This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sailing Bayesian (yacht) is within the scope of the WikiProject Sailing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sailing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.SailingWikipedia:WikiProject SailingTemplate:WikiProject SailingSailing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles More information: /  This article lacks a ship infobox. You can help by adding ((Infobox ship begin)) to the article and filling in the information. A usage guide is available. Do not place a blank infobox template into the article. Shipwrecks This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: edit history watch purge To Do Lady Elizabeth (1879) Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed! Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Still adding more information Discuss desired additions -None Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather. Sicily This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Italy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A lot of unsubstantiated conjecture on the sinking that the author would have no way of knowing. Captain distracted - capsize related to fuel on board etc. Better to leave this section until more reliable info is available. 199.189.172.130 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. We must beware of WP:RECENTISM, but could I guess include reliably sourced speculation in due course. Springnuts (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. It has been filled with speculation, stuff pushed in in front of sources which fail to support it etc. Wikipedia in one of its worse forms, where people confuse it with a blog. forum, facebook, whatever. Good luck – I think I will leave it for a bit and look back in a week or two when the passionate urgency has abated. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this serious BLP violation. DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and good luck! DBaK (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not start omitting essential information for the reconstruction of the shipwreck and the evident responsibilities of the commander.

No speculation but objective facts, the storm was widely announced by the weather forecasts. The storm was visible on weather radar. Of course the captain could not have predicted the waterspout, but perhaps if he had seen the weather radar he could have saved the vessel and the people on it even in the imminent of the storm. The port, as eyewitnesses reported, was nearby.

From the newspaper article in Italian:

Testimoni: "Era ancora in rada"

Secondo alcuni testimoni, l'imbarcazione quando si è scatenata la tromba d'ara era ancora in rada davanti al porto di Porticello. L'ancora era abbassata. Il nubifragio che si è abbattuto avrebbe spezzato l'imponente albero a vela. Questo avrebbe provocato uno sbilanciamento dell'imbarcazione che ha provocato il naufragio.

"L'imbarcazione non era distante dal porto"

I velieri in rada erano due. E' stata propria l'altra imbarcazione a soccorrere la nave Bayesian. "Quell'imbarcazione era tutta illuminata - dice un uomo a Porticello -. Verso le 4:30 di mattina non c'era più. Una bella imbarcazione dove c'era stata una festa. Una normale giornata di vacanza trascorsa in allegria in mare si è trasformata in tragedia. L'imbarcazione non era distante dal porto. Bastava poco per alzare l'ancora e dirigersi in porto. Evidentemente sono stati sorpresi dalla burrasca che si è abbattuta improvvisamente e non sono riusciti a evitare l'affondamento".

A picco 18mila litri di combustibile nei serbatoi

Con il veliero è andato a picco anche un pesante carico di combustibile, pari a circa 18mila litri, la quantità contenuta nei serbatoi. La capacità complessiva è di circa 58.700 litri.

https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/sicilia/porticello-palermo-maltempo-affonda-veliero-dispersi_86138447-202402k.shtml 79.30.56.31 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as this is an ongoing investigation, further details emerge.

https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/affonda-barca-vela-palermitano-7-dispersi-AFeqrgRD 79.30.56.31 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and there's something else...

https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/morto-un-incidente-stradale-stephen-chamberlain-ex-coimputato-linch-AFeGTYSD 79.30.56.31 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to insert pure speculation into the article. If you are behind the IP who did this (same region) you will be blocked if you continue. We have strict rules on how we refer to living persons especially in the context of serious allegations. In that edit a false source was provided. But in any case you need to read WP:BLP. There is no "evident responsibilities" at the moment. Just you putting 2 and 2 together and making an excitable 5. That's called WP:OR and is prohibited in Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acted in good faith following the reconstruction according to journalistic sources. well there are some obvious inaccuracies, released at first. The breaking of the mainmast does not seem to have ever occurred. Furthermore the boat was 700 meters from Porticello, at anchor. The video of the sinking of the sailing ship.

https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/2024/video/bayesian-su-tgcom24-le-immagini-esclusive-dell-affondamento-del-veliero-a-palermo_86202735-02k.shtml 79.30.56.31 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further developments of the investigation...

https://www.milanofinanza.it/news/naufragio-del-bayesian-una-polizza-da-2-miliardi-a-garanzia-del-super-yacht-202408202113266154

https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/veliero-affondato-palermo-dubbi-cause-albero-intatto-errore-umano_86210251-202402k.shtml

The hull and mainmast were intact at the time of the sinking and also afterwards. 82.58.148.192 (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed a sentence because it prematurely declared the 6 missing passengers as dead, when this is not yet confirmed. I'm unsure what to do with the "victims" section, whether to change it to "missing" or delete it entirely. Obviously once it's confirmed either way this should all be changed to reflect it. ~OneRandomBrit | User Page | Talk 10:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just one last thing before I naff off in a strop. Is the name explicable? I thought it was simply Bayesian, like the stats. Pronounced Bayes-ian. I rather thought that was the whole point, because it had to do with how Lynch ended up so successful. So I was a bit surprised to hear a BBC reporter contorting themselves to make it foreign and exotic, so the boat was called the Bi-ESS-ian. Maybe I am wrong about all this (plus tbh I don't really care!) but if by some remote chance I am right, do we not have a duty to educate these poor benighted people? Bye for now, DBaK (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC news online site agrees with you that it's named Bayesian after Mike Lynch's PhD thesis and subsequent use of stats in his career. Weird pronounciation by reporters are nothing new! I vividly remember Moira Stuart always calling Baghdad 'Bug-uh-dud' - I don't know if that's how locals pronounce it, I imagine it must be something along those lines - but it was a rather ridiculous thing for her to do. Foreign place names have accepted pronunciations depending on the speaker's native language. In the UK we call Paris, Paris. We don't call it 'Parr-eee', nor do we call France 'Fraun-suh'. Having said all of that, Thomas Bayes was English and his surname was pronounced 'Bayz', so his statistical theorem is 'Bayz-eh-un'. One of these days I'm going to learn how to read and write phonetic symbols properly - for the moment I'll settle on Bayz-eh-un!

And I fully agree with your early comment about this article being loaded with speculation. Things like "the boat sank due to a storm" and stating the six missing people were dead. It's been improved upon now as far as I can see. The Italian authorities recently said that it is possible some of the six missing people may still be alive, albeit unlikely. I would imagine the divers have been knocking on the hull and listening for noises in reply - and if there were any noises coming from within I think that would have been reported (and the pace and scale of the diving mission would have been dramatically scaled up). Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of how these things are done, but it feels wrong to have a victims subsection for missing and dead right after a survivors subsection - my first thought was that all listed in victims were confirmed dead until I read the comment in the last one saying that's the only confirmed dead. – 2804:F1...A7:C558 (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. With every hour that passes it becomes increasingly unlikely any of the six missing people will have survived (trapped in the hull), but that is beside the point. The article has used the word 'victims' for over 24 hours - almost from the outset I think - including at the time when there was still hope (however realistic or unrealistic) of finding people alive. Usually with high profile events such as this, one of the Wikeratti takes charge and keeps things painstakingly in order. It's surprising that this article has been so poorly written and developed. The words 'missing' or "unaccounted for" should be used until such time as the outcome is officially announced. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Victims" is an odd heading anyway - anyone on board is a "victim". I've split it between "Missing" and "Confirmed deceased". DeCausa (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I saw that yesterday but had no idea what to change it to so I just left it. ~OneRandomBrit | User Page | Talk 15:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynch and daughter have been confirmed dead in various sources. So, they shouldn't still be listed under "Missing" as it is now. Example: https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/21/mike_lynch_dead/

As for the others, I haven't found death confirmations yet. 184.175.42.11 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not confirmed dead. As explained in the article (and in the source you linked to) the Italian authorities have not confirmed yet even though there are media reports. DeCausa (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Body of IT tycoon Mike Lynch recovered" sounds pretty "confirmed" to me. Turner.john60 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the 33 hours or so since the person made the comment you are replying to, the confirmation happened - and the article reflects this. Thanks for joining in. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know the boat/ship discussion is complex, but Bayesian's hull length is nearly the same as that of HMS Victory (56 vs. 57 m), or 10m longer than HMS Trincomalee. She's not a fully rigged ship, of course, but still... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make some interesting points. However, if we stick to 'it', vessel and 'yacht', we can avoid the complexity. Jontel (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have another source for model railways? There is a model railway builder called Mike Lynch, but he wrote a book called Model Railways on a Budget which doesn't sound like a book written by someone worth hundreds of millions? Southdevonian (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well this Guardian article says he built model railways as a hobby. But that's probably something for Mike Lynch (businessman) rather than this article. DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My grandmother always told me, "if you want to get rich, don't fritter money away on train sets". To my mind, Model Railways on a Budget sounds like a sure-fire way to become a millionaire. It's fascinating to think that that Mike Lynch the dead megaboat guy is the same Mike Lynch who wrote the budget train set book. Given the Guardian article quoted by @DeCausa, it seems credible. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I intended this for the Mike Lynch talk page and for some reason I put it here. Nothing, of course, to do with the yacht. Southdevonian (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me Bayesian is not was a yacht, has not had a mast etc if she is sitting intact in 50m and due to be recovered Northutsire (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have not heard that it will be recovered. Jontel (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As already in the article, the Italian coastguard have said that that has not yet been considered, but clearly will be discussed later. I suspect that decisions will also involve the investigators, insurers and the bereaved owner (maybe the management company on her behalf). - Davidships (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find a rights appropriate image of this fine craft for the article? Jontel (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by User:kresspahl Jontel (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently these are both set as 'Sailing superyacht'. Is this correct? Please change if not. Jontel (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good description to me. It's a superyacht (common) of the wind-powered variety (very few) - it does of course also have an diesel power, as already shown in the infobox. Just leave "class" blank. - Davidships (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Jontel (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox template used is vessel, but this template is for powered vessels. There is a sailing yacht template but that is for racing yachts. Other superyachts seems to use the ship template. Would anyone volunteer to change it over to this? Jontel (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - the existing "vessel" template misses important parameters, like "ship operator" (ie manager) and "identification" (eg IMO number). I'll change it to the ship template later on today. - Davidships (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I would do it but think it is better done by someone more knowledgeable. Jontel (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Finally done, apologies for delay - Davidships (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article says 8 minutes - doesn't seem to be sourced. BBC says 12 minutes on this article https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzk4r8293o but 10 minutes on the linked one https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9ex7p40z8o

https://news.sky.com/story/divers-enter-sunken-superyacht-but-have-just-ten-minutes-to-search-for-bodies-13200100 says 12 minutes, but 2 needed to ascend and descend, leaving 10 for searching - that sounds incredibly quick for a 50m dive to me, but I do know basically nothing about SCUBA…? Timtjtim (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 8 minutes is sourced. The ref is at the end of the next sentence - ref number 13. The article says: ""The greatest challenge is the depth," Marco Tilotta, the head of the firefighter divers in Palermo, told the Guardian. "We have three minutes to descend and eight minutes to work on the wreck. Then we have to begin the ascent phase. Not to mention the furniture that blocks access to the cabins".

Yes, some sources give slightly different figures - are they perhaps counting descent and ascent time? But they are all approximately the same. Southdevonian (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment all we know for certain is that the yacht sank in a storm. An investigation has been opened and hopefully will throw more light on exactly what happened - why the yacht sank and why seven people did not survive. Until then it is all speculation. At the moment the article gives the impression that the crew made mistakes - the three quotes and the speculation about hatches all imply criticism of the crew's actions. It is possible to find less one-sided opinions in the media, but does the article even need a list of media speculation about causes? My inclination would be to scrap the section altogether until we know more. Or, failing that, introduce some quotes that are less critical of the crew. Thoughts? Southdevonian (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that we can do better than include random speculation. On the other hand, we do not know how long the investigation will take to conclude, especially if they wait till the yacht is raised and examined. Perhaps we can include views but only from those with relevant knowledge: there are the fisherman, the nearby yacht, the sea temperature, the weather forecast, the yacht builders and the first press conference of the investigators. Of course, it is better if they are based on observed facts. In articles covering disasters and other sinkings and plane crashes, I think I have seen discussion of potential causes. Jontel (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some duplicated points. Jontel (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the yacht sinking by the stern initially, according to the authorities' press conference, and the tender supposedly missing, there is some discussion in the superyacht community that the tender garage, if unsecured, could be a potential cause of massive water ingress, but I don't know if you want to put this in, given your concern. Jontel (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of discussion you mention. It is interesting and informative, but the Wikipedia guideline that discusses the reliability of various types of sources says that content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot reconcile diagrams like this from The Sun^{full story} with accounts by the Italian authorities about cabins on the left and right sides of the yacht.^[1] The Sun's diagram also has the tender garage near the bow. superyachts.com says that the Bayesian accommodates up to 10 guests in 6 cabins. She also houses room for up to 9 crew members. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a better plan showing the cabins. https://www.superyachttimes.com/yacht-news/perini-navi-sailing-yacht-bayesian-sinks-off-palermo-seven-missing I read the tender garage might be up front but that there might be a stern opening to the swim platform. Both/ either could have been unsecured. This might be wrong. Anyway, things could have changed in the 2020 refit so one could be looking at an old plan. Jontel (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:southdevonian I have added an expert view that the crew could not have been expected to prepare for such a rare event as a downburst and that the impact was too sudden and severe for them to take remedial action, which is a counterpoint to the shipbuilder's critique of them. Jontel (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1 Go to the yacht's page on the builder's website and you get the six minute video, the 38pp brochure, tech specs, plans for each deck... https://www.perininavi.it/yacht/2008-bayesian-formerly-salute/ Jontel (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The plans in the brochure are interesting. Whereas the plan in The Sun merely shows what a luxury yacht is like inside - but not this particular yacht.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking for an article that summarises all the different theories that have been discussed. I found something in yahoo!news which gets the green light as an RS so will use that to re-write the section less like a breaking news story. Southdevonian (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says:

Bayesian sank around 04:30 CEST on 19 August 2024 during a storm when anchored off Porticello (township of Santa Flavia), a small fishing village about 15 km (9.3 mi) east of Palermo, Sicily.^[1]

But the source above does not explicitly say that. The times in the source are:

• 03:30, witness Cefalù arrived at the port, "the first flashes of lightning illuminated the sky".^[2]
• 03:55 witness Cefalù said that "a sort of mini-tornado arrived"^[3]
• 04:35 "a red emergency flare was launched from the Bayesian’s life raft"^[4]

A BBC story has some timings: Lowen, Mark (25 August 2024). "The 16 minutes that plunged the Bayesian yacht into a deadly spiral". BBC News.

• 03:56 electrical power went out on the yacht "showing that water was flooding areas with electrical circuits"^[5]
• 04:12 "there were 16 minutes between the power going out on the ship at 03:56 – showing that water was flooding areas with electrical circuits – and the GPS signal being lost, indicating the moment it sank."^[6] [I have put the 04:12 in italics because it was calculated from this statement]
• 04:15 witness Cefalù saw a flare go up^[7]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, 4.12 is around 4.30, but happy for you to change it.Jontel (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jontel, thank you for all the improvements to the infobox. Please can you find a way to put an indication of the source for this information into the article. WP:VERIFY is important.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some of this. I am struggling to find sources for some information without using sales and marketing material from the builders, agents or various quasi sales sites, which are not independent or with a date, albeit the information is probably not contentious. Is it better to use these sources if nothing else can be found? If anyone can fill in any of the gaps, that would be great. Jontel (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through all the photos in this brochure [8] you come to a list of technical details on page 35 and plans on page 38. Southdevonian (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jontel (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is fine to just give the mast height (in feet and metres) in the lead, I think we ought to say what we mean by mast height in the "design and construction" section. The manufacturer's website defined the height as measured from the design waterline (DWL).^[9] -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jontel (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already mostly about the sinking and clearly this will be even more so in the near future and as time goes on. Shouldn't the title be changed now to something like Bayesian Sinking, Bayesian Superyacht Sinking or something similar? Lubiesque (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A titanic suggestion? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it did not have an article before the sinking and most large yachts do not. An alternative is to retain a short standard article on the yacht's history and characteristics and have a separate article on the sinking, rescue and recovery, lifting, theories, investigation, any law suits etc. which would have a different tone. See e.g. RMS Lusitania and Sinking of the RMS Lusitania or Costa Concordia and Costa Concordia disaster although these were admittedly much larger. Here is a List_of_maritime_disasters_in_the_21st_century which have varying treatments. Jontel (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least at present, the article is not particularly lengthy and I see no reason for a fork. The current title is fine as it is - simple and self-explanatory, covering the life and death of a yacht named Bayesian. - Davidships (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could always wait until the investigation is concluded and revisit the question then. Jontel (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is best. It defines the topic; it does not exclude elements of the topic. [If you have an article on the "death of Jane Smith", you get people who want remove information on Jane Smith because they say that the victim's life is not relevant.]-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]