Talk:Charles Lightoller

Posthumous Revelations

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.124.197.15.138 (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)

This section is absolute nonsense. These aren't revelations, they aren't even allegations, they are examples of pure hearsay, made to coincide with abook of fiction. See the main Titanic article talkpage. I am deleting it. Rumiton (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

murderer

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. --77.181.72.167 (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)

I hope he died painfully and unloved and burns in hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.164.225.147 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2015 (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)

Lightoller gives his reasoning for launching only partially full boats as threefold. First, he interpreted the captain's order as 'women and children only', in which case he was following orders. Second, he did not actually believe the ship was going to sink, and he launched the lifeboats merely as a precaution. Third, it was his intention to fill the boats with women and children from the lower decks at the waterline once they had safely reached the level of the sea, thinking it would be easier to load the boats already in the water than lower a full-boat without enough experienced hands both in the boat and on the ship; but the ship went down much quicker than he anticipated. He also fully believed that the ship within full sight of the Titanic, the SS Californian, would come and rescue everyone in the event that the ship did go down. With hindsight, there's so much he could have done better, but to call him a murderer with the benefit of the hindsight he lacked is insane. You might as well call him a saint for the lives that he did save, not just in the quick evacuation and successful launching of every single lifeboat and one (and a half collapsibles), but for his actions in guiding the survivors on the upturned 'Collapsible B' he eventually found refuge aboard, so that they would not all be swamped and die. If you want to use the argument 'that was his job', then you must also accept the argument 'he was following orders'; or just accept that a brave man did his best under incredibly trying circumstances, with mixed success. Telenarn (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of when some have accused the late racer Colin McRae of vehicular homicide through that infamous helicopter incident. Colin should've known better and played it safe, but to accuse him of manslaughter is rather irreverent. A number of racers and rally drivers have killed spectators or their navigators by accident, but they weren't branded as pariahs by society as they were simply involved in an accident they never intended. Back on topic, would it be possible for Lights and the others to save all passengers, despite the circumstances? Lightoller has had harrowing flashbacks of what happened, and to brand him of manslaughter Ismay-style would be just as irreverent. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't have been possible to save everyone, there weren't enough boats, or crewmen to handle them. If they'd have tried to overload the boats, there's every chance they would have capsized. It's highly likely that sending the boats away not at their full capacity did cost lives unfortunately, but its easy to say that with the benefit of hindsight. The boats were never meant to stay at half-capacity, Lightoller's plans just went slightly to pot amid the confusion and the rapidity of the sinking. The boats were supposed to wait by the ship and either pick people up from the lower decks, or straight out of the water; but they invariably did not. What also must be borne in mind is that as the sinking progressed and panic began to set in, it was necessary to maintain the strictest order so that the boats weren't swamped (a real danger) which would lead to no one surviving. A few rushes were made at the boats, so this was not a fanciful idea, Lightoller actually had to have people linking arms around the boats to stop them being rushed, things got that desperate at times. Some of Lightoller's actions seem harsh in retrospect, but given context they become understandable. He had his orders, order had to be maintained, he had a plan and part of the plan worked, but part alas, did not.Telenarn (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've had to amend the account of the lowering of the lifeboats to include Lightoller's doomed plan to fill to boats to capacity once at the waterline. This has consistently been left out of the recounting, whether through ignorance, or malice, I could not say, but it is clear from multiple sources that the plan existed, and efforts to portray Lightoller as someone who wilfully sent boats away under-capacity are historically and factually inaccurate. (See page 67 of Inger Shiel's biography of Fifth Officer Harold Lowe, who testified to the US Senate hearing that he was aware of the plan to load from the gangways on the night of the evacuation. See also Chapter 32 of Lightoller's memoirs 'Titanic and Other Ships' for the man himself's recounting of the plan that was doomed to failure) Telenarn (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

References

downgraded to "C" class, too many uncited assertions throughout article

Per section heading. I like the article, it reads well and appears plausible but sadly, too much of it is uncited. Veriss (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Memorial

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)

And it's been deleted! I guess I did it wrong. If it's a public sign in a public place and I took the photo myself, then isn't it ok for me to post it? AndrewJFulker (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Second Officer

It is my understanding that as second officer he would be considered third mate, following chief officer and first officer. 66.27.66.8 (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite correct. The term "officer" was an ocean liner affectation. The men signed on as "mates". Dave Gittins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.1.71 (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Questionable edit

An IP editor 78.144.254.239 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:71.20.250.51 (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)

The Fort Denison incident actually took place in 1900 not 1901. This section already has a citation for the October 12th 1900 edition of the Argus newspaper. The time given as being around 1 am is probably incorrect as the newspaper reports from the Sydney Morning Herald (easily viewed on Trove) say it occurred at 4:20 am on Saturday October 6th. I think the "incident" has been exaggerated - reading the SMH articles the blast wasn't noticed by nearby ships or Garden Island naval base. The caretaker on Fort Denison didn't even give it any attention. BTW when I first searched the SMH newspaper for October 1901 I found a shipping notice which showed the SS Medic on which Charles served had already left port in September so I knew then 1901 was incorrect. (Lexinaut (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC))

See also

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)

How many evacuated soldiers does it take to fill a motor yacht?

Thomas Peardew says "129, from sources quoted". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Lightoller&type=revision&diff=801041934&oldid=801041747

Which sources? This source http://www.adls.org.uk/t1/node/562 says 130; this source https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Charles_Lightoller_commemorative_plaque_-_Richmond_-_Surrey_-_UK.jpg says 127; this source https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/36866/supplement/47 doesn't mention a number. Most credible sources I've ever seen say 130. Can you clarify? Hengistmate (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The source in question is the Imperial War Museum-published book by Joshua Levine (currently note 21), Forgotten Voices of Dunkirk, where there is a first-person account from the third member of Sundowner's crew, Gerald Ashcroft. I hope this is fair usage of the IWM text.

When we arrived at Ramsgate harbour we were told to wait for orders to enter, so we sung out that we’d got 130 troops aboard, and could they have ambulances standing by. They replied that we should enter immediately. So as we went through the harbour entrance, the Sundowner suddenly gave a terrific lurch as those down below started struggling up. She nearly turned over. Commander Lightoller sung out to everyone below to stay down, and she came up to rights. We started unloading the troops off the deck. When the last troops were gone from the deck, Roger in the wheelhouse sung out for them to come up from down below and they started trooping up. We had counted 129 troops aboard – but when they were all gone, we had only counted 128. There must have been another one somewhere, and Lightoller went down again. There, sitting on the loo, fast asleep, was one nearly unconscious Tommy. He woke up – ‘Come on lad! Time to go home!’ Up he staggered.

This is sufficiently circumstantial to justify the number I used, as well as explaining the (presumably rounded) number 130. In view of the mention of "ambulances" is it possible that 2 subsequently died and were not counted as "rescued"? Thomas Peardew (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not at home at the mo, so I haven't got Pat's book to hand. So it's possible that Ashcroft rounded up because "thirty" is easier to shout than "twenty-nine". Then he's very specific that they counted 129 aboard. Lightoller himself says here http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/dunkirk/14322.shtml that he "tallied up 130". What do you think? Do we say "approximately" and add a footnote explaining the discrepancy? (I think the ambulance theory is a red herring.)

BTW, the custodians of the Wiki page on the 2017 film Dunkirk won't allow mention to be made of the connection between Mark Rylance's character "Mister Dawson" and Lightoller. They say it is irrelevant and unverified. Any thoughts on that? Hengistmate (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Ashcroft's version seems quite good for explaining Lightoller's "130" - as Ashcroft also uses that figure himself - and seemed specific enough to justify using 129. But it's not easily reconciled with the Richmond commemorative plaque's "127". Frankly given the circumstances I'm surprised the different numbers are even that close. I'm reluctant to accept Lightoller's spoken account (even on a Wiki page about him), and a little concerned that he doesn't mention Ashcroft's name - Ashcroft's own account is highly appreciative of Lightoller, but memories can be fallible. The Lightoller recorded interview dates from 1950, only a couple of years before his death at 78 in 1952, but no doubt Ashcroft's was much longer after the events. Lightoller's own account has a naval rating (I think) actually doing the counting of the troops as they boarded, while Ashcroft says that "we" counted them both off and on. Gosh, isn't history difficult. I don't think it matters a lot, so feel free to change my "129" if you wish. Thomas Peardew (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sinking of UB-110

Added some supporting evidence for the allegations by Captain Werner Fürbringer that their surrender was not accepted by Lightoller, using his (Lightoller's) memoirs as a source. Also sourced the claim that Lightoller was promoted for the act, again, from his own memoir.Telenarn (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead par.

I can't help but feel that the opening par plunges into the lifeboat controversy (if, indeed, there was such a thing) far too early. It's not the salient part of Lightoller's story. He isn't, as they say, "defined" by it. This aspect is covered adequately in the section Titanic. The prominence afforded to this episode seems to indicate some kind of personal agenda. I shall move it to where it better belongs. The reference to the massacre the U-boat crew can also go further down the order, since there doesn't seem to be any substance to it.

Let's try it now. Hengistmate (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Good call. It sounded as if whoever wrote that had a vitriolic grudge versus Lightoller who simply tried his best to maintain order despite whatever flaws he may have committed. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't write the original passage on the incident surrounding UB-110, but as it was unsourced I looked into it and was able to confirm that Lightoller admitted to refusing their surrender in his memoirs. I made sure to include the full quotes which corroborated the Captain's claims and in the interests of fairness, I also added the ships sunk and civilians killed by the u-boat in order to place Lightoller's remarks and his subsequent promotion into proper context. To say there is no substance to it is a gross misrepresentation, and either heavily misguided, or biased. I myself am a big admirer of Lightoller, so I can assure you I do not have an agenda against the man. I suggest you read the sources before making such claims in future.Telenarn (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I've had to remove the misleading sentence in the lead par that begins "In pursuance of this goal...", which gives the incorrect impression that Lightoller's 'goal' was to bar men from the lifeboats (clearly whoever wrote it was hung up on this one, controversial issue and erroneously decided it was more important than the evacuation itself). This was never his goal, which was of course to fill the lifeboats with women and children. I've also expanded the section to do with the evacuation to add context to Lightoller's actions, which does not shirk from any of the subsequent controversy, but details it honestly and without bias. The lead par also erroneously suggested that Lightoller's personal interpretation of the 'women and children first' code is the reason boats went away hugely below capacity, but anyone familiar with the evacuation knows that First Officer Murdoch - who let some men into the lifeboats if there were no women waiting to board - sent away Lifeboat 1 with only twelve people aboard - the most under-capacity of the night (and among them some men). Clearly there were many more issues at play here than simply one man's intransigence, but again this one controversial decision by Lightoller has been given undue precedence, likely in order to create a narrative, which is alas one which is not supported by the facts.Telenarn (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a synopsis of a hollywood biopic and not an encyclopedic entry. It does a diservice to Lightoller by skirting over facts however incovinent you might think they are (I would argue not). The controversy is what makes him a great and interesting individual in human history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecitizen1 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit, 13 July, 2018 by Telenarn: Flawed reference.

The alleged massacre is not, in fact, alluded to in Lightoller's published memoirs. The source doesn't say what Telenarn claims it does. Even Wikipedia must make some allowance for that. In chapter 44 of Titanic and Other Ships, before recounting the combat with U 110, Lightoller makes the following statement: "I suppose there was little wonder that when one did surrender to us, I refused to accept the hands-up business." Please explain, without assumption or synthesis, why that is an allusion to the allegations of a massacre of members of U 110's crew. Describing events immediately after the sinking, Lightoller says, "I left the rescue work to the others, who picked up fifteen out of the water." That is his reference in its entirety. Please explain how that supports Fürbringer's allegation. To encyclopaedic standards, of course.

Failing that, supply a quote from Lightoller's published memoir that does support your assertion.

You could, of course, simply cheat and quote Stenson 1984 or 2011. He describes such a massacre, using Fürbringer's memoir as a source. I know that, because I translated the relevant chapter for Pat. Of course, the problem is that using Fürbringer's memoir proves not that what he states was true, but merely that he states it. It is uncorroborated, and (this is where we came in) not alluded to in Lightoller's published memoirs.

I shall note that the alleged massacre is not alluded to, which is correct. If it makes you happier, I shall leave the reference in, so that interested parties may visit and see for themselves that the alleged massacre is not alluded to.

If you're still not happy, should we resort to dispute resolution?

Hengistmate (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the full quote from Ligtoller's memoirs, which I previously added to the body of the article, along with a list of ships sunk by UB-110 and civilians killed.

"The man that could sink a merchantman, from below the surface, without giving him the ghost of a chance, must have had a mentality lower than the worst aborigine and heaven knows, they glory in some pretty flthy practices.

Anyhow, that was my feeling about them and their work, so I suppose there was little wonder that when one did surrender to us, I refused to accept the hands-up business. In fact it was simply amazing that they should have had the infernal audacity to offer to surrender, in view of their ferocious and pitiless attacks on our merchant ships.

Destroyer versus Destroyer, as in the Dover Patrol, was fair game and no favour. One could meet them and take them on as a decent antagonist. But towards the submarine men, one felt an utter disgust and loathing; they were nothing but an abomination, polluting the clean sea.''"

The relevant admission is of course "I refused to accept the hands-up business". It is clearly an allusion to the allegations and he justifies his actions by explaining his hatred for those involved. This is directly from Ligtoller's own memoirs and the record should reflect that.

I would be happy to go to dispute resolution over this matter, yes. Telenarn (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I would also accept a neutral third opinion, if you prefer that option.Telenarn (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned by the admission that you worked for the person (Stenson) who wrote a biography of Lightoller. Can you divulge the nature of this relationship? Whether you were paid (considered an employee)? And whether you agree this might be considered a potential conflict of interest? (I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with bias). Thanks Telenarn (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Early Maritime Career

I'm a little concerned about the opening sentence in this section, specifically "At age 13, not wanting to end up with a factory job like most of Britain's youth at the time...". I'm not sure where this is sourced from, but it doesn't seem to accurately convey Lightoller's situation. In his memoirs he writes "My Dad didn't enter into it, as he was settled in New Zealand, having seen the best days in cotton. In fact we had been "in cotton" for generations, and I had fully expected that I should have to "follow in father's footsteps."

For my part the "going to sea" was just a bluff, but it worked''."

What isn't explicitly mentioned was that his father was a mill-owner (I'm not clear on what happened to the mill once Frederick Lightoller left for New Zealand) and that Lightoller came from a wealthy family, I don't think that his situation can reasonably be compared with 'most of Britain's youth at the time', if they were indeed mostly employed in factory work.

References

TB-117 engagement

I've just tagged a statement that Lightoller was awarded the DSC as a result of a '4 hour night battle' with the German airship L-31, as the quoted source, the London Gazette, 23 May 1917, says absolutely nothing about any four hour night battle or TB-117 - just that Lightoller was awarded the DSC, without any commentary or explanation - this needs a source, otherwise it should be removed (and I wonder how much else of the article is based on misrepresentation of sources).Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Carpathia and UB-110

Carpathia was sunk (but by a different U-boat) just a couple of days before the UB-110 incident. This sheds light on Lightoller's likely emotional state when he encountered the submarine. DancesWithGrues (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

War criminal

Should he be described as a war criminal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:CF0A:5A00:91B9:2E4F:DC00:4432 (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not. There is no concrete evidence. Hengistmate (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore to this issue, someone decided to reword a sentence which suggested that Lightoller distinguished himself during World War I and 'further distinguished' himself in the Second World War, in the light of the Fürbringer allegations. There is no merit for this. Lightoller left the Royal Navy as a decorated and distinguished officer. Fürbringer himself was directly responsible for the deaths of 30 civilians; if I call him a war criminal, does that make it so?Telenarn (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem with "further distinguished himself" is WP:PEACOCK. Coretheapple (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This is reasonable, unlike the previous justification which was based on heresay and faulty logic.Telenarn (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to note however, that Lightoller literally 'distinguished' himself during WWI, having recieved a bar to the distinguished service cross, but I'm happy to allow that there is no encyclopaedic basis for 'further distinguished', which as you quite correctly note is inappropriate given the context.Telenarn (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. The Royal Navy's starvation blockade of Germany was illegal under international law, so everyone who served in the Royal Navy from 1914 to 1919 could be called a war criminal. Lightoller admitted allowing his men to murder POWs. (IssacBirnbaum (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC))

Source for this claim, please? This is an encyclopaedia, after all. I've read pretty much everything there is to read on Lightoller and I've never read that he admitted to murdering POWs. I believe history records that his ship rescued the crew of UB-110 after its sinking and history also records that it was the crew of UB-110 and indeed every other German U-Boat who flouted cruiser laws, when they undertook the action of unrestricted submarine warfare. Let us also not forget that it was Germany who led the veto on compulsory arbitration regarding suspected breaches of the treaty, forcing instead voluntary arbitration via the Permanent Court of Arbitration . As there was no arbitration regarding this incident, no law, or treaty was broken. It is perfectly acceptbale to say that were the allegations true, the spirit of the law was broken, but that does not consitute a war crime, much less a war criminal make.Telenarn (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightoller admitted it in his autobiography. Unrestricted submarine warfare was in direct response to the Royal Navy's blockade. The British also illegally armed merchant ships, ordered merchant captains to evade and ram submarines, transported war munitions on passenger ships, introduced Q-ships with concealed deck guns etc. "Further distinguished himself" is flowery and POV language, unfit for an encyclopedia. (IssacBirnbaum (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC))

My suggestion is that we simply state the facts re World War I but only characterize them as "war crimes" or him as a "war criminal" if a reliable source so characterizes him. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The incident is already mentioned in the context of a war crime in the article, which I think makes it clear that if the allegations were true, they would make those responsible war criminals according to international conventions. The important thing to my mind is not to characterise allegations as fact. People can read the evidence and decide for themselves, which many of course already have.Telenarn (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe I asked for a source, I apologise if that wasn't clear enough. Please give me a direct source of your claims, (as you would in an encyclopaedia). I've read 'Titanic and Other Ships' many times and there is no admission of what you stated. Your fixation with acting as judge, jury and executioner is not based in fact, or reason. There were myriad 'breaches' of international treaties in the First World War, not least of which was Germany's rapid invasion of Belgium without the necessary warning period. All this demonstrates is the unsuitability of the treaties and the relative impossibility of enforcing them without compulsory arbitration. History does not record that everyone fighting on the Axis side was a war criminal, any more than it records the equivalent of the Allied powers. Nor does history record that Lieutenant Commander Lightoller was a war criminal. What the official record states is that Lightoller was a decorated officer who was awarded a Bar to the Distinguished Service Cross. The unofficial record makes note of an unsubstantiated claim from a credible source that his crew took potshots at shipwrecked submariners, before rescuing them in full sight of neutral ships. This is reflected in the page already and does not need altering. An unsubstantiated claim allows people to make up their own minds on the weight of evidence, as they should in such a situation.Telenarn (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Fort Denison incident

This rather minor incident gets excessive length in the article, in my opinion. I'd just go ahead and cut it back, but it's been in the article for some time. Anyone object? Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't do anyone any harm, but you're right that it is an unnecessarily detailed account of an insignificant incident. If you decide to trim, no one can have any reasonable complaint. You must act on your best judgement and do what you will.Telenarn (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Women and children "first"?

The introduction is wrong in claiming that he enforced the "women and children first" tradition (which is not a protocol, and has never been)- That's that Murdoch did. Lightoller enforced his own "women and children only" interpretation, causing additional and unnecessary loss of life. As it is now, the introductive paragraph sounds rather celebrative rather than objective. --2.36.88.125 (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Is your objection to the word protocol? It can be clarified to something less binding. I disagree that the wording is celebratory. Murdoch himself sent away the boat with the lowest capacity of the night, the 'millionaires lifeboat'. There was a lot more at play than simply C19 traditions on the night. Lightoller didn't even have time to launch the collapsibles properly. You should read the issues surrounding this in the relevant section above. There is a common fallacy that the lifeboats were meant to stay at half capacity (they never were) and that more lifeboats would equate to more lives saved. Due to the rapidity of the sinking, more lifeboats would have been useless as there simply was not time to launch them all. The real tragedy occurred when those in charge of the half-full lifeboats rowed away from the sinking ship and left the people onboard to fend for themselves, instead of rescuing them from either the lower decks, or the water.Telenarn (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Titanic and Other Ships vs. Marconi

This seems to address the reason for the book being withdrawn. (Actually published in 1935, revised in 1935, and withdrawn). I'm guessing this message board post is original research, by Patricia Bowman Rogers Winship, back on 10 July 2002.

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/threads/marconi-versus-lightoller.12680/

"Marconi versus Lightoller". Encyclopedia Titanica Message Board. Retrieved 2020-11-30.

“ All right, folks, this is where the flap started. From C.H. Lightoller: Titanic and Other Ships London, Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1935, pp 222-223.

Copied at the Science Business and Industry Library, (SIBL) New York Public Library.

"The one vital report that came through but which never reached the bridge was received between 9-40 p.m. and 10 p.m. from the Mesaba stating 'Ice report in Latitude 42N to 41-25N. Long.49 to Long.50-30W. Saw much heavy pack ice, and great number large icebergs. Also field ice. Weather good, clear.' Philips, the wireless operator on watch who received the message was not to know the extreme urgency of the warning or that we were at that time actually entering the area given by the Mesaba, an area literally packed with icebergs, field ice and growlers. He was very busy working wireless messages to and from Cape Race, also with his accounts. The junior operator, Bride, of course knew nothing about this vital warning, being off duty and turned-in. Later, when standing with others on an upturned boat, Phillips explained when I said that I did not recollect any Mesaba report: 'I put the message under a paper weight at my elbow, just until I squared up what I was doing before sending it to the Bridge.' That delay proved fatal and was the main contributory cause to the loss of that magnificent ship and hundreds of lives. Had I as Officer of the Watch, or the Captain, become aware of the peril lying so close ahead and not instantly slowed down or stopped, we should have been guilty of culpable and criminal negligence."

That is the original passage. Now this is the revision. From C.H. Lightoller: Titanic and Other Ships London, Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1935, pp. 222-223. in the Library of Congress, available on microfilm.

"The one vital report that came through but which never reached the bridge, was received at 9-40 p.m. from the Mesaba stating 'Ice report in Latitude 42N to 41-25 N. Long.49 to Long.50-30W. Saw much heavy pack ice and great number large icebergs. Also field ice. Weather good, clear.' The wireless operator was not to know how close we were to this position, and therefore the extreme urgency of the message. That he received the message is known, and it was read by the other operator in his bunk. The operator who received it was busy at the time, working wireless messages to and from Cape Race, also with his accounts, and he put the message under a paper weight at his elbow, just until he squared up what he was doing and he would hae brought it to the bridge. That delay prooved fatal and was the main contributory cause to the loss of that magnificent ship and hundreds of lives.

As you might expect, Marconi was no better pleased with the second version than with the original. The book had to be withdrawn.

”

--Lent (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

79.68.150.165

Any fule kno that Dawson is Lightoller by another name. I don't understand why you wish to keep that information from people. Why not try to improve Wikipedia? That's what we're here for, apparently. Hengistmate (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

UB 110 again.

"In his 1933 memoirs, Kapitänleutnant Fürbringer accused Lightoller of heaving to (stopping) and ordering his crew to open fire on the unarmed survivors of UB-110." That is not true.

That is to say: it is not to deny that Lightoller gave such an order - it is very unlikely that we shall ever know whether he did. It is that Fürbringer doesn't accuse him of giving such an order. This is what Fürbringer says:

"The destroyer (Garry) was hove to nearby. My crew was in the water waiting to be picked up. But there was indiscipline aboard the British ship. Men from the destroyer’s engine room fired on the survivors with revolvers, while others hurled large lumps of coal at the heads in the water. The smaller armed craft had closed in meanwhile and were also exercising their machine gunners."

https://www.scribd.com/read/445188736/Fips-Legendary-U-Boat-Commander-1915-1918

(Much of Fürbringer's account of this episode is disputed on practical grounds)

Hengistmate (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded the section to remove the direct accusation against Lightoller.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a start. Perhaps "members of Garry's crew" would be more accurate. But then if Lightoller was elsewhere, attending to the damage to his ship and "leaving the rescue work to others" - however disingenuous - then there isn't really a story. Well, not a Lightoller story, anyway. Hengistmate (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Lightoller as Merchant Seaman: edit by 80.3.13.148

Lightoller spent 12 years as a merchant seaman, from 1888 to 1900, when he joined the White Star Line. From age 14 to 26 he served on cargo ships: Primrose Hill, Holt Hill, Knight of St Michael, Knight Companion, and Niagara. Cargoes included railway lines, grain, coal, cattle, nitrates, and mahogany. See https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/battles/ancestors/popup/merch.htm Hengistmate (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Supposed image of Lightoller standing next to Pitman

Unless anyone else strongly disagrees, I am not convinced that the image of the man with Pitman is an image of Charles Lightoller. He was a pipe smoker, however other than that the image bears almost no resemblance to Lightoller. From what I understand of Lightoller's appearance he had a fuller, broader face and a small nose, whereas the man in the image looks quite thin and has a larger and slightly crocked nose. I would suggest that the person in the image is actually Joseph Boxhall who bears a far greater resemblance and was also present in New York at the inquiry. Anvib (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• That's remarkable. I noticed that a few days ago and was about to make that very point. The man's nose is too aquiline to be Lightoller's. I'll see if any of Pat Stenson's books throw any light (geddit?) on the subject. Hengistmate (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually noticed this while ago. Having looked at the image source, it appears to be from French source, there is nothing else on it to indicate why this would be Lightoller. In all the pictures I have seen of Lightoller, he is either wearing a naval officer's cap or no hat. I have never seen him wearing a bowler hat and it doesn't seem to quite suit his style. Furthermore he had a much more rounded face, all the images I have seen of him circa 1910-12 do not match the person in the image at all. I am going to remove the image for now unless someone really disagrees or has another source to back it up. Anvib (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right to remove that pic. That isn't Lightoller (although the incorrect picture is all over the intenet). The correct picture, of him talking to his wife outside the courtroom, is in Pat's books. Go to this and scroll down a bit and you'll see him. https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/survived-titanic-sailed-dunkirk-life-16702398 I don't know who the chap with the impressive hooter is. Doesn't look particularly like Boxhall or Lowe IMHO. Might be a complete red herring.

But this is interesting, and hilarious: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lightoller_and_Pitman.jpg The English caption says Lightoller is on the left, whereas the French caption says Lightoller is à droite (on the right) and Pitman à gauche (on the left). In fact, the bloke on the left does appear to be Pitman. It's been like that for 15 years. Thanks to whoever posted this in the first place, this incorrect picture has spread all over the world, and is used on nearly 40 other wikis. Well done, Wikipedia. Another triumph. Hengistmate (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)