Talk:RMS Tayleur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Expansion[edit]

I've just finished expanding the history of the Tayleur to include information about the ship before the disaster, and some more details about the disaster. There were two sets of figures for souls-on-board/killed, and I deleted the inaccurate set. I also tried cleaning up the text a bit, organizing it into a more chronological order. There were a several paragraphs in different parts that tended to duplicate information (I guess that's a natural consequence of different rewrites), and so I tried to synthesize them together. In doing so, I hope I didn't step on other editor's toes...if I did, please accept my apologies. Akradecki 18:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I might have gotten something wrong, but it seems to me that the two sets of figures are back. Sixth Paragraph: "... 380 lives - many of them immigrants - were lost", then "Lives lost were to total 297." Huh? KapHorn (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right. We need to do something about the figures. Problem is that the official figures from the inquest, at the time, gave a false low figure of the number of those lost. Children were not counted, nor were many stewards (those passengers who were part time crew members and did not therefore have to pay their fare - "working their passage"). Even some fare-paying passengers were omitted from the list - there are extant memorial cards. Patrick Ferguson in Troubled Waters says 370 were lost.
The official inquest contradicts itself!! It says total passengers and crew were: 559 of which 256=English; 73=Scottish; 111=Irish; 39=Foreign - thats a total of 522 - not 559!!! Warrington newspapers at the time say there were 640 on board. The medal struck by the Humane society, at the time says there were 652 on board!! The Board of Trade says there were 528 on board. The Illustrated London News says 680.
So - what shall we do? ClemMcGann (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Mention it. I took the liberty to edit the paragraph accordingly, despite having no further sources but the article itself. Just to suggest a possible solution. Not knowing what the source situation is, I'd assume that with a wreck this old, it will hardly be possible to get truly reliable, accurate figures today. KapHorn (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I spoke with Dr Ed Bourke, author of Shipwrecks of the Irish Coast and Bound for Australia etc., He has compiled a list of passengers and crew - with names - total so far = 662. This excludes extant memorial cards. There was a gold-rush in Australia at the time - its unlikely that she sailed with empty berths. I'll look at the article next week. ClemMcGann (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wreck site?[edit]

Where exactly is the wreck site of the ship? Anyone know? Coordinates would be a good addition to the article. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

see para on diving - it should have a ship info box ClemMcGann (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Eep! Thanks, sorry. Was the end of a very long day. @_@ --24.21.148.212 (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)