Jump to content

Talk:OceanGate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hammersoft (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 10 March 2024 (→two sources say they are closed, + no statements for 8 months: sign for one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Recent Guardian story is specifically saying that they are out of business [1] now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
whereas the Beeb is staying with "suspended operations. [2] Moons of Io (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That article doesn't say anything about a propensity to hire women over men, much less indicate the entire engineering team was compromised of women. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ah yes, when I started the business, one of the things you'll find is there are other sub operators out there, but they typically have gentlemen who are ex-military submariners, and you'll see a whole bunch of 50-year-old white guys," he said. "I wanted our team to be younger, be inspirational." What Rush was saying is that he wanted younger employees/workers to be pilots and engineers. It even says this in the first paragraph of the article, OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush said [...] that he preferred not to hire veteran submarine pilots or technicians to keep his team "younger" and "inspirational." While I personally don't buy the 'younger and inspirational' part of what he said, the meaning is that he wanted younger pilots rather than just female pilots. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

two sources say they are closed, + no statements for 8 months

I've added a source from October saying that they were closing, added back the Guardian/Associated Press article saying that OG was "out of business" (why was that removed?). Well back in October it seems somebody said that the BBC (only) said that OG had suspended operations, so the logic(?) of removing the more specific source was what? That it wasn't confirmed? Saying that OG had suspended operations obviously doesn't prove that they are still open. In the meantime OG hasn't issued any statements of any kind for 8 months. Is that another proof that they are still open? I'm putting the two sources back in. If you want to say that OG is not "out of business" despite the Guardian/AP article, then I suggest you start an RfC. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed The Guardian article above. Saying that OceanGate suspended operations doesn't prove they are not still open either. It's an equivocal statement. A lack of statements doesn't prove they're in business or out of business. No consensus was achieved in October, and nothing's changed to upend that lack of consensus now. As I said then, we can afford to be patient. There's no deadline here. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian/AP article is a direct statement that OG is "out of business" from a reliable source (in fact from 2 reliable sources!) It should stand until there is some reliable source that says that OG is still in business, but of course simple common sense says that it isn't in business. It doesn't have a business location (wanna a ref?), it hasn't issued any statements since July (8 months) since it said it was suspending all operations. The only evidence I've seen presented is that BBC only said that they had suspended operations. That's a pretty weak argument. Now I have added a ref to HistoryLink (a long term history site with professional staff that covers Washington state) saying in November
"On July 6, 2023, OceanGate announced on its website that the company had suspended exploration and commercial operations. Since then, all OceanGate web and social media content has been deleted, although a new CEO was appointed to lead the company through ongoing investigations and the shutdown of operations."
Do you really think the company is open? The "new CEO was appointed to lead the company through ... the shutdown of operations." Is there anything that suggests the company is still in business?
It's up to you to show that the company is still in business despite what the reliable sources say. Please don't revert me again - that would be your 3rd. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's up to you to develop a new consensus as opposed to the prior no consensus. You don't do that by attempting to bludgeon the article into submission to your preferred version [3][4][5], most especially while discussion is ongoing. This is central to dispute resolution. I strongly encourage you to revert your addition until you gain consensus to add it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first diff is of me adding material you have just reverted me twice now. What kind of discussion is that? Find some evidence, find some logic, you don't own this article! You need to do something other than revert! Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your preferred option apparently is to revert war. I'm not going to do that. What I will do is attempt, as I have done below, to get more eyes on this. I've pointed you to the things that you are in violation of. Your best course of action is to revert yourself while discussion continues. Anything else is, as you say, attempting to own the article. What I will do is, after some days, revert this to the status quo, per WP:STATUSQUO if no discussion here results in consensus to change it to out of business. The discussion in October did no generate a consensus. That's the status quo. Consensus can change, but you have yet to demonstrate that it has changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on here! You are saying that you are going to revert me for the third time for putting in a very clear statement from a very reliable source that they are "out of business" and backing it up with a second source? And your argument is that there was no consensus back in October, so we're stuck here for now despite the fact that they are "out of business"? Get off your high horse and don't try to strong arm me. You are required to listen to other editors - not just revert them. And we are required to follow the facts. They are "out of business". Smallbones(smalltalk) 06:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to interpret my noting the policy supporting my position as "strong arm[ing]" you, that's your business. I've patiently tried to explain the situation to you. There is currently no consensus to change the status of the company from what it has been since the incident. If there's strong arming going on here, it's your insistence on changing it despite the lack of consensus to do so. Yes, barring presentation of new consensus to have the company listed as out of business, then it shouldn't be listed as out of business. That's how we do things around here. --Hammersoft (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I thought this was resolved back in July to say something like 'Oceangate suspended its operations following the Titan incident and posted a message on its website' or something to that effect. I don't fully get why this is being re-debated, but it seems clear that OceanGate isn't in commercial operation: 1, 2, 3. I don't get the line where we needed to say, An unnamed CEO will lead the company until official investigations and the company's shutdown is completed and the company is "out of business". If we need that line, then fine, but it comes across more as speculation or of future events, than fact. (Probably because we used HistoryLink as a source. Generally better to find what HistoryLink is sourcing from than to use HistoryLink themselves. In any case, the HistoryLink article relied too much on speculation when they could have relied on fact: Gordon Gardiner was appointed CEO of OceanGate three whole months before the HistoryLink article was published: 1, 2.)
In short, OceanGate themselves have stated that they are no longer in commercial business. The company is defunct outside of legal obligations. There should be a way to make that clear to the reader. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: @Moons of Io: @Davidships: - Since you were involved in the discussion a few months ago, I'm pinging you to this discussion. Your opinion, please. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that this article is specifically about the company OceanGate, Inc., though of course that includes description of its activities. Taking account of the article references as well as the last two identified by Super Goku V, it is well established that after the disaster commercial operations were suspended, the Everett office closed, the company's social media accounts ceased, and its still-live website was reduced to the "suspension" announcement. We also know that in August the company still existed as its Board appointed Gordon Gardiner as CEO "to lead it through investigations and the closure of its operations". All that can be properly referenced.
So it is clear that the company still exists (the opening of the Lead should be reverted); and closure of the company's operations is ongoing (which should added back in). However much common sense would point to commercial operations never restarting, we cannot go beyond what is citeable. In my opinion the October Guardian article (primarily about wreckage recovery) is not saying anything different when using the expression "gone out of business" in a general sense. No doubt there will be future developments, for which we wait patiently. - Davidships (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidships: I suppose that works. Though, I am technically opposed to adding back in the sentence I removed. If I may make a suggestion, then I would recommend something like: As of August 2023, Gordon Gardiner (is leading / has lead) the company as CEO. If we still need the until official investigations and the company's shutdown is completed and the company is "out of business" part at the end of that, then it should fit. (Though, hopefully without the HistoryLink essay.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V: Thanks for digging up those last two references. I think we've come as close to a consensus as we're going to get. There are perhaps some minor disagreements about terminology. All I'll try to do here is to try to sum up where I think the consensus is and to explain in some detail why I think some folks have misunderstood the terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs)

Consensus

  • OG has suspended operations
  • it has gone "out of business"
  • It's blanked all its websites, except for the one that only says that it has suspended operations
  • It has closed its doors, abandoned the building, and if it has a new mailing address it's probably the new ceo's office at a different company or a lawyer's office.
  • therefore it is completely proper to:

As seen with varying comments on this talk page, this isn't consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with the terminology?

None of the terminology above is legal terminology as far as I know. Furthermore, none of the legal terminology is likely to make sense to most non-lawyers, and the "magic words" some people seem to be looking for here don't need to be said to understand that the company is defunct, and may not be said for several years, several decades, or indeed ever. The company could, if it wanted to, come to an agreement with everybody involved (probably excepting the people involved in the Coast Guard investigation) in a ten minute meeting, maybe each sign a one page document and then never bother to tell anybody. They are probably waiting for the investigation results to be announced, at which time they will say very little and everybody will understand that they are still "out of business". This is all a very informal version of what people informally call "an informal bankruptcy". It happens all the time. In many cases, there are no magic words needed to go out of business.

Let me give you two cases on how difficult - and how fruitless - it is to try to determine an exact death date for a company.

  • The Pennsylvania Railroad was one of the leading companies in America in the early 19th to late 20th centuries. About 1970 it was "persuaded" by the Federal government to merge with two other railroads into the Penn Central Corporation, a couple years later it had a spectacular business failure (literally overnight), 3-4 years later, (including some bankruptcy proceedings and a couple acts of congress), the railroads were reorganized into Conrail. So when did the Pennsylvania Central "legally die"? About 1994 as best I understand it, though some might argue 2015. See American Premier Underwriters.
  • A second illustrative case is Theranos. It has a spectacular rise and fall about 2012-2016 and its ceo and coo both got long prison terms. By the start of 2017 it was clear that something very major had happened and we would have been wrong not to mention that in the article. A year later we pretty much shouldn't have been mentioning any possibility of a "turnaround". But "the end" was marked in the press (WSJ) Sept. 4 and on Wikipedia on Sept. 5, 2018, when ironically a lawyer sent out an email [6] - not even a press release - saying that they were negotiating with one creditor, and had some plans to pay back something, and hoped to give out official documents to individuals (for IRS purposes), and even - at some point - file a document with the state that you could call a "death certificate". It was just a statement of what they hoped to do. But this date is marked as "the end". I don't think that any of the other documents were ever even mentioned in the general press. That's all it takes - an email - to confirm that a company is dead.
  • So the point is don't wait for any official "death certificate" with magic words on it - it may not come. A simple "is out of business" in a reliable source is good enough to mark a company's passing. And even if word comes from the ceo that it is dead, it may not be in any official form, and it may still legally be just a plan for future, but it still is the end. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: Personally, yes, I would like to call it defunct and only operation for legal and investigative reasons. However, the other points made about waiting it out seem fair and reasonable, so I am going side with those as it is possible someone buys up OceanGate or they somehow resume commercial business. It hasn't fully closed, so we should wait a bit longer and see what happens in the next year or two. You have a point that we might never get an official conclusion, but we can wait to see if it happens and deal with it as best as possible if it does not.
(Off-topic: Penn Central Transportation Company says its rail operations ended on February 21, 1976. Bankruptcy of Penn Central says that "Conrail [...] began operations on April 1, 1976" and that "Penn Central continued to exist, though it was no longer running trains. The revived Penn Central Corporation held significant real estate assets [...] along with more than 5,000 miles (8,000 km) of former rail lines [...] Penn Central Corporation evolved into a financial services company and renamed to American Premier Underwriters in 1994." American Premier Underwriters is not defunct and only lost a lawsuit against Amtrak in 2015. Thus, Pennsylvania Central still exists outside of railroad as a different company and concluded its railroad business in 1976. -- Regarding Theranos, it seems that no one challenged the defunct date on the article at the talk page, which is a different situation to this where there have been multiple discussions about when the company's existence officially ended. I looked it up and apparently everything ended on Wednesday, September 12th, 2018: "Theranos Inc. (...) closed a deal late Wednesday with Fortress Investment Group LLC, a division of Softbank and its most important creditor, giving the private equity firm ownership of the company’s patents but leaving its remaining cash — about $5 million — for distribution to unsecured creditors (...)" & "When the end came on Sept. 12, 2018, Foege was the longest-tenured Theranos official after Holmes." To myself, this goes against the point as misinformation and misunderstanding have incorrectly placed the date at September 4th instead of September 12th because people were in a rush to declare the company was defunct.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not difficult for the average reader to understand that OceanGate is a company that still exists and is functional (it has a CEO engaged in more than merely a "winding up" process), but is no longer trading. That can be precisely referenced. We cannot include assumptions about whether it had/has other assets (it is highly likely it owned ancillary technical equipment, for example), or staff. It is stated the company will be providing input in ongoing investigations. It would, though, be confusing to say in effect "OceanGate was a company that is currently assisting an investigation". If we keep the language simple and unambiguous there is no comprehension problem. Imprecise words like "defunct" are better avoided. Davidships (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OceanGate&oldid=1213034391"