep (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Originally, I'm not sure, but there are loads of sources available that confirm it, eg. [10][11][12]. Will add one once it's off the main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

New York City

In reference to this edit, I don't agree it's necessary to specify a country for New York City - it's a world city and its location is generally known, and in the rare case that it is not a wikilink to the city is already provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Would there be any objections to converting the "Bibliography" section to a subsection of "Footnotes". This is a minor edit but would:

• 1)- Remove what appears to be a misplaced "Bibliography" section, normally reserved (when used) for the first section in the appendices for works of the subject (MOS:BIB) and,
• 2)- Indicate correctly that the bibliography is part of the citations. Otr500 (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

We could rename the section if really necessary, but it's not technically correct to say that the bibliography is part of the citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My interest is consistency between articles and MOS. While "Bibliography" is used for sourcing it is also used as a list of works by a subject. A super-majority of articles uses this as such and does give the position to be the "Works" section of an article and that it should be used in biographies. The use as bibliographical footnotes can hardly be argued against but keeping a consistent style does avoid confusion.

If a listed "Bibliography" section corresponds to a "Notes", "Citations", or "References" section where one is the source and the other is the specific citation used for text-source integrity then they would have to be related right? If this is not true then it would seem that a "Bibliography" section on it's own would certainly be misplaced and confusing. Being "related" means it would be more appropriate to use subsections instead of separate sections.

A bibliography is more commonly known as a list of works by a particular author. The definition does include: "A list of the books referred to in a scholarly work, usually printed as an appendix.".

• a)- "A list of the books of a specific author or publisher, or on a specific subject."
• b)- "The history or systematic description of books, their authorship, printing, publication, editions, etc."

Merriam-Webster, APA style, Cambridge, Collins supports the use of "bibliographical footnotes".

In the medical field of research "Bibliography" sections are used to track bibliographic references.

The use of different styles of "footnotes" as sourcing, and attribution by citations (versus general references) is fully supported by consensus and use on Wikipedia but I would like to see the consistency and lack of confusion by relegating "Bibliography sections" to works by a particular author and listed as subsections when related to footnotes. Also, I have checked over 100 GA and FA articles and the percentage of those using a separate bibliography section related to sourcing is pretty small.

I am NOT in anyway wishing this to be anything more than presenting my reasoning and gaining (or not) consensus through dialog but if local consensus on an article would still prefer a separate source related bibliography section then that will be alright. Thanks again, Otr500 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're just intending to basically re-title the sections, perhaps along the lines of the references in Paul Henderson? I'd personally say it's fine. Just make sure the footnote links to those references don't end up broken. Resolute 16:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but actually I have just considered making a move from separate sections to a section and subsection but I do like the example you used. I see some articles using various forms of sourcing and citations as separate "sections" but feel being related they should follow section-subsection linking.

I agree that one definition of "Bibliography" is a listing of sources used in a paper or article just that using this titling related to sourcing in a separate section does conflict with the normal placing and use and can be confusing. I guess the only reservations I have is using "Notes" with references, because it can be used to give a notation on some aspect of an article not related to sourcing, but that is not serious. Just making a section into a subsection will not break any references right? Otr500 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. It shouldn't. Resolute 16:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Collision / sound signals (COLREGS)

Our account of the ships’ movements and sound signals in the moments before the eventual collision has obscurities and lacks incisiveness. I’d get stuck in myself, but I don’t have the sources etc.

A] The following seems to me obscure:

 Mackey .. became concerned as her [Imo‘s] path appeared to be heading towards his ship's [Mont-Blanc’s] starboard side, as if to cut him off his own course.

The wording of the final phrase, “cut him off his own course“, seems entirely unfamiliar and I wonder if the text is defective? The intended reading might be “ cut him off on his own course”? But “cut him off” is anyway not really clear.

And “heading towards his ship's starboard side” is slightly ambiguous. It might mean tht Imo appeared to be approaching on a collision course from starboard; though if I’ve understood the movements correctly that won’t have been Mackay’s perception; more probably it means tht Imo appeared to be on a course to pass down Mont-Blanc’s starboard side (contrary to COLREGS).

Are we at present echoing the phrasing of (non-maritime) sources? If so, it might explain the clumsiness and ambiguity . . even so, though, I’d think we need to get away from it! (And say which we mean!)

B] As regards the sound signals, our existing text allows the reader to suppose tht the officers of the conflicting ships were simply honking like rush-hour motorists at a traffic circle. It continues:

 Mackey gave a short blast of his ship's signal whistle to indicate that he had the right of way

but that sound signal (Morse “E”) indicates “I am turning to starboard”. The signal for “I have right of way” is Morse “H”: four short blasts. (And, strictly, the vessel with right-of-way is normally required to hold her course and speed, and not to manoeuvre; though it’s possible this rule would have been judged not to apply in the circumstances as they had developed by then). Similarly, the

two short blasts from Imo 

(“I”) indicated tht Imo was turning to port (= left): not the appropriate action to comply with COLREGS, and very much the unhelpful thing if Mont-Blanc was turning to starboard to avoid a collision; but that signal indicates a turn, not tht

  the approaching vessel [Imo] would not yield its position [ie course!].

(And

 but was met with  

is a bit un-POV / unencyclopaedic.)

We should maybe also note tht (1) at the speed Mont-Blanc is reported as proceeding initially, she will barely have had steerage way: so tht given the two ships’ conflicting courses, Mont-Blanc could probably only vary her course to avoid collision (rather than having the usual combination of both course and speed available) ; and (2) tht a powered vessel’s steering is normally much less effective when her engines are not running ahead, so tht (3) at the speed she was doing, the Mont-Blanc presumably became helpless in the water - effectively not under command - immediately she stopped her engines (that is, long before she eventually stopped moving through the water). We could even add (4) tht Mackey, as pilot rather than master, will not have been familiar with Mont-Blanc’s handling (at any speed, let alone at extreme low speed and/or stopped engines).

That’s subject to being able to source all this: in, say, the legal reports; or of course in mariners’ textbooks etc.

As noted, I’d get stuck in myself, but I don’t have the sources (though as regards [A] this probably wouldn’t affect much more than choice of phrasing). I also don’t know whether the Canadian inland-waters or International versions of COLREGS applied on those waters at that time (though legal transcripts probably make this at least fairly clear: if they’re silent on the point, it can be assumed the International version applied).

Disclosures: I’m a Brit (not a North American); and I’m not a mariner - though my father was: and taught me the traditional sound-signal mantra: “one right, two left, three back [“my engines are running astern”], four scram.”

- SquisherDa (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"two short blasts from Imo indicated tht Imo was turning to port (= left): not the appropriate action to comply with COLREGS, and very much the unhelpful thing if Mont-Blanc was turning to starboard to avoid a collision" - well, yes. Imo was turning to port and intending to pass to the left (from their perspective) of Mont-Blanc, contrary to the normal rules that would eventually be codified in COLREGS. Armstrong's The Halifax Explosion and the Royal Canadian Navy: Inquiry and Intrigue states that "One short blast indicates intent to pass steering starboard, and two whistles to port. Having blasted a short, sharp signal to claim her right to pass on the Dartmouth [starboard] side...". Mont-Blanc had right of way on their starboard side by normal rules; Imo wanted to pass to the starboard side of Mont-Blanc. Several other sources confirm the signaling and intentions. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SS Mont Blanc, in 1899.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)