Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Where the wreck happened

In the song, it specifically says where the ship set out from, and where it was going. It lest from Wisconsin and was going to Cleveland, and the only great lake between those two places is Lake Erie.

Coming back from some mill in Wisconsin...
When they left fully loaded for Cleveland

-Taken right from the son by Gordon Lightfoot


Mangelo234 (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Mangelo234

@Mangelo234: Two points are in order. The first is that Wisconsin has shoreline on two separate Great Lakes: Superior and Michigan and does not border Lake Erie, so your premise is false. The second point is that Mr. Lightfoot did employ some artistic license in crafting the lyrics to his ballad. In fact, the boat did leave Superior, Wisconsin, on the Lake Superior shoreline but it was headed to Zug Island near Detroit on the Detroit River, not Cleveland. That route would have taken it across Lake Superior to transit the Soo Locks and St. Marys River then down Lake Huron, along the St. Clair River into Lake St. Clair to the Detroit River. Imzadi 1979 → 02:34, 5 April 2017 (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)

The quotation was "corrected" to the normal spelling of 'straitjacket', but I have restored the direct quote. User:Sneftel has been changing many quotations, referring to MOS:QUOTE to justify rewording. But the MOS just says "correct simple typographical errors", which this is not. Since moreover it is not even completely clear what the writer meant here -- "placing a hull design in a straitjacket" means what, exactly? -- the quote seems appropriate; if the spelling were changed, what is the purpose of the quotation marks? Imaginatorium (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Watching the doco shows where the railing 1s holding the length of the bow rigid, not allowing it to flex. Dave Rave (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SS Edmund Fitzgerald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SS Edmund Fitzgerald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SS Edmund Fitzgerald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

From "story" to "historical narrative"

I switched "story" to "historical narrative." "Story" can be interpreted as a work of fiction whereas "historical narrative" reflects actual history.John R. Beck (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

External Link List

What is the criteria used to include an external link? I was thinking of adding <ref>www.ssedmundfitzgerald.org</ref> because it seems to be a reputable and objective site. But I didn't know if the site had to also be referenced in the body of the article? John R. Beck (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be used as a reference; in fact quite the opposite. This article tends to have a higher bar in order to retain FA status. To me at quick glance IMHO your proposed addition looks pretty good. North8000 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

From "beer" to "Porter"?

Hello Interested Parties, I saw that the name of the beer was incorrectly titled...the word "Porter" is in the title <ref>https://www.greatlakesbrewing.com/edmund-fitzgerald</ref>. The beer has an "R" by it that I can't find on the keyboard to duplicate. Was it maybe written as "beer" to avoid giving its "copyrighted/restricted" title? If so, someone switch it back...John R. Beck (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not necessary per MOS:TMRULES.Pennsy22 (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Misspelling of ship's name

The Newsweek article did not misspell "Edmund". If Lightfoot said that on the NPR program, he misspoke. Historically he had always said that "newspapers" misspelled the name, and that reading the article in Newsweek inspired him to write the song. I have two copies of the physical Newsweek Magazine and a photographic image of the page which I can't post because that is copyright infringement, and every mention of the ship has "Edmund" spelled correctly. I hope somebody who has edited this article will figure out a way to eliminate the mistake. It is always difficult to prove mistakes if somebody else said or wrote something that isn't true. Vlmagee (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Let's sort this out in Wikipedia terms. The current article does NOT say that Newsweek misspelled it. It says the Lightfoot said that Newsweek mis-spelled it, and the latter is sourced and relevant to the article. Perhaps we could put in additional correcting info. Do you know where the issue that you have is in the timeline? For example,maybe the article you have is the second article they wrote and they misspelled it on the first one. Either way, I think that a sourced statement of "the xx/xx/19xx issue of Newsweek magazine spelled it correctly" followed by a detailed reference to the magazine which you have might be a good addition. If you wish we could develop that here. We'll need all of the details of the magazine & article. . Name, publisher, name of the article author, date of the article and magazine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Single reference list

I put together a draft to show what a single reference list could look like. I think moving to the format at Draft:SS Edmund Fitzgerald has a few advantages. I borrowed a concept from The Chicago Manual of Style in that subsequent footnotes to a source are shortened.

  1. Consistency. The template for the inflation citation can't be shortened, so it stands out in the middle of the other footnotes.
    • Three other citations were added almost two years ago on May 30, 2018, and the editor put them as full footnotes, which is really quite consistent with how most Wikipedia articles do things.
    • There's a fourth that was added as a full footnote, so I'd expect more future edits to do the same.
  2. Conciseness. For sources only referenced once, and there are many of those, we actually have to list each one twice, once shortened in a footnote and once more in full at the bottom.
    • For those citations to the laws and regulations, the shortened version is almost as long as the full citation, and it would just be easier to read the full in-text location of the cited passage in one place instead of putting parts of it in two separate places.
  3. Reduction in overall length of the article. For those readers who might print the article, merging the sections together shaves a few pages off the total length. Even for those who won't, that's still a good metric for the overall visual length of the article.

For the reasons above, I'd suggest merging the two reference sections together as shown in the draft. Imzadi 1979 → 00:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I was one of the two editors most involved in taking this through GA,FA and article of the day. But @Wpwatchdog: was the one who did the main reference work. My main consideration regarding reference format is to make it so that a typical editor (who is not an expert on such wiki-matters) is able to add references. I'm not sure but I think that your idea is a step in that direction. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Christening

According to Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide, this infobox parameter should "Only be used if the naming/christening happened at a separate point in time to either the launching or commissioning ceremonies." I tried to correct this, however, I was reverted by @User:North8000. Am I mistaken? Ghinga7 (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Only that you didn't explain your rationale. No biggee either way, I' be happy to revert my revert. North8000 (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Theory on sinking

So, I'm an anonymous user in Wisconsin. Not saying who i am, nor when I was born. However, I had heard the song by Lightfoot a long time ago, and I had liked it. However, i did not come here for personal Stories. Instead, I'm here to suggest a theory as to how the ship sank. Maybe the ship had been raised by 2 waves, and crashed by another in the middle, with the weight of the Cargo contributing. It is possible that this could have happened. Bottoming out is not possible, as the ship (in every expedition) had the bottom of the hull, apart from where the mid-split was, to be intact. No, there wasn't one running down the middle of the ship. However, when the ship was discovered, it had split in half, and if you imagine a Top-down view, with Port and Starboard facing the top and bottom of the paper, then imagine a split, going Vertically. The stern was upside-down, while the front of the ship was right-side up, with a slight list. It wasn't like this BEFORE it had sunk. It did, however, reach the Seabed like this. I'm simply saying, that the ship had been split by the Cargo and 3 waves (One at stern, one at bow, and one crashing into the middle). This is my theory on how the Mighty Fitz has sunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:507F:A83B:CD58:C5EB:CE96:B87E (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm the one who put most of the theories into the article. In the process of doing that I read every book and report on this that I could find, which is over a dozen. Of course our job here is to summarize what reliable sources say which is that the cause is undermined and that there are a handful of theories. Not that my opinion should have anything to do with the article, but IMO the structural failure theory is the most likely one. All of the evidence aligns with it if you include the possibility that the failure started minutes earlier. Your idea is also structural failure, albeit specifying a particular wave configuration. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

NBC Report

NBC News released a contemporary report of the sinking. It might be useful.

45th anniversary of S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald wreck: Watch Nightly News coverage from 1975

Kxykzz (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

it

Why is the Edmund Fitzgerald referred to she/her in the article?Cladeal832 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

In the archives there's a pretty thorough discussion on it but the key points were that it's a norm for ships, double so in the sources for this one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I see this like BC/BCE. Both are correct and pretty much whatever is in the article should stay unless there’s a compelling reason to change it. Using feminine pronouns for ships is probably a bit outdated kind of like BC but it’s not wrong. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 23:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Using she for ships is no longer the norm in reference texts and see Third-person pronoun#Further reading and the consensus on the style manual was in support of using it Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 217#"She" vs. "it" for ships.Cladeal832 (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion you point to actually concludes " I do not see there being consensus at this time to change this MOS guideline." (Although I personally prefer using "it" to "she".) TJRC (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd personally make the switch myself as well. Imzadi 1979 → 02:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion that I was referring to was in this article and my revert was more from a process side (a decision from a discussion vs. one editor who wants to go against that). I'm kind of neutral on the question. Just to bring this to a conclusion, I'll say I'm in favor of changing the pronouns to "it". North8000 (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
At the end of last year, a very long and contentious discussion regarding universally changing ship pronouns to 'it' came to no consensus. I feel that the only way to respect that discussion is to leave ship pronouns as they are in established articles. It is obviously a heated issue (for some reason) and to circumvent the discussion by changing the pronouns in an old and featured article anyway doesn't seem to serve any productive purpose. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A steamer is masculine, as well as tugboats - this should be referred to as he. (Symbios) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:483F:CDB0:58F5:6C38:82F8:7C3F (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nouns don't have genders in English. Acroterion (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Witness to the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald?

On the evening of Nov. 10, 1975, 2 B-52G Bombers of the 69th Bomb Wing, Loring AFB, Limestone, ME were on a routine night training mission. The simulated bombing run was along a published, approved "Olive Branch" route usually at 'very low-level' (Nap-of-the-Earth) VFR altitude, starting near Fort Drum in northern NY. The plan was to fly along the route, over Lake Superior -and aim for the Whitefish Bay drive-in movie screen as the first simulated 'target' of the mission, then continue on to 'targets' MI and WI. In addition to bombing its own assigned targets, in the event of a war, a following bomber was assigned to perform a BDA (bomb-damage assessment) regarding the effectiveness of the first bomber's efforts. IF the first bomber failed to completely destroy its target, their job was to bomb it again to assure its destruction. However for training purposes this second bomber was tasked to perform normal bomb runs.

Due to severe weather forecast for the route, the low-level portion was ordered to be flown at the 'safer' IFR (Instrument) level of 1500'AGL (above the surface). At approximately 1900, the bombers began the bombing run, but experienced extreme turbulence, almost unable to hold course, with the winds at that altitude reported by the on-board Radar Navigator (aka 'bombardier') as over 100mph. Due to strong wind shear disrupting the clouds, the moon was occasionally visible above -and even reflecting off Lake Superior's surface, revealing foaming seas, enormous waves and heavy squalls.

At about 2200 as the B-52 approached Whitefish Bay for the IP (initial point) to start the bomb run (approx. 15 miles out) the Copilot stated to the Aircraft Commander (AC) he "thought (he) saw a flash of bright red light below". Sensitive equipment on a B-52 allows it to 'see' any heat or lights ahead. The AC noted nothing on the screens, however he radioed to the following B-52 AC to 'check for a possible distress signal on the lake'. Per mission orders, the following bomber 'must maintain a safe distance behind the Lead bomber..." (for obvious reasons) but at over 400mph, ~20 miles and 3 minutes later they passed the reported 'distress signal' point. The 2d bomber's AC radioed "the lake is dark, no light or debris of any kind is visible".

The next day at the regular Bombing mission debriefing, it was mentioned that a large freighter had sunk during near-hurricane conditions on Lake Superior -at about the same time and location that the 2 bombers would have been approaching the IP for the target at Whitefish Bay. Later analysis of the aircraft's recorded bombing radar placed the Lead bomber directly over the ship's last known location!

Were those B-52s actual 'witnesses' to the sinking of the "Edmund Fitzgerald"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:151:4401:EA80:3081:6E14:D08F:8DCA (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

What's the source on this? John R. Beck (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit Fitz footnote

How do I edit footnotes to make them match the rest of the article? And it is sourced...that's what the link in the footnote (199) was for... John R. Beck (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I went to the link and saw nothing related to the text. Did I miss something? North8000 (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is a working link: https://www.thenewsherald.com/news/downriver-remembers-the-edmund-fitzgerald-photos-only/article_90bd48ec-d6fb-5118-9c20-5773674e7f2b.html . Not giving any opinion on whether it should be included. Add - you need to go to the second photo. And on further inspection, the historian in the photo happens to be named John Beck, also... so I think there may be an attempt at self-promotion. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's pretty impressive and a large scale project! I think I'm neutral on inclusion. Anybody else have an opinion? North8000 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Leave it out. Self promotional, not clear that this is actually a memorial rather than simply a (large) model, and not accurate either (one history teacher does not a historian make, let alone several, as claimed). Meters (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"One history teacher does not a historian make" seems a bit snippy for an open source anyone-should-be-able-to-edit website don't you think? I do have an Ed.D and also am a published historian on the subject of this ship (see https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/084387141202400109 ). It is not self promotional if it is objectively historical...Here's a link to a site unrelated to me...https://www.awesomemitten.com/great-lakes-shipwreck-museum/ Not sure why it should be so hard to want to honor the lost with a picture of the ship...what's the real agenda here? Also, I used blueprints to build the interior and exterior to scale...see this link for "blueprints" similar to what I used: https://detroithistorical.pastperfectonline.com/archive/A728BD46-576C-4C39-A167-718642506897 Perhaps it is more accurate than you might think...if you see something wrong on the ship let me know :-) John R. Beck (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that myself and pretty well anybody that takes a close look would say that it's so cool you making that extensive model of the Fitz, and also respect your expertise and work. Besides being a bit rough-and-tumble like any online posting place, Wikipedia editing is a weird alternate universe. Right now I'm neutral about including anything on the model. If you'd like to discuss / explore further I'd be happy to. But thanks for your work on both the model and efforts to add to Wikipedia.North8000 (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
It's a cool model, but I don't quite think it merits inclusion here. Imzadi 1979 → 02:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent activity in the lead regarding Zug island

The Zug island destination is in the body and sourced. But I think that the current lead wording is better.North8000 (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

But the body didn't include the company name for the steel mill, so that detail was unsourced. Imzadi 1979 → 02:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I missed that. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Image of recovered taconite

Might this be a good addition?

BTW I'm referring to the processed ore pellets, not the Tuesday night dining tradition.  :-) North8000 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This, right? I liked that addition, and would favor restoring it.
FWIW, I like the Tuesday night dining tradition, too. TJRC (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I would greatly like if the ore was included in the article, seeing as I'm a bit of a geek on Great Lakes Freighters, and shipwrecks of the region. Jimothy Johnathan (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm a near-neutral weak "include" on that. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

New Jason Island Fantasy Currency

I can't figure out how to properly footnote the footnote for my fact about the fantasy currency in the commercialization section. The Numismondo currency catalog website is a non-commercial site dedicated to teaching people about currencies around the world. John R. Beck (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it merits inclusion since it's a fantasy currency. Imzadi 1979 → 22:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it merits inclusion because it represents an interesting commercialization of the ship...the company did one for the Titanic as well. I added a picture of a note that I took. But I don't know if that fits copyright for educational purposes for Wikipedia? I find the rules very confusing to comply with. If it doesn't, I can certainly revert (remove) it...but if we can keep it, I need your help to format it properly...it looks too large on the page. John R. Beck (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC) North8000, what do you think? John R. Beck (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the image and nominated it for deletion. The design dates to 2012, so unless it was licensed by the creator(s) under a compatible license or dedicated into the public domain, copyright protections apply. If by "copyright for educational purposes", you really mean fair-use, then the image would need to be the subject of critical commentary, not just illustration for a sentence. Imzadi 1979 → 23:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification on the image...I couldn't find any copyright information online...I don't know what you mean by "subject of critical commentary" though... John R. Beck (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
"Critical commentary" typically involves an analysis of the imagery itself, not just a mention that it exists. Imzadi 1979 → 23:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Aha...makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. John R. Beck (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it out. It's already covered under "and other items". IMO even that type of item does not have enough prevalence or prominence for even a generic mention of the type much less something even more than that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This page has become static like a traditional paper encyclopedia. There won't be new explorations of the wreck site in our lifetime given the laws in Michigan and Canada. There won't be new theories about the sinking. The page has impressively covered just about everything anyone would ever need to know about the ship's construction and final voyage. The only sections that could evolve and grow with new information are the topics covered in memorials and commercialization. Each time I make an improvement you revert it. I'm not sure the editors here fully understand the unique nature of open source editing. The idea is encourage and expand researcher and reader interest and knowledge about the topic. Reverting content that doesn't happen to align with your particular point of view about what constitutes interesting insight and knowledge does a disservice to the Wikipedia community and the world. John R. Beck (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
John, several things that you said regarding me do not align with reality. I'm not going to spend the the time on a big compare-and-contrast, but please taker a closer look at that actual history before saying such things. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Construction deaths

Hi All, Would there be any value to adding something akin to the following in the construction section: "Two construction workers died during the construction of the ship." Ric Mixter interviewed Richard Bone, the crane operator, who references their deaths in the "The Edmund Fitzgerald Investigations" video (at minute 8:37 and 11:39). But I can't find a source to corroborate his claims...is one eyewitness sufficient? John R. Beck (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Launching

 – Imzadi 1979 → 17:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Fan of the U.P.

I've reverted a revert you made on an edit on the S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald. I've properly sourced my edits to the book "Six Fitzgerald Brothers: Lake Captains All" by Elizabeth Cutler and Walter Hirthe (1983). I'm currently holding that exact book in my hand. Elizabeth and Walter did a fine job detailing the family history of the Fitzgeralds, referencing the more obscure aspects of their family history dating back to the 1883 sinking of the EDMOND Fitzgerald, a schooner commissioned by a great uncle to EDMUND Fitzgerald, that sank taking seven souls. Hence Edmund's hesitancy in allowing the Northwestern Mutual Board to name the ship after himself.

There is much folk lore surrounding the Edmund Fitzgerald and some of it false and unverifiable - sadly some of that folklore resides in print and many feel justified in spreading that folk lore merely because it can be sourced. The 1983 Edition of Six Fitzgerald Brothers details the naming and commissioning of the Edmund Fitzgerald citing Donald C. Slichter's speech to Olgebay Norton Company about the decision on what to name Hull 301. The story pivots to the launching of the S.S. Fitzgerald, the retelling matches quite exactly what is in the Wiki article except for one key detail, they do not mention the heart attack and passing of a bystander. That reference - "Mighty Fitz: The Sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald" by Schumacher, Michael is found on page 15 - the kindle edition of this book from 2012 is not sourced so I have purchased that book to hunt down that citation. What I will also mention is that Ric Mixter, a professed historian on the S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald, who dove on the Edmund Fitzgerald in 1994 and 1995, emphatically states in his lecture series that no news articles from the time of the ship's launching make any mention of any of the 15,000 onlookers suffering from a medical condition and passing. It is widely believed this is folk lore, this mention if included in the article should be referenced as such and not as fact.

Anyhow, let me know if you have any questions.

v/r — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurboManiacal (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

based on just a quick look, looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Just received my copy of "Mighty Fitz" and the comment on page 16 of the book is NOT referenced by the author in his notes. He cites a reference on page 12 and page 19 but no references to where the author sourced this mythical person that died at the launch of the Edmund Fitzgerald. TurboManiacal (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
want to fix it? North8000 (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I just fear it will get reverted, I think the best thing to do is to correctly word a revision that hints at the mystique and lore. Edmund's Nephew also named Edmund (born very nearly around the launching) even referenced the mysterious death because "his mother had written my mother a letter"... but the name associated with the death is also said to have died a day before the launching. TurboManiacal (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Ric Mixter's "The Edmund Fitzgerald Investigations" video is all about the construction and launch of the ship...and there's no mention of a death of a bystander in that video...I would think if any video would have it, that one would... John R. Beck (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I took out the text in question.North8000 (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Rock on. 18:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC) TurboManiacal (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald/Archive_6&oldid=1161949092"