Talk:OceanGate

The three OceanGates

Pinging those that might be interested, @Chessrat, Smallbones, JoshRichards98, Sebbog13, HapHaxion, Dylan Fourie, Aeromachinator, Deflines, Editchecker123, Carlosguiavzla, Farmdudler, and WiinterU:

The recent news regarding OceanGate has become a bit of a problem. The OceanGate Expeditions website currently has a notice saying OceanGate has suspended all exploration and commercial operations. The main problem with this is that OceanGate Expeditions is a subsidiary of OceanGate, Inc. and it isn't clear if this applies to all three organizations. The OceanGate Foundation website lacks the notice while the OceanGate, Inc website remains down. There are a number of news article about the notice, but some refer to just Expeditions and others appear to refer to all of them as one. Given the problem this is causing, is there a recommendation as to handle the situation? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on splitting the article into three articles, one for each? Editchecker123 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

an ip made Draft:OceanGate Titanic Expedition a while ago Sebbog13 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, OceanGate Inc. (No comma) is the main corporation. We only need a page for one. WiinterU (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the correction. I was going off the former name of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'll suggest looking at the real world situation, rather than looking at it from the POV of encyclopedia editors, or the legal system. There could be something important I don't know about -so this is a bit speculative - but let's take the basic working hypothesis as "there are at least 3 parts of the organization, but the entire organization is effectively defunct. A website may be 'working', but it is just appearing because websites don't automatically go offline when something bad happens." Does anybody have a better working hypothesis for the overall situation?
• I'm most comfortable discussing the business situation. It may have been essentially a one-person organization, despite having a dozen or 2 employees, a similar number of scientific contacts, and maybe even more former and "potential" customers.
• The implosion
  • killed Stockton Rush, the ceo and the guy in charge of everything
  • destroyed the company's main asset, it's only way of generating any income
  • destroyed the company's reputation (for safety among other things)
  • effectively made all employees lose their jobs, and maybe backpay

Now somebody is still legally "in charge" - probably Mrs. Rush, and she is likely not in a state to deal with the impossible business problems. What likely will happen is that it will take a couple of weeks for people to get themselves together and then a bankruptcy lawyer will essentially be in charge. Within a month they'll likely file in court and the liquidation could go very quickly. There's likely no money left to split up among creditors, so the judge might just shut the whole thing down asap.

• The other main way of looking at the situation is looking at the people involved, the social situation. Is anybody going to be able to benefit from dealing with the other people involved? Is anybody going to want to stick around? So it looks like the people involved will just let it go, and the company is essentially already gone.

So what is the best "official website"? I'd say the main one "offline" and the expedition one "inactive since July 5"?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Wait and see what happens This is a good question. While I added some edits on the prior assumption that the whole business had folded in the first place, I now find it strange that the Expeditions website didn't clarify what part of the company had shut down. On that note, I think we should assume it still exists—once OceanGate files for bankruptcy and/or gets liquidated or dissolved otherwise, then we should readd disestablishment information accordingly. Aeromachinator (talk to me here) 05:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• No split needed Stick with this one article covering the OceanGate group, with spin-offs only if and when they become necessary. In any case it is also impracticable at present with the paucity of RS that address the relationships between the three entities and "which did what". Both the US and Bahamas trading businessses have ceased operations and time will tell what will happen with them, while the associated charitable venture is different (website still current - only recent changes seem to be the condolences front page, and the removal of their email contact). None of the websites should be in the infobox; if there is encyclopaedic value in their content, the last archived versions could be in External Links. Meanwhile, speculating is not what we do here, only following the reliable sources. Davidships (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• no split needed the three companies basically operate as one entity and appear to simply be different branches of one organisation. I think we can handle the finer distinctions in the text. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Mainly, my issue was that edits were going back and forth regarding what happened to OceanGate with myself also being involved, so I figured I would make a post to the talk page and see if there could be a consensus on how to format the notice. Sadly, it seems that there has still been some more back and forth so I guess this was pointless in that regard. (On the brighter side, it does seem that my concerns about listing OceanGate as defunct was not fully correct, so that at least has been fixed. Sorry for the trouble to those editors.) In any case, I don't see anywhere in Smallbones' post where a split is suggested, so I will not vote on that. To answer the question that was asked, I would say that the main website is the one that has gone down. Expeditions and Foundation are more branches of the main OceanGate, so while they are also official websites, they are not the main website. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Whereabouts of Rush's Stake

Who now owns the stake in OceanGate that once belonged to Rush? I think it may have been transferred to his family members but at this moment I am clueless of who was in his will. WiinterU (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Such speculation is of no value to us, even if made by reliable secondary sources. One day something reliable may emerge, which may be appropriate for inclusion in the article, or not.Davidships (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, OceanGate Inc. is a private corporation meaning that the stakeholders could be involved directly in a potential lawsuit. We have to see if it is possible. WiinterU (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to see anything. If a reliable source reports something, then we can add it to the article. If not, then we don't have anything to add. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove redundant date.

The articles says "On June 18, 2023, OceanGate lost contact with Titan during its dive in 2023 to the Titanic." That is redundant. Please remove the second reference to "in 2023". 73.109.121.55 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Should the article say "was" rather than "is"?

My understanding is that OceanGate seems to have shut down all operations, thus the companny has shut down. Hence, my suggestion. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 22:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So far as I can see no sources have said that either of the trading companies in Washington and Bahamas have been wound up; similarly with the charitable trust. A company or trust does not cease to exist just because it stops doing anything; these things take time. We follow the WP:RS, and make neither assumptions nor our own research. Davidships (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Add comment about website message

Recently, the OceanGate website has been taken down, now displaying the message "OceanGate has suspended all exploration and commercial operations." Should a short comment be made on the article? Cobaj Thaite (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Titan incident section too short

The Titan incident section is way too short. It is WP:UNDUE to include so little information about the main thing the company is known for. Schierbecker (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ceasing operations vs. out of business

I've just removed elements of the infobox that refer to the company as "defunct", "closed" and having 0 employees. It is known that the company has suspended operations (their words). That is not the same thing as being out of business. While it is highly likely they will be out of business, it's speculation at this point. If you're going to reinclude this information, please provide citations to reliable sources that support the claim. This citation which was used only supports how many they did employ, not how many they currently employ. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@WiiPlayer1: Your change was reverted by another editor because the company isn't out of business as yet. Suspended operations, yes. Out of business, no. Until we have reliable, secondary sources attesting to it being out of business, we will not indicated the company as being out of business nor refer to it in the past tense. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanbetanco43: This applies to your changes as well. I've also undone the "defunct" status on Wikidata. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent Guardian story is specifically saying that they are out of business [1] now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

whereas the Beeb is staying with "suspended operations. [2] Moons of Io (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Out of business" is a broad phrase that can mean many things (and used in that story as just part of general background, not as an indication that there is a new situation for OceanGate (they don't say which Oceangate organisation they are referring to - there are two or three related companies). We need much more specific references to change from the well-documented "suspended" or to change to past tense in relation to the companies themselves. Davidships (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's out of business. We've got a sources that states the obvious, I suggest we use it and acknowledge that it's gone. No obvious assets, no cash flow, no CEO, no employees, no statement from the owner (likely because there's nothing to own, ergo no owner). At this point suggesting that there might be some life left in the company would have to be considered original research - there's nothing in any reliable source that even hints at its existence. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the lead paragraphs of WP:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's fundamental policy principles. We can all wait until reliable sources reveal updated information - WP is not in a hurry. Davidships (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No assets? Do you have a reliable source for that? No employees? Do you have a reliable source for that? Original research, indeed. I concur with Davidships. We're in no hurry here. We wait for the reliable sources. We don't guess. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I just don't get why anybody would want to wait on stating the obvious. The Guardian - a very reliable source - said it's out of business, so we can put that in the article. Above somebody said the BBC only said "suspended operations." After a few week (after the suspension) it essentially means "out of business" as well. You may be surprised to learn that there is no "death certificate" given to most defunct companies. Only the very biggest companies - those who have any assets - will go through the expense of declaring bankruptcy. There's no reason to wait for any theoretical "death certificate" or a "coroner's report" or even a bankruptcy. None of that is going to happen. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no deadline here. We can afford to be patient. We don't have to speculate. I'm reminded of WP:BDP and the Lina Medina article. If she's alive, she'd be 90 now. Certainly possible she's alive, but also likely she's dead by now given she'd be 16 years past the average life expectancy of a woman in Peru. Lots of people have wanted to mark her as dead, claiming various unreliable sources. But, WP:BDP says that without reliable sources, we wait until the person is 115. Similarly here, there's no reason we can't wait for reliable sources to firm up the conclusion the company is out of business. It's only been a few months. Patience. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@KimberlyScott11: Please join the conversation here. As noted above, "suspended" doesn't mean out of business. We're well aware of what the company's website says. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

While this is being hashed out, could someone at least remove the orphaned ref now floating at the top of the article? 57.140.16.45 (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

it is important to mention that the CEO did not want to hire males

this link provides info on why the CEO did not want to hire males. The engineering team was comprised of all females. https://www.businessinsider.com/stockton-rush-oceangate-titanic-submersible-avoided-veteran-pilots-younger-inspirational-2023-7 142.184.118.145 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)