|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Lightoller article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated C-class)|
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
The recent "revelations" of errors and cover-ups are not documented anywhere. They sound to me more like a publicity stunt by Lady Patten to promote her novel - itself of course a work of FICTION.220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. One person wrote to me: "This has been all over a celestial navigation list I belong to. General consensus is that the story is highly implausible." WilliamKF (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that Lady Patten is promoting her novel. However, at least one prominent subject matter expert believes the claims are plausible. In response to the questions, "Could the helmsman really have made that mistake? And if so, could it have stayed secret for so long?" James Delgado - the president of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M - told ABC News, "I think it's entirely possible". I suspect even more SMEs will weigh in, for better or worse, given more time. Froid 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nick Watt (22 September 2010). "Titanic Mistake: Steering Error Sank Ship, Author Claims". ABC News. Retrieved 25 September 2010.
Actually I can only feel contempt for a man like Lightoller who refused men like Mr. Astor who wanted to accompany his pregnant wife even though the vessel wasn't full. He should have been charged for that after the incident. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, back in the real world..............Kentish, 7 Jan 2011
- It's sad that you feel contempt for him. He appears to have performed heroic acts at several stages of his life, saving many lives in the process. AndrewJFulker (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame he wasn't charged. Lowering half empty life boats just because there's no women and children nearby is insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8419:0:8959:E29:607:119B (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
downgraded to "C" class, too many uncited assertions throughout article
There is a rather nice memorial to him at Duck's Walk in Twickenham where he spent some of the last part of his life (on the middlesex bank of the Thames at Richmond Bridge). It is an A2 sized information plaque with information about all parts of his life. Should we mention it in the article? AndrewJFulker (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a picture of it. AndrewJFulker (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor 22.214.171.124 has insisted on inserting It has been affirmed that Lightoller may have been witnessed to have done exactly this first swimming towards the crow's nest. Having been (I think) justly removed by another IP editor, this edit was reinserted with the remark "Clearly, the editor was wrong in regarding this as a faulty edit".
It is apparent from the editor's other contributions that the Titanic story is of special interest, resulting in amendments to articles on a number of its players (which I have not explored, being interested only in Lightoller). I am therefore inviting the editor to embark on a discussion, here or elsewhere, to explain the theories and actions which appear potentially controversial. I suggest that it's the right thing to do, in the best interests of WP.
In respect of the Lightoller edit, I would argue that (1) the sentence (italicised above) is unencyclopedic, being poor English, vague, and not establishing anything. (2) The supplied citation establishes only that a witness (Mr Bride) testified having seen not Lightoller but Captain Smith jump overboard from the point where Lightoller said he jumped and swam. A variety of inferences can be drawn from such testimony, none of which have any place in Wikipedia—unless, of course, a consensus can be reached in discussion. Until that is done, it is best to re-revert the disputed content. I leave it to others to review what has been happening in the other articles. Bjenks (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Political Intelligence Unit
In the 'Family' section, there is mention of 'Political Intelligence Unit' which should link somewhere; however, I cannot find anything on the List of intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom that fits the description. This list includes 'Former agencies' as well as 'Currently active'. Any clarification would be appreciated. Since that is not cited, I tagged it as such. ~Eric, aka:126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Fort Dennison incident
This section states that following the incident in 1901, Lightoller was transferred to the Atlantic route, seen as a "promotion". However a later section has him still on the Australian route in 1903, and the article on the Suevic states he was transferred to the Australian route as a punishment for his prank. This is all contradictory. Assuming he did serve on the Suevic, the "promotion" story is false, and if he was already serving the Aust. route he wasn't sent there as a punishment (is this an anti-Australian edit, perhaps by a Kiwi? :) ). I'm reluctant to edit either article as I know little about him other than his role in the Titanic disaster, but there's something wrong here Chrismorey (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Good catch! The Encyclopedia Titanica source says He applied himself for the most part [in the North Atlantic service], although he somehow slipped up in 1903, and was sent to the Australian service for one voyage on the Suevic as a punishment. There he met the 18-year-old Sylvia Hawley-Wilson, who was returning to her home in Sydney. A classic shipboard romance ensued, and the two were married December 15, 1903 at Christ Church in Sydney. So it seems the Suevic was a short-term punishment—but for a different prank. There's no real contradiction and a little polishing up should remove that suggestion. Bjenks (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Without a description, relevance of articles currently linked in 'See also' section is not clear -- seems tangential at best. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E9E4:907C:2027:59D6 (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)