Talk:HMS Thunder Child

Comments

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/WarWorlds.html it's

Basis for presumptions

All information I have added to this article is based on Wells's novel, except for the statistics in the ship-box, which are those of Polyphemus. I see that 211.11.155.6 has added to that base, including upgrading Thunder Child's armament and giving her a motto. On what are those additions based? ➥the Epopt 4 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

I have received no reply in the two weeks since I asked the above question, so I have removed the additions. ➥the Epopt 15:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Description problems

The online text of Well’s novel regarding Thunder Child can be found here: http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/warworlds/17 Here is his initial description:

“About a couple of miles out lay an ironclad, very low in the water, almost, to my brother's perception, like a water- logged ship. This was the ram THUNDER CHILD.”

I don’t see anywhere a mention of a torpedo ram specifically, only the two terms “ram” and “Ironclad”; both rather generic considering the period. Ships armed with rams were not exactly uncommon, ram tactics were even used by battleships in WW1. As such I find the reference to Polyphemus a little specific and the whole "description" section rather interpretive.

This Japanese website shows clear documentation of a number of ram equipped ships from the period: http://www.geocities.jp/ironclad_tripod/Photoalbum/album05.htm

I feel it's appropriate to use Well's text in the article since it is copyright free. And besides, even if it were still within copyright, under the rules of copyright the use of an excerpt for descriptive purposes within an article is still allowable.OzoneO 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A few paragraphs after your quote is the line: "It was the torpedo ram, Thunder Child, steaming headlong, coming to the rescue of the threatened shipping." ➥the Epopt 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Granted. And yet there is still the term "ironclad" and the efficaciousness of her guns. Therefore I made subtle changes to the text to reflect Well’s creative ambiguity, but did not remove references to the Polyphemus. OzoneO 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• What is the concensus of how the Martians were taken down? I always read it that Thunder Child destroyed the first with her guns, then rammed the second one, but after re-reading the original passage it merely says that the Martian was "cut down", with no mention how. The reason I ask is that the article clearly states that both Marians were rammed. --Crais459 10:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pendragon movie

How does the "Pendragon version" of the story even counts? Should not be even mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.107.106 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Thunder Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523155249/http://picasaweb.google.com/sfscalemodels/WarOfTheWorldsDiorama to http://picasaweb.google.com/sfscalemodels/WarOfTheWorldsDiorama

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Assumptions

"There's little doubt that Thunder Child was meant to be a battleship and Wells' use of the term "torpedo ram" was merely referring to the ram bows common in Victorian warships of the time."

Really?

Actually, a lot of doubt about that. The rest of the Channel Fleet are described as "standing out to sea" (that's the line of "Ironclads" of the Channel Fleet, so if you want a generalisation on Wells' part, the one in use is "ironclad" as a general term for warships), while the Thunder Child is close in to the Essex coast, which is notoriously shallow. This is not a battleship of the day - for such a ship would have had a draught of 25 feet or more.

Also, the assumption that ram bowed warships were a source of collective generalisation by the public at the time is nonsensical, for the ram bow had been the standard form for a warship's bow since the mid-1860s and was both commonplace and unexceptional in the 1890s. Is this a case of assuming that the ancestors knew less? Furthermore, the term 'torpedo ram' was applied to several different classes of warship. The most popular use of the term in the late 1880s and early 1890s was in regard to the Elswick cruisers in Italian and Austrian service (the Panther and Giovanni Bausan types), both of which featured very powerful engines (and two funnels), long low profiles ("like a waterlogged ship" to quote Wells' text), along with the curved plough-like ram bow and potent enough guns to capably tackle large targets (4.7" to 10" dependent on design) - and were described by the respective navies and in published periodicals as torpedo ram cruisers.

So yes, there remains very much doubt as to what Wells meant to describe and one should not be leaning on familiarity with the album cover art of Jeff Wayne's Musical Version in order to understand the mindset and technical knowledge of a 19thC author & intellectual.

That's why that line's been deleted. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:2C4B:9264:9A25:F5A3 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Scarlet Traces

IIRC a supporting character in the (awful) comic Scarlet Traces was a survivor of the Thunderchild, and the ship's sinking was featured in the prequel/webcomic adaptation of the book the same team did. Will dig around for sources... BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

War of the worlds timeline/setting

This article states that the book depicts events in the year 1897. Although the book was first published in serial form in 1897, there is nothing within the book itself which would lead the reader to the conclusion that it was set in 1897 and in fact - there is significant evidence that the events actually took place in 1901.

First of all, Wells describes astronomers recording a great light on Mars during the opposition of 1894 (the narrator speculated this to be the casting of the great gun which fired the cylinders). The book then describes strange markings that were subsequently observed around this site for the following two oppositions (again speculated that this is the infrastructure being constructed around the great gun). Looking at astronomical records, these two oppositions took place in 1896 and 1899.

The book then goes on to state that "as Mars approached opposition" (presumably referring to the next opposition in the sequence which was Feb 1901) "a huge outbreak of incandescent gas" was observed, this outgassing signified the firing of the first cylinders towards earth.

The 1901 date is further supported by the opening paragraph of the book which states "And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment."

Later entries in the book indicate that the events took place in the summer (in June/July), so I would conclude that the story was actually set in June/July 1901, and the cylinders journey from Mars to Earth took approximately 6 months. 81.145.236.58 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This is all fine and you may well be right, but there are two issues:

1) This article is specifically about HMS Thunder Child. The date the novel is set isn't relevant to this article. You could try The War of the Worlds talk page.

2) It doesn't matter whether you're right or not, only research that has been published in reliable sources can be added to Wikipedia. See No original research. If you can find a reliable source that discusses the date the novel is set then great, go ahead and edit the The War of the Worlds article. Shimbo (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I see that the date the novel is set is being discussed on the War of the Worlds talk page at the moment, so you may want to join in that discussion. Shimbo (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

But the date the novel was set in was stated in this article - so it is relevant. It was explicitly stated that the story took place in 1897 which I am pointing out is false. Nothing in the novel supports the fact that the events took place in 1897, so surely that constitutes original research by the definition you have given. My discussion above is based entirely on statements made within the book and published sources of astronomical information (the British Astronomical Society). Why do you feel they aren't reliable sources2A00:23C5:3508:4301:5DF5:6AAD:6D18:3EDD (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You need to contribute to the War of the Worlds talk page, where, as I said, an active discussion of the date the novel is set is underway. Shimbo (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The date that the novel is set is also mentioned in this article - so this discussion is also valid here. I am already contributing to the other discussion. The reason I added this talk topic was because when I tried to make an edit to the main War of the Worlds topic along similar lines - it kept getting reverted by overzealous reverter (against wikipedia's rules I might add) - who refused to allow the edit and told me I had to raise a talk topic to make my case. I was just pre-empting the same thing happening here.

You have stated that it's original research, however I would not agree, since the source of all of the information I have based the determination on is reliable (the book itself and astronomical data from the British Astronomical Society). The original and incorrect date I edited (1897) was completely unsupported, yet went uncommented. Surely the point of wikipedia is to allow people to make changes to make the information contained within it's articles more accurate - and the talk page exists to allow people to discuss and provide supporting evidence/arguments where a dispute arises. I am using these tools for precisely the purpose for which they were designed. 2A00:23C5:3508:4301:51F3:1AAA:E957:C61F (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)