Talk:Titanic/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Marconi radio operators

I reverted this edit, which was inserted with the summary "common knowledge". My reasons for reverting it are that it had been previously removed by another editor which demonstrates it is not common knowledge if it's questiond. By re-inserting the content, the editor is suggesting that it's something they know even if others question it, which amounts to original research. A third party reliable source is really needed to justify re-adding the content. I'm not saying it's not true; I think I had heard something like that someplace before ... but I can't recall the specifics. A reliable source could resolve that problem for everyone. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources for my deleted edit, "as Jack Phillips and Harold Bride, the Marconi radio operators, were employed by Marconi and paid to relay messages to and from the passengers, they were not required to relay such "non-essential" messages"

As to "as Jack Phillips and Harold Bride, the Marconi radio operators, were employed by Marconi"...I cite page 490 of "Titanic & Her Sisters Olympic & Britannic" by McCluskie/Sharpe/Marriott, page 60 of "Unsinkable - The Full Story" by Daniel Allen Butler, page 33 of "The Titanic" by Tibballs, page 52 of "Titanic - Legacy of the World's Greatest Ocean Liner" by Susan Wels, page 37 of "1912 Facts About Titanic" by Merideth

As to "and paid to relay messages to and from the passengers"...I cite page 61-62 of "Unsinkable - The Full Story" by Daniel Allen Butler, page 63 of "The Titanic" by Tibballs

As to "they were not required to relay such "non-essential" messages...I cite page 37 of "1912 Facts About Titanic" by Merideth, which states, "Marconi wireless operators were employed by the Marconi Company and not by the ship or its owners. The operators were contracted out and reported to their company offices first and to the ship's officers second. The operators were only required to pass information on to the crew of the ship if the information was related to an emergency..."...I cite page 20 of "The Discovery of the Titanic" by Dr. Ballard, which ..."because of the lack of coordination between the bridge and the wireless room and the absence of any standard procedure for dealing with ice warnings". I cite page 60 of "Unsinkable - The Full Story"...which "What was most noticeably lacking was standardization...no definite order in the ships' crew organisations as to where the wireless oeprator belong." as evidence that Phillips/Bride had no formal reporting structure. I cite page 66 of "The Titanic" by Tibballs as further evidence that "Phillips was apparently preoccupied with transmitting messages that had accumulated during the day." as opposed to the ice warnings. I cite page 79-80 of "Titanic - Legacy of the World's Greatest Ocean Liner" by Susan Wels...for Phillips and Bride focusing on the backlog of private commercial traffic after the wireless had been broken on Friday night...their focus was on the commercial traffic, for which they were paid (report to Marconi offices first). The "non-essential" is a hind-sight adjective (sarcasm), as these messages should have taken precedent and treated as an emergency.

Howelto (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Howelto

Sorry - I thought that I had replied to this ... thank you for providing the references. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By any chance do you have the ISBN numbers of the books you referenced? It's usually prefered to include those when citing books. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ensign Query

Obviously the Titanic was a UK-registered vessel, but would she have flown the red ensign? I'm not sure what the rules were for vessels of this period, as I know there were a multitude of different ensigns and rules regarding their use. I notice that the blue ensign seems to appear in the table, next to Liverpool, UK. Could this be moved into the title bar for the career section like other ship infoboxes, only if it is correct of course. Cheers, Xtrememachineuk (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This entry suggests that Captain Smith, by virtue of his position in the Royal Naval Reserve, was entitled to fly the blue ensign on the ships under his command and most sources agree that he did so on theTitanic.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I've amended the ship's details infobox as necessary. Xtrememachineuk (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to Starboard

Did the movie get that wrong? They say "hard to starboard" but they turn left. Just curious. Quietmartialartist (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good question and there's been a lot of chat about it, both here and elsewhere. Most of Talk:RMS Titanic#Rudder and turning ability, above, concerns the rudder design but the last two paragraphs are helpful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Prompted by this question I've just added a footnote on the Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic page. Giving orders for the tiller direction was a potentially dangerous holdover (for example when receiving pilotage at a foreign port) which had been abandoned by most maritime nations by the end of the century. British ships retained it until 1933 and the U.S. merchant marine until 1935. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Canadian "Claim"

While cleaning up my collection I found a newspaper cliping jammed in one of my books titled "MP wants Canda to claim the Titanic" by Alison MacGregor. Te article goes on to explain aboiut the legal 350 nautical mile boundry that would put Titanic in canadian territory and how the MP wants to designate it a Canadian Heritage site to prevent the wreck from further being disturbed. I have attempted to locate any other information on this, the article calls it the "Titanic Bill" put forth by Liberal MP Clifford Lincoln and it appears to have been culled from the Ottawa Citizen, but a google search returns nothing, and the clipping does not include a date. I have uploaded a scan of the article here. It may be notable for a mention in the ownership and litigation section if a date can be found. Knowledgeum :  Talk  18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

Shouldn't we have a map showing where the titanic was ment to go and where it sank? --64.230.14.7 (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Closest Ship

{{editsemiprotected}} The closest ship wasn't the Carpathia. It was the Californian, 12 miles away.

 Done. The article already mentioned the Californian, and mentioned the Carpathia being "the closest" amid a list of the ships that responded to the distress signal, implying that it was the closest one to respond. I agree, though, that this was vague so I have clarified that sentence. Thanks. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Titanics Last Secrets

I was listening to NPR the other day and there was an interview with Brad Matsen, the author of Titanics Last Secrets, which is a new book that apparently has more forensic information on the break-up and sinking of the Titanic. Does anyone have accecss to this book? Is it worth pursuing? Does it add or change anything in the article? Padillah (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Clear sky

"The moon was not visible and the sky was clear". How was/is that possible?--andreasegde (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a new moon, thus it was a moonless night. The stars were all that was in the sky. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No mention that the lookouts in the crows nest were not provided with binoculars? (This is a fact). "lookouts Fredrick Fleet and Reginald Lee spotted a large iceberg directly ahead of the ship. Fleet sounded the ship's bell three times and telephoned the bridge exclaiming, 'Iceberg, right ahead!'." --andreasegde (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Registered?

The article doesn't mention what country it was registered to. 86.133.246.9 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's tucked away in the infobox. Easy to miss. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lifeboat capacity inconsistency

In this article (Sinking section)...it indicates a "lifeboat capacity of 40...with only 12 on board"...while in the Timeline of the Disaster (separate article) indicates a lifeboat capacity of 65...which I believe the 65 is closer to the true capacity...can someone correct this inconsistency...Thanks Howelto (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)howelto

Titanic had 3 types of lifeboats with different capacities. Forgive me if these exact numbers are inaccurate, but I believe they were 14 boats capacity 65, 4 collapsables capacity 47, and 2 smaller boats capacity 40. The bpat with 12 on board was one of the 40-capacity boats. This explains the difference in references. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is Belfast?

@MickMacNee: how particular are you going to be? Is there a reason Ireland is not the same as Ireland, or Ireland? What is the difference and why is it this important to you? And before you dismiss me with a casual "You don't understand the history of Ireland", I do. I just don't think it has a place in this context. Why is the distinction you are making important to the shipyard where the RMS Titanic was built? Is there another shipyard in a different part of Ireland that might confuse somebody? Padillah (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How about you tell me what is not correct about the current version. MickMacNee (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It links to an ideal, rather than a place. This is not going to help people that are looking to see what part of the world the ship was built in (ostensibly the reason for having the link in the first place). I understand that the politics of the areas have changed in the intervening years but that doesn't change the fact that the shipyard is in Belfast which is located at 54.5973, -5.9301 and can be found on the island of Ireland. When an article links to Plymouth, MA they don't expect to get three different articles depending on what time period they are linking from. I don't have as much a problem with the current link as the original link, but I have to wonder why this is so pivotal for this article. Taken to a certain degree it could be seen as POV pushing. Padillah (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So would you change all the post 1921 H&W ship articles to being built in Belfast, Ireland, on this basis that the idea is to teach people geography, rather than to state the city and country of origin? Why is using a non-standard city, island form on this one article not also POV pushing? MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I don't mean to suggest that the idea is to teach geography, rather to represent the place the link is referring to. The current link takes the reader to an article on Irish history, not the country of Ireland that contains Belfast. Continuing my example above would you have links to pre-1783 Plymouth go to the American War for Independence? If the article had anything to do with Ireland place in Great Britain then I'd have no issue. But it's just the name of a city and country and should link to the respective articles about the places, not the history. As for the other articles, if I knew about them I'd object to them too. Just because other articles are doing it the other way doesn't mean we have to continue to do it that way. BTW, what is your argument for keeping it this way? Other than disagreeing with me I've heard no reasoning why you feel this link is better. Is it simply because this is the closest to linking to Great Britain you can get? Padillah (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

'Place' in the context of explaining the place of origin is country for the majority of articles, it is just the expected format, its normal. But to describe it here, people add Ireland meaning an island, and are surprised when people object because Ireland is also the name of a country in which Belfast does not currently reside. People add Northern Ireland and are surprised when people complain pointing out it didn't even exist at the time. So the only logical link is the country article for ireland at the time, which is Ireland (home nation). It can't realy be said that that article is purely a history article, it gives the geographic description of the 'place' in the infobox map. The home nation article is simply the most factually correct compromise to the consequences of currently having separate Ireland political and geographic articles in wikipedia. Adding UKGBI only makes that even clearer. The Plymouth example is not comparable, because you are not suggesting linking to Plymouth, Virginia, as the historical country successor to the former colony, transferring your approach here would be akin to linking to Plymouth, North America. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I get that. Thanks for the explanation. Padillah (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the links per WP:CONTEXT. There are some serious quality issues with this article; it isn't nearly as good as it should be for such a high-profile article. Please, if you are tempted to edit-war or bicker about whether or how the ship's city of construction is linked, consider making a substantive improvement to the article instead. --John (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rv. And since when have we ever not linked articles because they are in a bad state? Unlinking articles is counter-intuitive to encouraging their improvement. I can't see how overlinking/context has anything to do with it, especially as you won't find a link to the article you are unlinking from either Belfast or UKGBI. 16:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, that was very unhelpful. I am going to restrict myself for now to issuing a formal warning to you for edit-warring and to recommending you familiarize yourself with Help:reverting and WP:LAME. If you get blocked, don't say you weren't warned. Good luck. --John (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

John, I think having a link is fine and within the context of looking up where the Titanic was built. To remove that link and leave "iceberg" seems kind of silly to me. No one comes to the Titanic article looking for information on what it hit. I also don't think either MickMacNee or I are bickering. We are trying to discuss changes to the article and the reasons behind them. I've made exactly two edits to this article (one of which is not in contention) if we are not allowed to discuss our edits then how can we not edit-war. For you to revert an edit that is currently being discussed on the talk page is also an edit-war. If you feel you have input into the topic of discussion then feel free to participate, but don't revert an edit under disucssion and then warn us about edit-warring. Padillah (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You may then wish to read WP:EDITWAR and Help:reverting so that you will know what you are talking about. I have made 0 reverts on the article. By all means discuss here, that is preferable to edit warring. Even better, you could make some actual improvements to the article. Just a thought. --John (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering about what constitutes a revert doesn't impress me. I'd rather make a small but substantive contribution to the article than some random edit and hope no one notices. Please, unless you have something to add to the discussion, allow MickMacNee and I to resolve this. Thanks. Padillah (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to impress you. Please, resolve your squabble before it reaches further heights of lameness. Thanks. --John (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You also may wish to read the archives of this talk page where this very same thing has been discussed at least three previous times. Perhaps a FAQ is in order? Maybe then we could get on with actually improving the article. --John (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your objection to discussion? Why can't you simply ignore us as we figure this out? If there are archives with this discussion that's fine but it doesn't change the fact that I was not in on those discussions and may have a different outlook about the situation. If discussing this is so annoying to you please feel free to not click on the page. It's not that hard. See the link? Now don't do anything. There, you have successfully not clicked on the link. Way to go! Padillah (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While you are at it, please read WP:OWN and WP:FORUM as well. --John (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming terms

I've not been involved so far as I don't really have an opinion on this, but I've been watching this spiral with an increasing amount of dismay, as it seemed at one point to be approaching a result. I agree it may seem a lame thing to have an argument about to some people, but I also understand that it is very important to sort out potentially nationalistic ties to a subject as satisfactorily as possible.

The possible ways of how to refer to the location of Belfast in 1912 seem to me to be:

• Don't, just use Belfast.
• Use the link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
• Use the link to Ireland (home nation)
• Use the link to Ireland

All of these options seem technically correct, one is a geographical term, the other two are political. It looked like Ireland (home nation) was the preferred option, is this still the case? I'd like to see this debate get back on track, I've no particular interest in seeing any particular term win out, so thoughts and feelings on the matter are welcome. Benea (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• See my reasoning above. I can't see anything wrong with the current version, Belfast, Ireland, UK, it's short but ultimately factually correct. "City, Island" is not a natural or ever expected form of sentence given it is simply not practiced in other articles, and especially misleading here when the island and country don't overlap. Using home nation is the only logical choice if we must have separate geography and country articles for the same place called Ireland, and provides an immediate education to the perennial questions from those who don't realise that Belfast was in the UK before Northern Ireland ever existed. Using just Belfast, UKGBI without Ireland is overlong, always invites objection, and when first tried invited the apparent constituent country convention that Ireland must be mentioned. Additionaly, just Belfast will always invite the addition of a qualifier, so it's not worth agreeing on that unless you want to be explaining it for evermore, each time someone expands it. MickMacNee (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Option 1, just use Belfast, is fine. Interested readers can click on the link to find out about Belfast's history. A detailed treatment of the constitutional history of Northern Ireland is out of place in this article about a ship. --John (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • A single link to a country article, as happens in all other articles, is not a "detailed treatment" of anything, let alone constitutional history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Check out WP:CONTEXT then. "Items that would be familiar to most readers of the article, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, historical events, religions, languages, and common professions." should not be linked. --John (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
        • So you think context means you don't link city, country on any article? That's news to me, maybe I've missed that in the millions of non compliant articles I've been reading. Anyway, if you insist on a specific justification for linking what is always linked anyway, read the archives and look at the article history, the fact that "Belfast, Ireland, UK" could ever be a correct form of city - country phraseology is not a familiar concept to many readers of this page at all. It just so happens that when confronted with this mystery people don't actually click on Belfast to educate themselves as you seem to think is natural, they merely edit it to their own personal preference. Yours is a non-solution that creates work for evermore. MickMacNee (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Whether it be news to you or not, that is what it says. You are likely right in that there are many other articles which are non-compliant. I actually do think that an FAQ would be worth throwing together for this article to avoid this coming up every three months. Some invisible text in the article for those tempted to edit it; as you say it seems to attract people who wish to refine the details of Belfast's constitutional history. As I said, this is not the place for it. --John (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Hi. I would just leave it at "Belfast, UK" - or "Belfast". The current wording "Belfast, Ireland, UK" could easily be misread to suggest that Ireland is currently a subset of the UK - which isn't entirely correct. Further, in case anyone is interested, this is the ONLY article which links to the "Ireland (Home nation)" article. Ireland (home nation) as an article is a verbatim copy and paste job from Ireland 1801–1922 and has next to value independently. (Not least because the term "The Home Nation of Ireland" is an invention of the creating editor - and fails COMMONNAME by a long margin). Guliolopez (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition to the 'Media' Section

The Titanic was also featured in the fan-fiction series Star Trek: Hidden Frontier (http://www.hiddenfrontier.com) Season 1, Episode 4 entitled "Two Hours". While I'd understand not including the reference if this was just a written story, the Hidden Frontier series is a full-action online television series of seven seasons with two spin-off series.

Since I can't edit the article directly, I thought I'd mention this here.

- J.D. Gallaway - The A&A Society (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Gallery

I believe that the image gallery in the article should be removed and the images used individually in the article to help move the article back to Good Article/Featured Article status.Shinerunner (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should new picture in the gallery and also in the page 21-4-09 (jgpaul51)

Ismay and the lifeboats

I've just read the court records, and Ismay specifically denies that he influenced the number of lifeboats. Apologies for the poor edit summary: WP:TWINKLE went off prematurely. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This one has puzzled me for years - Almost every popular account of Titanic includes an episode referring to Ismay reducing the number of lifeboats 'because they cluttered the deck' etc, and even some of the better researched books seem to assume it was common knowledge that he did so - but I have not come across any definive reference of the origins of this story, and so have come to assume that it was part of the anti-Ismay propoganda. If anyone can point me at a good reference I would be grateful.

PS the testimony of Carlisle ( http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq20Carlisle01.php ) is interesting on this subject - He seemed to be very guarded in his answers WhaleyTim (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Channel 4 documentary implied that Alexander M. Carlisle's, the Titanic's chief designer, testimony implicated Ismay in the lifeboat reduction decision. I'll see if I can find it in the records. (Perhaps his testimony contradicts Ismay's?) --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, having just read Alexander M. Carlisle's testimony I agree with WhaleyTim; Carlisle comes over as decidedly evasive -- something which the commissioners complain of at the time to his face. At times he says he thought 48 was the appropriate number of lifeboats, but also says that there was no discussion of the lifeboat matter, at other times he says such discussion took 5-10 minutes. Perhaps Ismay's role was an inference that the press made at the time (which seems reasonable in my opinion -- Carlisle sounds like someone who's been leaned upon from above not to name any names). You can almost see him squirming around in the witness box. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The filmed scene in which Ismay picks off lifeboats from the Titanic model ("the ship is its own lifeboat" AFAICR) may well be a fictionalised version of the formal meetings described in Carlisle's evidence to the enquiry. A legitimate dramatic device for TV, but not really usable here. On the other hand, the enquiry evidence (or even the view of the contemporary press) is a completely valid source, if this material is to be reinstated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the current press are also valid sources to report. If all the press then and all the press now, both say Ismay was responsible then that should certainly be reported here. Along with Ismay's denials, of course.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All we are arguing about is whether the Ismay-lifeboat story is the truth or whether it is a myth. Either way it should appear in the article -- just we are not sure which section. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't decide on the issue: it might be original research. Summarise the contradictions in the evidence from Ismay and Carlisle at the enquiry (I wonder why Pirrie wasn't called), add anything else relevant from reliable sources and we're done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's all we can do. Anything else would be OR. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a try at this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To return to the point originally raised, did Ismay deny ever having discussed the 48 lifeboat proposal? Having read the court records he seems to claim not to remember (how convenient!) and that he never "saw" any such plans -- he does not explicitly deny having any such discussions.--Michael C. Price ^talk 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked closer to enquiry transcript "Q: Have you ever until today heard that there was a design for the "Titanic" by which she was to be provided with 40 lifeboats? [Ismay]: No, My Lord" and of his examination of the ship's plans, as suggested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To my cynical ears, this does not exclude the possibility of having discussions with Carlisle about lifeboats -- Carlisle, who admitted that he didn't like to prepare designs unless he thought they would be accepted. And how else would he know this, except by having talked about the matter beforehand? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

With typo corrected above, do you see my point that the statement "but in his evidence Ismay denied that he had ever heard of this" is perhaps over-generous towrds Ismay? Ismay denies hearing of a design -- but we know no such design was prepared. He does not deny (nor admit) having discussions..... --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I need to declare a POV.

Growing up in Southampton in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s I met a number of families who had relatives who lost their lives as crew aboard the Titanic. Unsurprisingly they often expressed hostility towards Ismay.

In more recent years I have been working in the field of maritime safety. My work is in a narrow technical speciality, I would not make any great claim to being an expert in the more general disciplines of maritime safety or forensic engineering, however I have been exposed to some of the modern ideas within these areas. My view of the disaster has developed within my understanding (or perhaps misunderstanding) of these ideas, and I see the sinking as a total systemic failure. The Titanic (and most of the other large liners of the time) were outwith the experience, imagination and capacity of all parts of the maritime industry – this is why so many things went wrong. If one looks at every decision that was made in the design, construction, equipping and operation of the ship that contributed to the disaster there is little that was not considered normal or accepted practice at the time. I believe that blaming individuals misses the point.

However it is difficult to make a compelling story out of systemic failure. Stories need heroes, villans, victims and victors, and it is stories that sell books, films, TV programs, magazines and newspapers. The disaster has a rich vein of candidates for all of these characters, and this is one of the things that has kept it in the public eye for so long.

It is my POV that the article should reflect, distinguish and contrast between these two aspects. The disaster as a systemic failure that caused a great and tragic loss of life, and the disaster as the inspiration for stories that filled the newspapers at the time and continues to shock and interest people around the world today. WhaleyTim (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WhaleyTim. More on the systemic failures, either here or in a spinoff article, from a knowledgeable editor with access to good, reliable sources would be of more value than examining in great detail the role of any individual, particularly if they have their own article where their actions could be given more space. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Recovered artifacts

I would like to added some images of the recovered artifacts to the ownership section. However, I can't seem to find any on the Commons. The only image there (Image:Bestek titanic.jpg) may be a recovered artifact, but I am unable to translate the description. Does anyone have images from one of the artifact tours that could be uploaded? Shinerunner (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

depth of wreck / rediscovery.

the following line in the article makes no sense. ""This approximates to 2⅓ miles, often rounded upwards to 2½ miles."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.100.148 (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The wreck of RMS Titanic was NOT discovered by Dr. Robert Ballard. Rather, the US Navy discovered and accurately charted the position of the wreckage over 10 years previous to Dr. Ballard's claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.146.252 (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

STATISTICS!!!

I know they are not agreeing with the totals from the reference. (Do they ever). The table is closer to the other Titanic article of stats on Wikipedia. The total passengers agrees with 2208 anyway! The trouble is that some of the stats look at the people that survived the Titanic and died later (within a day or so) as being "survivors". Wallie (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I just reconciled the statistics with those shown in the cited Senate Inquiry summary. That doesn't necessarily make them correct, it just makes them agree with the cited source. Anybody who can produce a better (or more credible or more consensusified or whatever) source can so re-reconcile them. BoKu (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Other shipwreck with great casualties section

I don't really think that this section is a good fit with the article. However, I have been considering that a list page should be started using this information. I think it could show peacetime and wartime disaster losses since there is a large number of ship losses with high casualty counts. Then the list page could be linked in the See Also section. Shinerunner (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

With Shinerunner on this. It's straying from the topic and the page is already, at 84 kilobytes, well into the probably should be divided category. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

90th anniversary of RMS Leinster

Just reading "Death in the Irish Sea" by Roy Stokes. He points out that two thirds of passengers died on various ships

Titanic 1503 of 2206

Lusitania 1198 of 1959

Leinster 514 of 780 - an interesting curiosity ClemMcGann (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think the section is a rather useful starting point. Note that other shipwrecks also refer back to the Titanic too. It can be moved elsewhere, and the Titanic article split. There are already sub-articles, even with the info stated again (sometimes differently) in the main article. Tidy up is always useful. Wallie (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have moved it to Maritime disasters. This section can be expanded to include all major disasters. Wallie (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that we just marked the 90th anniversary of RMS Leinster I uploaded a pic of the event. Note the flowers in the yellow on the right. It was left by an elderly lady in memory of her father

I hope there are not too many pictures in Maritime disasters. I expect that the text will expand ClemMcGann (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article will expand with more text. I like your picture of the Leinster tribute. It shows that it is still relevant today and people still care, even though this happened 90 years ago. I always think that pictures add to boring lists. It shows that these beautiful ships have been destroyed, often pointlessly, eg, by negligence, or as an act of war. It is so terrible that the Leinster was sunk so close to the end of the war. Wallie (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Wallie - for more pics of the day [1] [2][3]

[4][5]ClemMcGann (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pictures, Clem. Very sad. Wallie (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

There is a spelling error in the final paragraph of the 'Final Minutes' section.

'began resucing survivors'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.144.178 (talk)

Good. Go ahead and fix it then. Thanks. Wallie (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed, and thanks User:64.213.144.178 for pointing this out. Page protection is in force a few weeks yet. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Article length

As stated by Old Moonraker, the article is very long. I was thinking that the Lengends and Myths Sections and possibly one or both of the sections dealing with the inquiries and the possible factors in the sinking be moved to their own pages with links back to the main article. Any suggestions? Shinerunner (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep them all on the same page -- the legend is as important as fact. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

This article is having a Peer review. Anyone who would like to participate should go to this link RMS Titanic peer review.Shinerunner (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Time/date and spelling format

Out of interest, should the formats be uniformly American, British, or a mixture of the two? Seeing as this is a ship of British origins, I'd be inclined to use just British formats, such as the "14 April 1912" already used. However, there are many American spellings dotted throughout the text. Lazyduckling (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The formatting on wp articles should be standardised one way or the other, and I think British English has been the way it has tended to go on this one. I've changed a few American spellings that I spotted (artifacts > artefacts and traveling > travelling), except where they appear in quotes. Benea (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's just so I know whether I should switch them to British ones if I see them or not. Thanks. Lazyduckling (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Map for "Maiden Voyage" section

Is it possible to find space for the map, recently deleted in this edit to make room an artist's impression? The map is factual, the impression is fanciful, inaccurate and misleading: for example, we now know that the vessel sank in two pieces; smoke wouldn't be issuing from the fourth funnel and, to state the obvious, it was dark! Another possible example we could use is from the FA on German WP, here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did like the map rather than the current image. Also, the current image is used again later in the article under the pop culture section. I'm going to switch it back and see what happens. Shinerunner (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Titanic in Popular Culture

Ever since the re-arrangement (for the better, I don;t have a problem with the way the article is looking now) this section has been bugging me. The section has only 2 paragraphs, the first deals with the first hand novels (I don't know how popular a novel is now). The second paragraph deals with Wreck of the Titan, which while bearing a striking similarity, predates the Titanic, so I don't know how Wreck of the TItan is Titanic in popular culture. The section is completely missing (arguably) the most popular Titanic cultural icon, the 1997 movie. Knowledgeum :  Talk  23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I do admit that the split was rather awkward. It has been my hope to eliminate the section completely and have a link to the RMS Titanic in Popular culture page. This was recommended in the peer review to move the article back to Good Article and hopefully Featured Article status. Shinerunner (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the remaining popular culture section and added link at the article introduction. Let's see what everyone thinks.Shinerunner (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be a bit too minimalistic. Perhaps we could keep 1 paragraph (small), and perhaps one photograph (first to mind Titainc 1997 poster or something along those lines), as the ship has been in quite allot of popular culture. I'd suggest the paragraph mainly be a lead in on the major cultural works (off the top of my head I'm thinking A Night To Remember and Titanic (1997), then link to the see also for the remaining collective works. Those are the 2 big ones I think of when I look over at my small collection. I definately like the trimming that has been done sofar on the article, but sometimes something can be too over trimmed. Knowledgeum :  Talk  04:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Recycling my "very long already" argument from above and, as a brief comment in the peer review suggests, having concerns about the rubbish such sections attract, with User:Shinerunner on this. Again from the peer review comment: if anything's really important it can be worked into the text. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Bizarre interpuncts"

This edit replaced British-style decimal points with U.S. standard ones. There's nothing "bizarre" about them: they were the standard form of the British Empire at the time of the ship's construction are still a standard in Britain today: see Decimal separator#History. Should the policies of "Retaining the existing variety" and "National varieties of English" specified in the Manual of Style apply here? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Lifeboats (again)

The opening sections of the article place a great deal of emphasis on the issue of lifeboats. The introductory paragraph describes it as a primary cause of the loss of life (although I have toned this down somewhat). A large part of the the construction section deals with the discussion (or lack of discussion) between Ismay and Carlisle about lifeboat provision. I am wary about deleting referenced portions of the article, but am concerned that this emphasis distorts the facts.

The reasons for the lack of full lifeboat provision is complex. Factors include the inertia of the British Board of Trade in updating the regulations to reflect vessels in service and the beliefs within the shipping industry as a whole about the necessity, practicality and purpose of lifeboats, the apparant sucess of the existing measures to protect life up to the sinking of the Titanic, the general philosophy of how best to save life at sea, the hiring practices current at the time and demarcation of labour on ship. To jump straight in to the Carlisle-Ismay discussions without providing fuller background seems to me to be just another example of finger-pointing at Ismay.

Further, in the actual circumstances of the sinking, would additional lifeboats actually saved any more lives? The last boats left the ship immediately prior to the sinking. There may well not have been time to launch any additional lifeboats, even if provided. Depending on how these extra lifeboats may have been stored, it could have had the effect of increasing the time required to launch the boats, and thus increase the death toll. Additional lifeboats would only have had a value if there were the crew, organisation and training to launch them in a timely manner.

The safety philosophy of the time seemed to be that, in the busy and well defined North Atlantic seaways that a well constructed vessel with sufficient watertight integrity (which the Titanic was assumed to be) and radio equipment would be able to summon timely assistance in the event of trouble. If other vessels had managed to reach the Titanic earlier or the ship had remained afloat for several hours longer this philosophy would have been seen to be upheld and even today, perhaps, full lifeboat provision would not be seen as necessary.

I feel this article (or a spin-off article) needs to present all the factors involved in the sinking in a balanced manner - how the failures of the all the systems of accident prevention, accident containment and protection of life came about to cause the disaster and not place emphasis on some of the more 'headline grabbing' issues. OK - So this is Wikipedia and so you could rightly say that I am free to edit the article as I see fit, so just go ahead and do it. In response I would say, firstly I would like to get a consensus that I am on the right track and secondly, I could do with some help. Firstly to come to agreement on what the important issues are, and secondly to perhaps divide the task up between several editors - I do not have as much time to spend on this as I would like.

Any thoughts anyone?

WhaleyTim (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The point about crew organisation and time available echoes the Board of Trade's reasoning. It was in the article (see this version), but has been deleted. A "quick and dirty" way of getting started would be to reinstate this. In fact, I propose to do this shortly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, but not all the points raised by User:WhaleyTim are covered yet. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The naming of names...

I've been making an effort to italicise the proper names of all of the vessels mentioned in this article; I've been at it for a few days now and have discovered several instances in which it hadn't been done. Does anyone find this objectionable? --Lothar the Terrible (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Current Condition

I've located a few sources that can be worked in to remove the unsourced tag.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/28/tech/main570585.shtml

aswell as (though uncertain if they are valid)

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/return-to-titanic-1113

The expedition logs for Ballard's return to Titanic (under More).

Knowledgeum :  Talk  06:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Theres another good one in Archeology magazone. You can get the jist of the article here[6]. I have full page scans of the 5 page article from when I had a copy of the magazine if someone would like it to try and incorperate into the section. Knowledgeum :  Talk  05:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing binoculars

As the missing binoculars on the Titanic are attributed as a factor in the sinking, and the articles we have are contradicting each other, I talked about the inconsistencies and tried finding the story of the binoculars on the reference desk, but got no favourable response.

I went through the archives of this talk page and found two (Archive 1 and Archive 2) instances. Unfortunately both were single posts, and not discussions.

A discussion is now in progress on the sinking page. Please provide your inputs. Jay (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)