Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald

Edit Fitz footnote

How do I edit footnotes to make them match the rest of the article? And it is sourced...that's what the link in the footnote (199) was for... John R. Beck (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I went to the link and saw nothing related to the text. Did I miss something? North8000 (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is a working link: https://www.thenewsherald.com/news/downriver-remembers-the-edmund-fitzgerald-photos-only/article_90bd48ec-d6fb-5118-9c20-5773674e7f2b.html . Not giving any opinion on whether it should be included. Add - you need to go to the second photo. And on further inspection, the historian in the photo happens to be named John Beck, also... so I think there may be an attempt at self-promotion. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty impressive and a large scale project! I think I'm neutral on inclusion. Anybody else have an opinion? North8000 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Leave it out. Self promotional, not clear that this is actually a memorial rather than simply a (large) model, and not accurate either (one history teacher does not a historian make, let alone several, as claimed). Meters (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"One history teacher does not a historian make" seems a bit snippy for an open source anyone-should-be-able-to-edit website don't you think? I do have an Ed.D and also am a published historian on the subject of this ship (see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/084387141202400109 ). It is not self promotional if it is objectively historical...Here's a link to a site unrelated to me...https://www.awesomemitten.com/great-lakes-shipwreck-museum/ Not sure why it should be so hard to want to honor the lost with a picture of the ship...what's the real agenda here? Also, I used blueprints to build the interior and exterior to scale...see this link for "blueprints" similar to what I used: https://detroithistorical.pastperfectonline.com/archive/A728BD46-576C-4C39-A167-718642506897 Perhaps it is more accurate than you might think...if you see something wrong on the ship let me know :-) John R. Beck (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that myself and pretty well anybody that takes a close look would say that it's so cool you making that extensive model of the Fitz, and also respect your expertise and work. Besides being a bit rough-and-tumble like any online posting place, Wikipedia editing is a weird alternate universe. Right now I'm neutral about including anything on the model. If you'd like to discuss / explore further I'd be happy to. But thanks for your work on both the model and efforts to add to Wikipedia.North8000 (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a cool model, but I don't quite think it merits inclusion here. Imzadi 1979 → 02:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Image of recovered taconite

Might this be a good addition?

BTW I'm referring to the processed ore pellets, not the Tuesday night dining tradition.  :-) North8000 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This, right? I liked that addition, and would favor restoring it.

FWIW, I like the Tuesday night dining tradition, too. TJRC (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I would greatly like if the ore was included in the article, seeing as I'm a bit of a geek on Great Lakes Freighters, and shipwrecks of the region. Jimothy Johnathan (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm a near-neutral weak "include" on that. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent activity in the lead regarding Zug island

The Zug island destination is in the body and sourced. But I think that the current lead wording is better.North8000 (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

But the body didn't include the company name for the steel mill, so that detail was unsourced. Imzadi 1979 → 02:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

New Jason Island Fantasy Currency

I can't figure out how to properly footnote the footnote for my fact about the fantasy currency in the commercialization section. The Numismondo currency catalog website is a non-commercial site dedicated to teaching people about currencies around the world. John R. Beck (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it merits inclusion since it's a fantasy currency. Imzadi 1979 → 22:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it merits inclusion because it represents an interesting commercialization of the ship...the company did one for the Titanic as well. I added a picture of a note that I took. But I don't know if that fits copyright for educational purposes for Wikipedia? I find the rules very confusing to comply with. If it doesn't, I can certainly revert (remove) it...but if we can keep it, I need your help to format it properly...it looks too large on the page. John R. Beck (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC) North8000, what do you think? John R. Beck (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the image and nominated it for deletion. The design dates to 2012, so unless it was licensed by the creator(s) under a compatible license or dedicated into the public domain, copyright protections apply. If by "copyright for educational purposes", you really mean fair-use, then the image would need to be the subject of critical commentary, not just illustration for a sentence. Imzadi 1979 → 23:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification on the image...I couldn't find any copyright information online...I don't know what you mean by "subject of critical commentary" though... John R. Beck (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

"Critical commentary" typically involves an analysis of the imagery itself, not just a mention that it exists. Imzadi 1979 → 23:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Aha...makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. John R. Beck (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it out. It's already covered under "and other items". IMO even that type of item does not have enough prevalence or prominence for even a generic mention of the type much less something even more than that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This page has become static like a traditional paper encyclopedia. There won't be new explorations of the wreck site in our lifetime given the laws in Michigan and Canada. There won't be new theories about the sinking. The page has impressively covered just about everything anyone would ever need to know about the ship's construction and final voyage. The only sections that could evolve and grow with new information are the topics covered in memorials and commercialization. Each time I make an improvement you revert it. I'm not sure the editors here fully understand the unique nature of open source editing. The idea is encourage and expand researcher and reader interest and knowledge about the topic. Reverting content that doesn't happen to align with your particular point of view about what constitutes interesting insight and knowledge does a disservice to the Wikipedia community and the world. John R. Beck (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

John, several things that you said regarding me do not align with reality. I'm not going to spend the the time on a big compare-and-contrast, but please taker a closer look at that actual history before saying such things. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Launching

Moved from User talk:Imzadi1979 § S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald

 – Imzadi 1979 → 17:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Fan of the U.P.

I've reverted a revert you made on an edit on the S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald. I've properly sourced my edits to the book "Six Fitzgerald Brothers: Lake Captains All" by Elizabeth Cutler and Walter Hirthe (1983). I'm currently holding that exact book in my hand. Elizabeth and Walter did a fine job detailing the family history of the Fitzgeralds, referencing the more obscure aspects of their family history dating back to the 1883 sinking of the EDMOND Fitzgerald, a schooner commissioned by a great uncle to EDMUND Fitzgerald, that sank taking seven souls. Hence Edmund's hesitancy in allowing the Northwestern Mutual Board to name the ship after himself.

There is much folk lore surrounding the Edmund Fitzgerald and some of it false and unverifiable - sadly some of that folklore resides in print and many feel justified in spreading that folk lore merely because it can be sourced. The 1983 Edition of Six Fitzgerald Brothers details the naming and commissioning of the Edmund Fitzgerald citing Donald C. Slichter's speech to Olgebay Norton Company about the decision on what to name Hull 301. The story pivots to the launching of the S.S. Fitzgerald, the retelling matches quite exactly what is in the Wiki article except for one key detail, they do not mention the heart attack and passing of a bystander. That reference - "Mighty Fitz: The Sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald" by Schumacher, Michael is found on page 15 - the kindle edition of this book from 2012 is not sourced so I have purchased that book to hunt down that citation. What I will also mention is that Ric Mixter, a professed historian on the S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald, who dove on the Edmund Fitzgerald in 1994 and 1995, emphatically states in his lecture series that no news articles from the time of the ship's launching make any mention of any of the 15,000 onlookers suffering from a medical condition and passing. It is widely believed this is folk lore, this mention if included in the article should be referenced as such and not as fact.

Anyhow, let me know if you have any questions.

v/r — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurboManiacal (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

based on just a quick look, looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Just received my copy of "Mighty Fitz" and the comment on page 16 of the book is NOT referenced by the author in his notes. He cites a reference on page 12 and page 19 but no references to where the author sourced this mythical person that died at the launch of the Edmund Fitzgerald. TurboManiacal (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

want to fix it? North8000 (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I just fear it will get reverted, I think the best thing to do is to correctly word a revision that hints at the mystique and lore. Edmund's Nephew also named Edmund (born very nearly around the launching) even referenced the mysterious death because "his mother had written my mother a letter"... but the name associated with the death is also said to have died a day before the launching. TurboManiacal (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ric Mixter's "The Edmund Fitzgerald Investigations" video is all about the construction and launch of the ship...and there's no mention of a death of a bystander in that video...I would think if any video would have it, that one would... John R. Beck (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I took out the text in question.North8000 (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Rock on. 18:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC) TurboManiacal (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Construction deaths

Hi All, Would there be any value to adding something akin to the following in the construction section: "Two construction workers died during the construction of the ship." Ric Mixter interviewed Richard Bone, the crane operator, who references their deaths in the "The Edmund Fitzgerald Investigations" video (at minute 8:37 and 11:39). But I can't find a source to corroborate his claims...is one eyewitness sufficient? John R. Beck (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

SS designation

Abbreviations of ship nationality or fundamental design like SS and MV are a convention not a rule for civilian shipping. The Edmund Fitzgerald was steam driven at launch but had been converted to diesel in 1971. Hence no longer an SS but if anything an MV. The registered name is Edmund Fitzgerald, with no prefix. The article correctly uses Edmund Fitzgerald in most places. The SS is incorrect and not part of any formal designation of the vessel. It should be removed from the title and the few other places it occurs in the article. 60.241.90.2 (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)