Talk:Sinking of the Titanic

Revision of some details

First of all, i think this page is becoming a VERY good page in Wikipedia, as most opinion is being fazed out. Only a couple things, i believe the animation of the sinking should be removed, because it has been discredited in recent years. and much new info has come forward, also discrediting the fact that rivets snapped. I guess we'll never really know, but we do have more understanding now. more info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glman99 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Number saved/lost

The British inquiry gives two figures in different places in the report. In one place it says 1490 were lost, and in another 1514. The American inquiry says 1517 were lost. We know the British inquiry figures are not reliable because they say all the first-class children were saved, but we know Allison was not. So, I don't think selecting the British inquiry's figures as a definite number is wise. DrKiernan (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The range of figures 1,490 to 1,635 is attributed to Walter Lord (1976), i.e., a source from 60 years later which is a landmark source. Your sole example is of the sole first-class cum second-class child to have died, i.e., an instance where the British commission missed ONE person. Therefore, your reasoning is skimpy. Now, what we need is for WP editors to address this issue. What does Lord (1976) say, and how has his research on the issue been superseded? Hurmata (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Page views on the centenary day

This article was one of eleven Titanic-related articles linked from the Featured Article box on Wikipedia's Main Page on 15 April 2012, the centenary of the Titanic disaster. I thought editors here might be interested to know the level of usage the articles got on that day:

• RMS Titanic - 430,012 page views
• Sinking of the RMS Titanic - 177,040
• Titanic (1997 film) - 132,054
• Passengers of the RMS Titanic - 38,273
• RMS Carpathia - 33,952
• Wreck of the RMS Titanic - 30,051
• Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic - 13,270
• List of films about the RMS Titanic - 10,226
• Crew of the RMS Titanic - 9,541
• RMS Titanic in popular culture - 8,418
• Changes in safety practices following the RMS Titanic disaster - 4,095
• Total page views for Featured box articles - 886,932

Well done to everyone who contributed to making Wikipedia's commemoration of the Titanic such a big success! Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow! North8000 (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting some things

The history channels Titanic at 100 has shown new pieces of evidence on the break up theory. It shows that big chunks of deck came loose instead of a flaking away effect. It also shows evidence that the stern did indeed rotate like a helicoptor blade as she sank to the ocean floor, as shown with the sea floor being fanned out near the stern wreckage on the sonar map. The pieces of the double-bottom hull clearly show signs that it was the last piece holding the ship together, shown with the stretching of metal at the fracture point. Though i cannot find website sources, I believe that this atricle should be updated with the new findings. Zyon788 (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Inquiries articles

Posting a brief section here to point out that there are two new articles on the inquiries into the sinking. See United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic and British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic. Only a start so far, though others are helping to expand, and I'm hoping some here will also pitch in and help out in whatever way they can. Also, if anyone has good sources on the more obscure hearings (e.g. the New York court case - known as the Limitations of Liability hearings, and the 'Second Bulkhead Committee' that reported in 1915), those would be greatly appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC) PS. For those in the UK, the SOS: The Titanic Inquiry dramatisation of the British inquiry is well worth watching, only broadcast in Northern Ireland, but available on the iPlayer.

I've added them to the template; good work! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Last moments

This section puts forward the notion that the ship broke in half on the surface before sinking, and that the eyewitnesses who didn’t see this happen were “mistaken”. It also uses phrases like “clearly indicated” and “evidently caused” which are inappropriate in a neutral account. I presume this is based on Ballard's findings (and popularized by Cameron's film) and is their theory explaining why the wreck is in two pieces on the ocean floor, but it is still a theory, not undeniable fact; and as it contradicts the findings of both courts of enquiry and all reliable sources from then until recently, it should be presented in a neutral fashion. It isn’t the role of WP to pass judgement on the matter. Also, it would also be useful to know how well received, and how widely accepted, their theory about this is. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally misleading description of flooding!

There are several wrong points regarding the description of how Titanic flooded. It is a bit astonishing that, although there exist reliable and scientifically advanced sources dealing with the flooding (a good overview is given in the section DESCRIPTION OF THE DAMAGE TO THE SHIP of the new book of Sam Halpern which is already used as source in this article) sources were used which are - at best - very inaccurate regarding the flooding. The major flaw is that it is stated that only five compartments were damaged by the iceberg but in fact there was also a leak in the forward coal bunker INSIDE the 6th compartment. Already in the BOT report it was summerised There was damage in: - The forepeak, No. 1 hold, No. 2 hold, No. 3 hold, No. 6 boiler room, No. 5 boiler room. So this has to be corrected here in any way. In fact, there was also a slight damage in No. 4 boiler room, but as water initially entered there in a trickle only this damage is often neglected. Nevertheless, water there came over the stokehold plates about 100 minutes after the collision. This detail is probably too much information for the article but it hints to its second flaw (as water came from below and not from above): Several authors made a misinterpretation of the flooding-by-compartment sequence present by Edward Wilding to the BOT inquiry in that way, that they claim Titanic flooded like an ice cube tray. This is at best an oversimplification. Contrary to the holds, the boiler rooms were relatively tight because the fumes and hot air from these spaces had to be prevented from reaching the passenger spaces. Hence, the water which spread along the Scotland Road on E deck could flow down easily to F deck only. This is illustrated in a diagram on page 21 of Quinns book Titanic 2 a.m. which can be viewed online: [1].

Consequences: 1. The damage description must be changed from 5 compartment damage to 6 compartment damage! 2. Statements like and water would spill from one compartment to the next in sequence, rather like water spilling across the top of an ice cube tray should be omitted. Although this kind of description sounds easily understandable it does not describe the actual flooding of the vessel, because the vast majority of the flooding water in the boiler rooms Nos. 5 and 4 came NOT from other compartments! Instead something less specific like If too many compartments were flooded, the tops of the bulkheads became submerged. Subsequently, the flooding became uncontrollable. could be used. 3. The sentence Water was spilling over into No. 5 boiler room,[59] and crewmen there were battling to pump it out. has to be changed! I don't have source 59 but cannot believe that this is a direct citation. It sounds like that the water entering No. 5 boiler room came from the leak in No. 6! Even in the ice cube tray description this would have been impossible when the water had a level of 14 feet only in No. 6 as written in the sentence before. No. 5 had its own leak (see point 1) which lead to severe flooding after the coal bunker which contained the water gave way.! --DFoerster (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, boiler room 5 had its fwd coal bunker damaged (not 6). This was the most aftward damage. Halpern p. 100. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said. Above I've written "damage in the 6th compartment" which is No. 5 boiler room! By the way: The slight damage to No. 4 boiler room is also mentioned in the Halpern book (p. 110 and 111) --DFoerster (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you write: The major flaw is that it is stated that [...] a leak in the forward coal bunker INSIDE the 6th compartment. 6th? -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The compartments were counted from bow to stern, the boiler room from stern to bow: compartment 1 was the part before the collision bulkhead, compartment 2 was No. 1 hold, compartment 3 was No. 2 hold, compartment 4 was No. 3 hold, compartment 5 was No. 6 boiler room, compartment 6 was No. 5 boiler room, compartment 7 was No. 4 boiler room and so on. As the leak was in the coal bunker of No. 5 boiler room it was in the 6th compartment. --DFoerster (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither do I see a problem. But still you wrote a mistake, even using capitals. It was #5 coal bunker damaged (relevantly), not a #6 coal bunker. Agree? -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you see a problem which does not exist: You say I wrote a mistake, but I didn't! I wrote 6th compartment. As I explained very detailed in my last posting No. 5 boiler room was the 6th compartment! So these are two different denominations for the same areas. And if you look on the diagram inside the article where the damage is indicated by green lines you can see that No. 6 boiler room (compartment 5) was damaged to a much larger extend than No. 6 boiler room. Hence, at least the aft starboard coal bunker of No. 6 boiler room was also damaged. But, as most water entered this room in the stokehold area this detail is not really important. --DFoerster (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, #6 boilerroom is #5 compartment -- although compartment numbering is rarely used (I did not find it in the source). -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Caption of infobox image

Please see my discussion on RMS Titanic talk page, re: Untergang der Titanic by Willy Stöwer, 1912. (That description does not accurately describe the image, nor even a reasonable facsimile thereof). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Also: this image is/was not a "painting". (noun: 1. a picture or design executed in paints.) ~E22:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Caption clarified accordingly ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested image:
Someone with upload privilege^{[not me]} could upload the following, and make a case for fair use / public domain; (description: detail from Untergang der Titanic by Willy Stöwer, 1912) ~E 01:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

...In addition, I don't see how coloring the sky blue and the funnels red (image used) is considered a "Quality-Update" (File history) -- since both serve to provide historical inaccuracies. (Actual: golden-yellow funnels, night sky) ~E 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.225.106 (talk)

Another very fair comment. I was amazed to see what I had assumed was an image from a children's encyclopedia had in fact started life as a true work of art. I'm not even sure the present image is better than none. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE: image has been reverted to original file (b/w) -- caption modified accordingly ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Did the stern go vertical?

I remember watching a documentary on TV a few years ago where they talked about the keel, saying that the ship didn't actually split in half until after it had submerged and that it wasn't, therefore, pulled vertical after detaching. I think it was Discovery or Nat Geo but I can't remember. The closest I can find is this article here: [2] which references a book by Richie Kohler and John Chatterton called "Titanic's Last Secrets". Is there any reason this isn't included in the article? Tiller54 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The link you gave doesn't say that, it says that it broke up at a shallow angle rather than rising high into the air before breaking up like it did in the film. Either way, the stern would have still been pulled up to a near vertical angle before sinking. G-13114 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting material in a cited source

Some of the material removed in this edit is directly supported by the cited source:

Glasses (as sailors call binoculars) of 1912 vintage would not have helped spot the berg sooner. While their optics were sharp and their magnification powerful pre-World War I binoculars lacked the modern coated lenses that actually “gather” and thereby increase the amount of light seen by the observer. The optically inefficient glasses available…would have “seen” less light than he human eye alone.

The bit about the ship's light bulbs didn't seem to be covered. I'm looking to restore, close to the reference. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that you three folks have been addressing this from a standpoint of whether or not it was in the reference. I don't have knowledge on that. But my recommendation is to leave it out even if it was in a source. From a technical standpoint, this text (optics related) is a misleading tangent and rambling at best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A further thought: I've not seen it mentioned in any other source, so I have to wonder if it's the author's personal theory. In which case WP:REDFLAG would apply. Prioryman (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Brown's statement that coated lenses were not available is accurate: Zeiss brought them out in 1935. AFAICS the difference in light gathering would have been only a few percent and the improvement slight, but that's my take on the figures, and thus WP:NOR. To say that this few percent wouldn't have made any difference is, again, opinion: deleting reliably sourced material because an editor disagrees with the author's "technical standpoint". That's my point: it is in the reference—see the quote—and an editor's decision to leave it out is in itself a form of original research, and so not allowed. On the one hand the WP:RS, on the other an editor's opinion. Which do we go with? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, just a minute. Please excuse my intrusion, but you seem to be debating what would have been the advantage, if any, if the look-outs had had binoculars, with or without modern coatings. The simple fact is they had none. I'm sure there were lots of things the ship did not have which might have affected the outcome, e.g. more lifeboats, different pattern of hull rivetting, etc. etc. But there has to be a limit to the amount of speculation and counter-speculation that is really relevant and that will not confuse a new reader? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a valid point but it needs to be in, to some extent, because the issue has been raised so widely elsewhere, starting with both the UK and US official enquiries. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As a sidebar, I have to disagree with Old Moonraker on one policy point. Deciding to leave out material is not OR nor is it prohibited. It is a normal function of editors. The only policy which sometimes mandates inclusion wp:npov in specific types of situations.

There seems to be some goalpost relocation going on here: the original reason for the RV was "that bit doesn't appear in the book", not that someone is "[d]eciding to leave out material" from the book. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was viewing the question as just whether or not to include the material, and I gave an opinion/recommendation on that. I think that Martinevans123's point about it being just speculation also weighs in on the side of leaving it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm more persuaded by User:Martinevans123 than "that bit doesn't appear in the book"; it does appear in the book, and that was the reason I put it back. However, as nobody much seems to like it, I'm happy to let it lie. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

12 vs 24 hour time.

An editor keeps changing this from 24 to 12 hour time. Refering to it as "military time" which i've never heard it called before. And several editors have reverted it.

I prefer the 24 hour time format myself as it's simple and unambiguous and is in widespread use in the Uk and internationally. And surely it can't be that hard to count past twelve. So just wondering what other editors think.

P.S. Is there any wikipedia policy on what time format to use? G-13114 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

MOS:TIME says it should be determined by "context", but doesn't define that. Generally, the previous or longstanding format is considered to have consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that 24-hour time is better. To me, it is clearer, which should be what an encyclopaedia article should aim for. As for international usage, it should be noted that it's not just in English-speaking countries that the English Wikipedia is accessed. People in, say, France, Germany, Russia and Japan also access it, as well as their local versions, because the English Wikipedia is more extensive. And in those countries, the 24-hour clock is usual. Incidentally, the user seems to suggest in this edit summary that Wikipedia as a whole should use 12-hour time, so maybe he/she should take the discussion to the Manual of Style talk pages.—A bit iffy (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In the big picture, I think that we should use 24 hr time in this article. FYI, in the USA 12 Hr. time is overwhelmingly used, and the most common terms for 24 Hr. time are "military time" and "navy time". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well judging by this, the consensus seems to be to keep the 24 hr format. G-13114 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong view either way, but in official documents in the British Merchant Navy, (log books, cargo registers, voyage reports, etc) a.m. and p.m. are not used. It is always 24 hour timekeeping. I feel 12 hour times would look strange in this context. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Tides were not extraordinary in January, 1912

The tides on the coast of Labrador were not extraordinary in January, 1912. Yes, there were perigean Spring tides in January. Such tides occur frequently. The article claiming extraordinary tides was published by a popular science magazine, Sky & Telescope, desperate to increase readership by riding the wave of the Titanic centennial. It was not a peer-reviewed article. It is poor astronomy and poor oceanography, and the authors have no expertise or professional background in ocean tides. The section citing this nonsense should be deleted, or at minimum it should be cited as highly speculative. 184.219.18.231 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources that support your contention? Rumiton (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Misleading claims of steerage deaths

The article currently repeats the old, long-debunked saws about steerage class survival rates, such as: the vast majority of those who had boarded lifeboats were first- and second-class passengers; the relatively few male steerage passengers to survive; and so on. Simple consultation of a table of survivors is all it takes to show that these statements are false.

Contrary to the vast majority of those who had boarded lifeboats were first- and second-class passengers, in fact first- and second- class passengers made up only 45% of the survivors, less than half. And contrary to the relatively few male steerage passengers to survive, the number of male steerage passengers to survive exceeded 1st and 2nd class male survivors, put together. Even in percentage terms, the survival rate of 1st and 2nd class men was 21%, compared to 16% for 3rd class men and 22% for male crew. Differences, certainly, but not enormous ones.

In terms of percentage survival rates, there is a dramatic difference between women and children versus men -- as one might expect from the "women and children first" policy. Across all classes and crew, women and children had a 70% survival rate vs. 20% for men! But there was also a large difference in geneder composition of classes: only 23% of 3rd class passengers and 3% of crew were women, vs. nearly 50:50 split in 1st class. This substantially skews the relative survival rates: 2nd class passengers overall were more likely to survive than 3rd class passengers (by about 65%), but 2nd class men were actually less likely -- much less likely -- to survive then 3rd class men.

In fact out of the real statistics, rather than the myths, the single most glaring figure that jumps out is the extremely low survival rate of 2nd class men. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points. North8000 (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the vast majority of those who had boarded lifeboats were first- and second-class passengers tp the vast majority of passengers who had boarded lifeboats were from first- and second-class, since 330 first and second class passengers were saved compared to 178 third-class. I have removed relatively few since the sentence seems to read OK without it. DrKiernan (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Break up between 2nd and 3rd funnels

I changed the part about Titanic breaking behind the 3rd funnel to in front of the 3rd funnel as new evidence has been discovered which means the break up must have occurred before the 3rd funnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsBarLover (talk • contribs) 07:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As the base of the third funnel lies between the bow and stern sections on the wreck site, and the stern section is thought to be more directly below the site of sinking, isn't it more likely that the split occurred aft of the third funnel and that the third funnel was then ripped off the bow section during its descent? Either way, as the base of the third funnel lies separated from both the bow and stern sections, it is clear that splits occurred both aft and forward of the funnel at some point in the sinking. DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If the Titanic had broke aft of the third funnel the deckhouse would be attached to the bow section but its not - it's lying far from the wreck. You should watch "Titanic: The final word with James Cameron" for the most accurate sinking simulation to date. Also, the survivors who claimed to see it break said they saw it break between the 2nd and 3rd funnels, not the 3rd and 4th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsBarLover (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow that logic, since if the ship broke forward of the third funnel, the deckhouse would be attached to the stern section, but it isn't - as you say it's separated from both bow and stern sections. DrKiernan (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsBarLover (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I mean the wreck of the bow section comprises the front half of the ship with two funnels, and the wreck of the stern section comprises the rear two-fifths with one funnel. Hence, the wreck is split on either side of the third funnel. The middle bit, often called the "deckhouse" or base of the third funnel, lies between the other two major bits of the ship, though it is nearer the stern section. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Lightoller's granddaughter

Anybody familiar with claims by Louise Patten? Perhaps a cited mention should be included somewhere (?).

"The granddaughter of senior officer Charles Lightoller claimed the man at the wheel of the Titanic either did not hear an order or responded incorrectly; he turned right instead of left, putting the ship on a collision course with the iceberg. Louise Patten says her grandfather -- who survived the sinking -- lied about the mistake to prevent lawsuits against his employers and to protect his job. Patten also says that the chairman of the White Star Line ordered the ship to continue sailing on its intended course to reach land, in the hope of avoiding negative publicity, which may have increased the amount of water flowing into the ship."[3]

The story can be found here: BBC News - Family's Titanic secret revealed and: Telegraph - Titanic sunk by steering blunder, new book claims

However:

Meanwhile, Sally Neillson, the great granddaughter of Robert Hichins, who is also working on a Titanic book -- “Hard A-Starboard” due to be published before the centenary anniversary of 2012 -- totally rejected the claim.

"Hichins had 10 years experience, seven of those as a quartermaster. He sailed the Titanic for four days before the accident, during which he did shifts of four hours on, four hours off. He would have steered the vessel during these times, so been familiar with the systems,” Neillson told UK TV Channel 4.[4]

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Patten's claims were examined to death here a couple of years ago and found to be nothing more than publicity for her book. Rumiton (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Here is part of the discussion. [5] Rumiton (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I suspected - dueling books to stir up controversy (and sales). 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

More details of Smith's actions that night including his last reliable sighting. You find out in 12 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.34.202.158 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What? Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

SOLAS

SOLAS is mentioned in the lead but not in the body...shouldn't it? ~ Soerfm (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's in the Aftermath section. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I see (I just made a search on "SOLAS"). - Soerfm (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wording propriety

I remember hearing at one time that it is at least improper to use the word "the" before a ship's name, even if the name is preceded by a hull designation (such as "RMS"). Therefore, in my opinion, this article should be renamed as "Sinking of RMS Titanic" (with "Titanic" italicized, as per ship naming standards). If it is agreed upon, could someone add the appropriate template(s) for the renaming to the page? I have never done so before. Also, this discussion should be extended to all ship articles across Wikipedia. Thank you. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You brought up this concept before, here, where it was thoroughly studied and I think thoroughly exploded by all the reference works that do place 'the' before ships' names, preceded by a prefix (not a hull designation, which would follow the name) or not. The instances where 'the' is generally not used is only when the full usage would create a grammatical inconsistency. For example, 'the HMS Victory' would read as 'the Her Majesty's Ship Victory'. But 'the United States Ship' and hence 'the USS' and other examples are fine. As, in this instance, is 'Sinking of the RMS Titanic'. Benea (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

To further clarify, the use of the definite article usually depends on simple grammatical rules. When the ship is the subject, it might be left out, when it is the object it is usually included. In one of the examples I used in the above discussion; Brian Lavery's Churchill Goes to War, he has "Renown had settled into a routine..." and "The Renown's idyll ended..." In the first instance the subject is the battlecruiser Renown and the definite article is not used. In the second, the subject is the idyll that the ship is experiencing, and the definite article is used. Similarly in Jan Morris's Fisher's Face, which has on the same page "...in the Warrior he introduced the order 'still'" and "Donegal was his first ship..." The first it is Fisher who is the subject, and the ship Warrior as the object is given the definite article, in the second the ship Donegal is the subject and doesn't use the definite article. In the case of this article title, the grammatical subject is the 'sinking'. The RMS Titanic is the object, and is correctly referred to with 'the'. Benea (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that very lucid explanation. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Benea's quite correct grammatical rules aside, there is a further complicating factor, which I think I have mentioned before. From a seaman's point of view, Royal Navy ships have always been just HMS Warrior or simply Warrior. Merchant Navy ships have always been The Cargomonster or The SS (or MV) Cargomonster. It sounds weird to leave out the The, though I have heard that starting to happen, on documentaries etc, where the journalist may be unaware of the convention. Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

New comment

Why not show Robert Ballard's Photo of the engraved letters of RMS Olympic and the fallen Titanic letters that covered over the name 'Olympic' as part of J.P. Morgan's Insurance Fraud? Robert Ballard, U.S. Navy, discovered the RMS Olympic wreckage on the ocean floor. today is the 101st anniversary. of that deliberate 'ghost-ship' sinking on 15th April 1012. The movie Titanic - The Shocking Truth, spells out a compelling case for this major crime at the start of the 20th century. There should be a 'Conspiracy Theory' section. There is a wealth of damning evidence like the so-called Titanic photographed on her maiden voyage with two extra portholes. written testimony like the letter penned by Chief Officer Wilde, formerly of RMS Olympic wtiting to his wife, Florence, after being on board the so-called Titanic, saying "I still don't like this ship..." JP Morgan a 65% majority shareholder of the line that owned SS Californian, that left port empty, except for 3000 woolen sweaters, and 3000 woolen blankets, ready to wrap up so-called Titanic survivors. Bruce Ismay's wife Florence Ismay's last minute cancellation to go on a motoring holiday in Irelans, 50 of JP Morgan's close friends cancell at the last minute. as well as JP Morgan.... etc. Plenty of scholarly references and damning under-sea photographs by Robert Ballard U.S. Navy. R.I.P. 1514 victims of manslaughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.168.182 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is Robert Ballard officially claims he found the Titanic, not Olympic. Some mysterious conspiracy sites claiming otherwise isn't really thrust worthy and this particular conspiracy theory has been debunked several times. 81.225.25.140 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Bacteria eating the ship - can we please get rid of this?

I attempted to edit the section in "Aftermath", but I'm not good with references. It's in McCarty and Foecke (I'm Foecke) where we did the analysis of what's happening to the wreck. Bacteria don't eat the ship. They are using the iron oxide to build rusticles (along with fungi) and the presence of the rusticles changes the local oxygen content and pH and has a slight effect on the corrosion rate, but the bacteria aren't "eating" the ship - they are eating what they were eating before the ship got down there - floc from the surface. This is something Roy Cullimore has been flogging for years. He claims that all corrosion is biological, and the corrosion community thinks he's wrong. He's a microbiologist, not a chemist nor a metallurgist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.105.38 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you efforts! My first guess is that you are right. But you replaced a sourced statement with an unsourced statement based on your own expertise. That's not how Wikipedia works. Can you find a source for that? If you wrote something that is published, that would do it. If so, I'll help you put it in. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's no reflection on you. Roughly speaking, if Einstein were alive, he could not write anything about relativity in Wikipedia unless he provided a cite from a published source (such as one of his books). Hang in there....I'd be happy to help. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Roy and I discussed this many times. I asked him, if ALL corrosion is biological, why can I corrode gold in 5 mega-ohm (aka ultra ultra high purity distilled) water with the application of a large enough voltage? His reply - there were still bacteria there. Consensus amongst my community of metallurgists and corrosion specialists on this topic? He's nuts. He gets on all the cable shows recently because he doesn't mind lending his name and reputation (and misinterpretation of corrosion processes) to them and their rapidly declining quality of content. I quit a number of years ago when it was clear that the producers didn't care at all about the science any longer. They once did. So we are left with ridiculous results being put out there like Roy's.

I see I've been beaten to the edit. Ref is Hooper McCarty and Foecke (2008) pp 196-199. That's where we put this to rest. 96.255.105.38 (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, I don't see an edit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I put it in. Will need fine tuning. Do you have any more info on the book? Title, Publisher, Date, ISBN # etc? North8000 (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, if someone could put that reference into the sfn format used in the article, please do.....I only did those once and forgot how they work. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's already reference #46. 96.255.105.38 (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As you have access to the book, could you please clarify the page number of ref 46 and the units used for the corrosion calculation. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Page 83 among several places. Units used for the corrosion calculation - not sure what you mean. Accepted value for marine corrosion of mild steel is 0.1 mils per day (mil is a milli-inch), times the estimated surface area of the ship (very rough - I had my students at UMD do it) times the density of iron gives you 0.5 to 1 ton of iron per day. Lots of give-or-take.

96.255.105.38 (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)