Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald

Time in service incorrect

while reading the information in the box n the right hand side of my screen, it has come to my attention that the time in service you put(38 years, 2 months, 11 days) is incorrect. after I did some math on paper, the actual tome in service is 17 years, 4 months, and 2 days. please change this quickly before someone who needs some of this information finds it incorrect.

thank you very much,

                    Gymgal12 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Gymgal12

It's not the time in service that's listed there; it's the time since it went out of service. The documentation is weak on which date range, if any, should be there. It's probably best just to remove it; anybody needing to know the time can do the math themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

July 1995 Dive on "The Fitz"

It was brought to my attention that in the article on the Edmund Fitzgerald, credit for organizing the July 1995 dive on the Edmund Fitzgerald had incorrectly been given to Dr Joe MacInnes. I edited the paragraph in question to state that it was in fact the Great Lake Shipwreck Historical Society and the National Geographic that spearheaded the expedition with support from the Canadian Navy and Hard Suits International. Dr MacInnes played a very minor role in this expedition. The expedition was written up by Tom Farquist of the GLSHS in the National Geographic Magazine and LCdr Robert Gwalchmai of the Canadian Navy in Sea Technology. I would be happy to discuss this change with anyone who has a differing opinion.Divergw (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to your information, MacInnis held the archaeological license and the GLSHS played a minor role by contributing $10,000 so they could participate. Please refer to the many books and articles that are referenced in the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of May 14, 2015, additions

Ok, I just cleaned up the additions from May 14, 2015, by John R. Beck (talk · contribs) and what I suspect is his IP address. Since those additions related to work Mr. Beck has authored, I do not feel it is appropriate for him to add them to the article directly for COI reasons. If someone else would like to take responsibility for the content, that other editor can restore the content.

In addition, I have issues with the content as it was added. The Lego model is novel, but I'm not sure it's necessary to the article. Now, maybe if the model were independently verified to the be the world's largest Lego model, that would be something worthy of including. However, the only source for the is a webpage created by Mr. Beck on a website that states: "MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website." Sorry, that's too much like citing another wiki, something policy doesn't allow.

As for the article in the journal, there's no real discussion of the content of the article applied to our article. This is a source that probably should be integrated, but that integration needs to happen by someone who isn't Mr. Beck for COI reasons. The content is still in the article history if others want to review it. Imzadi 1979 → 04:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the Lego model is more like the Fitz memorabilia sold to tourists and it does not contribute to the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is like memorabilia. It is a great example of commercialized commemoration and that is why it belongs in the article. Certainly it is better than a random link to a beer company...John R. Beck (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the Lego model seems pretty trivial. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Trivial or not, the issue/significance is found in the fact of its existence as a "popular" memorial...allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions about its "value"...John R. Beck (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the history & memory studies text ought to be included as actual scholarship whether written by the author or not. What are COI reasons beyond a restriction of the freedom of speech? The article is a valid expression of research. But perhaps the reference to the world's largest lego ship belongs under commercialization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John R. Beck (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

While there's a bit of an exception for acknowledged experts in a field, publishing your own research here is problematic. And even if you're adding a cite to a paper you published someplace we'd usually consider a reliable source, there's a bit of a COI simple because citations are the sine qua non of academic publishing. IOW, citing yourself is likely to be considered promotional. And as written, it provides a very positive (perhaps deserved, I don't know) reference to that article. I see a particular issue if this article is behind a paywall, if you're the author. Having an article behind a paywall (or offline) is not an issue (although for obvious reasons freely available references are preferred), but in this case you're asking us to "trust me, I've written this fantastic article, but you can't see it". Because of the COI, I think you need to appear above suspicion.

In any event, the new section, Commercialized Scholarship has issues as written. Terms like "healthy" are a judgment which would need to be supported by a reference, and the name of the cited article, while it should be in the footnote, is not particularly relevant to the article. The notion of "ownership" of a history is hardly unique to this case, and should perhaps be mentioned, although there's often controversy as such ownership should *not* be used to color the actual facts, and as regards Wikipedia, facts are what should be here. And unless Wikipedia is particularly notable in a case of (mis)appropriating a history, the reference (to Wikipedia) is likely inappropriate as well. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the information again according to the suggestions listed above. How do I provide access to my article when it is locked behind a pay wall? John R. Beck (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit my reference links to make them look short like the all the other ones..John R. Beck (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing the Lego model again. John R. Beck, we have a concept around here called WP:BRD, which stands for "Bold, revert, discuss". You were bold to add the content, but you were reverted, and now is the time to discuss it. Once this discussion is done, then we can edit the article. We have no deadline around here, so there's no rush. Additionally, this is a Featured Article, which is a status that only about 0.1% of articles achieve, so some of us take an interest in keeping the quality level high. As just one example, our Manual of Style, in the MOS:HEAD section, says that headings should be in sentence case, not title case, which is what you've been using.

Two other editors in addition to myself have said that the Lego model isn't the type of content we want to include. Because of the COI concerns, Mr. Beck, you should avoid directly editing the article. Instead, you should propose additions here and let others comment on the suggestions. We'll discuss everything and come to an agreement. Trying to assert yourself in editing against the objections of others, when it means you constantly undo (or redo) edits is called edit warring, and edit warring is something that can get your account blocked from editing. Imzadi 1979 → 04:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This has a been a great conversation for my Michigan History class to watch unfold. We take a minute or two at the start of class to check the progress on the article. What this open process reveals about Wikipedia is that it isn't an open platform for everyone but a selected platform for editors with a preferred point of view. That is both a positive and a negative. It does tend to make me more open to allowing my students to cite Wikipedia for academic purposes. Normally I just allow them to go to the footnotes and external links. On a different note, intended or not, the "quality level high" comment is insulting. Mere formatting "errors" aside, my contributions improve the overall quality of the article. If some editor doesn't like my contribution, leave it in, and then discuss it on the talk page. How does the community benefit from censoring it first and talking about it second? The brick ship is a great example of commercialization. Certainly it is on par with a link to Edmund Fitzgerald Beer...if that's not self promotion I don't know what is...perhaps I should start another page on Commemorations for the SS Edmund Fitzgerald with a link from this page? Also, how is having my Lego version of the ship designed to scale any better or worse than the other scaled model of the ship? Why allow one but not the other?John R. Beck (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I recall that someone without a COI added the Edmund Fitzgerald beer to the article but I haven't confirmed that. If the beer was added as self-promotion, then mention of it should be also be deleted until editors without COI choose to add it. Wikipedia does not serve as a forum for self-promotion. If this discussion reaches a consensus that the Lego model should be included, then as Imzadi 1979 already said, let someone without a COI add it to the article. It will still need a valid citation.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The "Memorials" section does not reflect current scholarship and activities. For example, consider the following third party site references to my article and model...none of which I "control"...which I think meets the COI standard?: http://www.greatlakesgazette.com/2014/10/20/the-storms-of-november/ http://clioscurrent.com/blog/2014/9/15/the-wreck-of-the-edmund-fitzgerald (I didn't know this site existed until I googled it) http://ijh.sagepub.com/content/24/1/203.extract (ditto for this one) http://ijh.sagepub.com/content/24/1/203.full.pdf (part of the "pay wall" to the article) http://wmich.edu/history/research/archive/2012-13/2012-13gradarticleschapters.html (just a reference to my article) http://www.sooeveningnews.com/article/20130718/NEWS/130719518 (an article about my talk at the museum) http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2011/11/18/news/doc4ec4042dbb2b9165372054.txt (picture of the model) http://www.northernwilds.com/pages/Explore/faces/strange-tales~print.shtml (another article with a few errors) http://www.heraldpalladium.com/news/local/st-joe-calling-all-legos-lovers/article_0a31791c-442c-5227-b2a1-0aa15c0e687f.html http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1518219/26116193/1428348044047/Conference+Program+April+10.pdf?token=fz6PlsQhySsVd9%2BgScniT2pdfSc%3D (a link to Central Michigan University discussion panel I was on)

There's enough third party stuff here to justify a sentence or two in the article if only to reflect the fact that commemorations continue to evolve... — Preceding unsigned comment added by John R. Beck (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC) John R. Beck (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The ship in popular culture

I'd like to develop a section called "The ship in popular culture" under the memorial part. Jerry Seinfeld references the ship in an episode. Tim Hawkins parodies the Lightfoot song with a 30 second tribute, etc. Dr. Russell wrote a play called "Holdin Our Own" commissioned by the Marquette Maritime Museum. Of course some of this could go under theater and music...Do I need permission from wikiland for that considering there's no COI and presumably no war editing? Hate to get myself blocked you know...John R. Beck (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Conceptually not a problem, but I'd advise paying attention to WP:POPCULTURE. Many people don't like "pop culture" sections at all, so what goes in them needs to be actually significant, and well sourced. Certainty the Lightfoot song qualifies, but the Hawkins parody, at first blush, would appear to be trivia that should probably not be included. Rwessel (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on the parody. That's something that would be more appropriate in the article about the song, but here it's another level further removed from this article's subject. As for the others, it's really better to have them sources to secondary sources, like a newspaper article written about the play that discusses the themes and subject of it. The essay Rwessel mentions gives some particularly appropriate advice about passing mentions. The Jerry Seinfeld example sounds like it falls into that category, and a quick search on Google shows that the mention in the episode is more about the Lightfoot song than about the ship. I'd say that doesn't fit with this article then.

Now, Shelley Russell's play should be in the article already. This press release isn't a bad place to start, but we can find better sources to use. The Mining Journal around that time should have run an article about the play and its debut. Citing the play itself should be avoided at all cost. This webpage should not be cited since it comes from a fansite. This article is a FA, which needs to use "high-quality reliable sources", and fansites don't meet our "reliable sources" guideline. ("Reliable source" is a bit of a Wikipedia term of art, and some sources that non-Wikipedians might consider reliable fail our test and vice versa.) Imzadi 1979 → 09:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

References to Lightfoot's song in popular culture belong in the Wikipedia article, Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What about this site?http://www.lakesuperiortheatre.com/2013-lake-superior-theatre-company.html I found many references to it but nothing in great detail...John R. Beck (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the wiki definition of trivia? Is there some standard for this? It is unclear to me the difference between someone's view of trivia and their personal point of view...one man's treasure is another woman's junk, right? It's not like there's a limited amount of space...the criteria for inclusion in a FA seems...arbitrary...to one unfamiliar with the inner workings of wiki...seeking clarity here not trying to be petty...John R. Beck (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In case you missed it, Rwessel gave you the pertinent link already. WP:POPCULTURE--Asher196 (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Some additional comments: First, while space is (mostly) not limited, things not well related do not improve the article, since they just add clutter that the reader has to work through. That's the ultimate criteria - does this make the article better? Mere length, or large numbers of marginally related facts do not make articles better. Obviously this is a judgment call at times, but the more directly related to the primary subject the better. As in any writing, coherency is important. In the case of the Lightfoot song, that song is probably why most people know about the wreck. Second, it's not that the rules are different for FAs, it's just that they tend to be more strictly enforced. Articles (painfully) become FAs after much hard work to improve their quality, and one hates to see backsliding. That's not a problem with the FAs, it's a problem that the other articles, which have received inadequate editorial attention. Of course there's an essay on that as well: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pretty much everything that happens on Wikipedia is determined by consensus, the policies and similar (like the essays) are usually where you'll find that consensus documented. Rwessel (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the "Holdin' Our Own" content referenced above. I thought the university's website would be a sufficiently strong source for the information...let me know if that's not strong enough. I did not think it necessary to mention subsequent performances. I could use help fixing the footnote. I don't understand how to make it look like a link and not the text of the link..John R. Beck (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@John R. Beck: please do not modify others' comments, even by splitting them and inserting a reply in the middle. It makes it confusing to know who's saying what when signatures are separated from parts of the comments. It is considered quite rude, and very improper, to edit others' comments, akin to "putting words into [someone's] mouth", even if you didn't actually change what someone else typed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I edited what you added, John R. Beck to conform to our formatting styles. First, we usually don't append "Dr." in front of the names of people. Second, names of plays are rendered in italics, not quotation marks, so I switched that around. I also used the {{sfn}} template to create a shortened footnote to the press release. Then I added the press release into the references section since it can be used to cite both sentences you added, simplifying the sourcing. If I have a chance, I'll go to the library soon to see if The Mining Journal ran a news article about the debut of the play. Remember, we don't need to have all of our sources online. It's great when there are copies online, but it's not necessary to use only online sources. Books and newspaper articles on microfilm make great resources for our research. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the explanation on protocol in the "modifying comments" comment. I didn't know you couldn't split comments in order to answer them...makes sense I guess. Thanks for not reverting my addition. Thanks for editing it as well. This is very exciting. John R. Beck (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree that a section be devoted to the Edmund Fitzgerald in popular culture. The saga of the Fitzgerald has been more commercialized than woven into pop culture, even with the success of Gordon Lightfoot's haunting ballad, and so it would be superflous to this page.TH1980 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Common misspelling "straight jacket"

Normally, I'd just barge ahead and fix the typo in 3.5 Structural failure theory, but it seems to be quoted from Ramsey's book, so if he misspelled it, I'd prefer to leave it as-is with a [sic], minus the question mark. Could someone with access to the book double-check it? It ought to be straitjacket, but many, many people get it wrong. -- J. Randall Owens (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained request for a citation of a photo caption

I don't understand this. What is the debate over the caption mentioned here? An unclear request for citation was made, but it is almost drive-by tagging and gives no explanation. When I attempted to clarify the caption, based on text that is in the actual photo, further clarification was requested without explanation of what clarification was needed. Can someone explain this? what is the exact problem with the photo caption? I think the caption was fine as it was, it was basically captioned by the Museum. Are we saying the museum is not trustworthy? Are we saying the photo is fake? I thank the original uploader for the contribution, though I don't understand the removal. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The images in Fitz article went through an extensive vetting process for FA. Since the Frankenmuth Historical Museum isn’t accredited, [1][2] there is no way of knowing if the display went through a rigorous review to verify whether there was a chain of custody to prove the taconite pellets are from the Fitz. The image does not provide supporting evidence of the claim that the taconite pellets were “inadvertently recovered” from the wreck site.

There is evidence that taconite pellets were intentionally recovered from the Fitz wreck site. The Ontario Ministry of Culture released video footage of a 1994 submersible dive to the Fitz that documents taconite pellet removal from the wreck site. [3] [4] However, since the information was obtained via a Freedom of Information request, it cannot be included in the article. [5]

MacInnis held the archaeological license for 1994 and 1995 Fitz dives. In his book, Fitzgerald’s Storm: The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, on page 123, he wrote:

What had been whispered about Farnquist’s rule-bending behavior seemed to have been confirmed. The families were also dismayed about what they had heard concerning the taconite pellets. Farnquist knew the Ontario government’s archeological license stated the bell was the only object to be removed from the ship. But he had obtained some of the Fitzgerald’s cargo and was passing out the marble-sized pellets to friends.

Given that the Frankenmuth Historical Museum taconite display raises questions of credibility, that the taconite pellets were likely intentionally removed from the Fitz wreck site, and that the image is superfluous to article, I think it is best to remove the image until it is established that it is a credible.Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. Perhaps it would have been best if you had specified what the problem was in the first place in the citation request or edit summary instead of just "reason=Your explanation here". Alternatively, the caption could have been reworded more to your satisfaction to say only that it was taconite from the wreck site and avoiding saying accidentally. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The taconite pellets from the Fitz are one her controversial topics. I avoided going into it until your reasonable request for an explanation. I contacted the Frankenmuth Historical Museum Collections and Exhibits Curator requesting information on the taconite image display. I will report back if there is a response from the museum.Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)