Talk:Titanic/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Untitled

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers the dates between 2001 and September 12, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:RMS Titanic/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. MechBrowman 04:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

General Discussions

Arco, this will need a redirect to S S Titanic - 'HMS' is reserved purely for British naval vessels: e.g. HMS Hood, HMS Ark Royal, etc. sjc

Whooops, big blunder; you're absolutely right (he said, bowing his head in shame). Will change it asap! Arco Scheepen

Wouldn't it be RMS Titanic though? (Royal Merchant Ship) --Belltower

It should be RMS Titanic (or R.M.S. Titanic) I think. See http://www.rmstitanic.net/rmst/faqs/rms_faq11.htm

I'm not sure the entry regarding the engineering spaces being all flooded by 1:15 is correct. Certainly, the forward boiler rooms would have been, but the aft boiler rooms, the 2 engine rooms, and more importantly the generator room would have still been dry. Had all the boiler rooms flooded or were unmanned by 1:15 then there would have been no steam to drive the wireless and deck lights, but the lights remained lit until late into the sinking, probably not failing until just prior to breakup. Can someone look into this?

[Addemdum] I did some digging around and at least one document I found claims the flooding has only gotten as far as Boiler Room 4 by 2:10 am, just 10 minutes prior to sinking. This would leave the engine room and the 3 boiler rooms aft of number 4 dry, therefore not all the engineering spaces were flooded by 1:15 qm.

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/break_up_gleicher.pdf

so far in my research I've noticed alot of stories that state that at least the crew in charge of keeping the power on (make sure the lights, the pumps and the wireless system stayed on) were there to the end. I didn't see anything that disputed it (yet) MechBrowman 05:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I found information about the engineering staff not being in the engineering rooms when the ship sunkA Last Bright Shining Lie, while I tend to beilieve the article is accurate I'm not sure if it is a good enough source (or even worth mentioning) what does everyone else think?MechBrowman 00:45, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

The article you mentioned, A last Bright Shining Lie, states the lights were running off batterirs after the engineering spaces were abandoned. However, I found an article from Shipbuilder magazine online, describing the electrical system of the Olympic-class ships. It makes no mention of batteries, except for ones for the telephone system and electric clocks.

http://www.copperas.com/titanic/dynamo.htm

G. McVey 20:00, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I took out this part for now, I did not think it was a good enough resource, and is the only place I heard this, so I'm not sure how relevant it is. Here it is for reference in case anyone knows better MechBrowman 21:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Another myth is that the engineering crews stayed at their posts to the bitter end. This myth was unfortunately perpetuated by Titanic discoverer Bob Ballard's book on the ship published in 1988. In reality, all of the engineering spaces were flooded by 01:15 (just over an hour before the ship's final plunge) and at the time of the plunge the engineers and stokers were on the poop deck with the hundreds of others still stuck on board with no hope of rescue. Nonetheless, King George V decreed engineering officers ever after would display their gold braid epaulets upon a "royal purple" background as a memorial to the Titanic engineers.

I deleted this line:

A smaller streamer called RMS Empress of Ireland sank May 29, 1914, killing 1,012. More passengers died on the Empress of Ireland (840) than Titanic (832).

Not only does it cite the wrong figure for the Titanic disaster, it's also internally inconsistent (1012? 840?). jdb ❋ 01:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)|(I'm not logged in yet I put it back in: F.Y.I.)

I wanted to add a link to http://www.titanicsociety.com/, but that server's been down for a while. (It's still available from google.com in [http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:phBuku7Ngkc:www.titanicsociety.com/home.asp the cache], though.) So I'm going to wait and see if it comes back up. <>< [[ ' Greenwich, England, or Greenwich, Connecticut? -- Anonymous

Is it RMS (Royal Mail Ship according to http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/acronym?rms)? -- Anonymous

It's Royal Mail Steamer per http://www.rmstitanic.net/rmst/faqs/rms_faq11.htm. <>< tbc

I moved HMS Titanic to S.S., and added a redirect. --Belltower

Blast, that would be the third change (after me making the initial error of H.M.S. Titanic). According to this website, you are absolutely correct : http://www.rmstitanic.net/rmst/faqs/rms_faq11.htm Arco Scheepen

OK, is there another way to make sure? Anyone owns a book on the topic to verify www.rmstitanic.net? - Yooden

Interestingly the on-board newpaper of the Titanic refers to it as the SS Titanic: SEE: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Carpathia/page10.htm. I will see if I can find any more primary source information. sjc

Both SS and RMS are valid titles for it. I added a note to this effect on the main page. --Belltower

Was hte Titanic the worst maritime disaster? Dispite this wide-held belief, it seems fale. I refer to: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/faqs/sh1.htm - this seems an authorative source for correction. ...I don't have time currently to update this entry sufficiently to do the rest of hte writing justice. :( --Nemo

Titanic is not the worst disaster, although it was back in the 1920's. Also, it was just the tallest ship back then too (the Queen Mary in California is longer than it). - F.T.

Per a Google search, the RMS name is far more widely used than the SS name. I have moved the article to reflect this. --maveric149

Why do we have two entries, RMS Titanic and Titanic? Especially since "RMS Titanic" links TO "Titanic"? -- Zoe

Good point -- seems necessary when both entries are only stubs. I say we make Titanic into a some type of disambiguation page that will then point here, to Titanic (1997 film), and to anything else known simply as Titanic. There doesn't seem to be many links to fix. I also don't see any reason to not have a short article about "all things named Titanic" before having a disambiguation list. --Anon

What evidence is there for this statement?

"The iceberg punctured the hull, creating a long thin gash along the right side"

It's usually shown that way in the movies, but a Discovery channel documentary recently showed laboratory tests of Titanic hull metal that revealed it to have been brittle as manufactured, leading to a theory that there was not a gash, but hundreds of small holes in the hull. Ortolan88

I think something should be mentioned about the theories that the titanic was not the tictanic. But was infact the olympic and the olmpic the titanic. :-s - fonzy

Even the authors who put this theory forward (Gardiner and Van Der Wat) find that it isn't true from the evidence of expeditions to the wreck - so not much point putting it in.

True, but it's an interesting conspiracy theory anyway. For those who are unaware, the theory runs that when the Olympic was broght back to Harland & Wolfe shipyard for repairs after the collision with HMS Hawke, it was discovered she was far more heavily damaged than originally thought, and had broken her back. This would make her unrepairable and since she was deemed at fault in the collision the insurers would not pay out. The White Star Line was in financial difficulties, so they took the decision to swap the Olympic with her the nearly complete sister ship Titanic, with the intention of deliberately sinking the ship now labelled "Titanic" and claiming the insurance money. The "Titanic" was to be scuttled in the mid-Atlantic, and the Californian, carrying a cargo of blankets and sweaters, would come to her rescue. The whole plan fell apart when the "Titanic" suffered a real collision with an iceberg. I'm not sure what the conspiracy theory has to say about why the Californian didn't come to her rescue anyway.

Of course, the evidence is againt the theory. The ship at the bottom of the Atlantic has a propellor labelled "401" - the Titanic's yard number, and there have been other items found marked with this number. No items have been found marked with yard number 400 (Olympic). The theory was first mooted by a man named Paddy the Pig, who claimed to have been a seaman on board the Titanic, but doesn't appear on any crew list. Deadlock 11:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I moved the Harland and Wolff link to the end. Normally external links are in a separate list at the end, so that users can tell easily what is a wiki link (it's in the main text!) and what's external. I did also wonder about the useuflness of adding this link when their site is down, but I guess we just wait and see ... Finally, is "on" really the right terminology for where it was built - the article says something like it was built on the H&W shipyard - is that correct language, or should/could it be something like in or at? If there was no shipping-specific language requirement I would have thought one of these would sound better. Nevilley 17:38 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

"in" is correct. Skeetch

The Edward (E.J.) Smith and White Star Line (Company) links in Olympic and Titanic articles should have the same label. What's the best way to do this? They are currently unpopulated. Skeetch

Keep it relevant

The following text belongs in an article on worst maritime disasters, not the RMS Titanic. --Jia ng

The worst maritime incident in history, in terms of loss of life in a single vessel, is recognised as the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff by a Russian submarine in 1945 in which between 5000 and 7000 people died. Some recent studies of the disaster concluded that the actual death toll was over 9000.

The worst maritime incident in history, in terms of loss of life in two vessels, is recognised as the sinking of the Cap Arcona and the Thielbek by RAF Typhoons on May 3 1945 in which around 8000 people died.

However on 17 June 1940, RMS Lancastria (actually HMT Lancastria by the time of the sinking) evacuating troops and civilians from Saint-Nazaire, France, was sunk by German aircraft. The death toll is estimated at anything between 4000 to 9000. The true figure will remain unknown until secret British Government papers are released to the public in 2040.

The most in term of loss in lifes for two ships in the same attack is considered as to be the Cap Arcona and the Thielbek sunk by Typhoons RAF on 3 May 1945, around 8,000 people died.

The most in term of loss in lifes for one ship is considered as to be the torpedoe of Wilhelm Gustloff by the Soviet submarine S-13 on 31 January 1945, 5,000 to 7,000 deads. From recent studies, over 9,000.

The above text IS relevant. The Titanic was the greatest loss of life of an maritime disaster at the time, and many people think it still is. Mintguy (T) 07:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vas-y, Mintguy !!!

Just simply state that "The Titanic was the greatest loss of life of an maritime disaster at the time" and link to Greatest maritime disasters. Wouldn't the same text be relevant for the other ships listed? --Jia ng 07:39, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why you want to remove this text. What harm does it do? It's right at the bottom of the article, it is relevant and interesting. The point is that many people THINK that the Titanic was the worst disaster ever (I even heard a TV anouncer say this a few days ago). This text makes it very clear that it isn't. As for the other ships, yes and no, there isn't this popular misconception, as these ships are far less famous than the Titanic. Mintguy (T)

Bravo, Mintguy !!!

What's wrong with putting it in a general article that can be linked by the other ships mentioned? I'm not for deletion. It's not irrelevant there. --Jia ng 08:12, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nothing, but we're not running out of space, so what's the problem in having the information in several places. Mintguy (T) 09:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If something turns out wrong or badly worded, it will take more than one edit. People may only be interested in the fact that "The Titanic was the greatest loss of life of an maritime disaster at the time, but no more" and not what those other disasters were. --Jia ng 09:31, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How many different articles mention that Germany invaded Poland in September 1939? I for one am interested in this, and so is whoever put back those facts after you took them out the first time. If the article reaches 32k them this might be an issue, but it isn't. Mintguy (T)

I don't see any harm in retaining the IMDB links on this page. Particularly for those films that do not yest have Wikipedia articles. Mintguy (T) 17:19, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is the source for the height figure, also what is the criterion for the height? http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org give the height (Look-out cage to waterline) as 95 feet. A lot shorter than the figure on this page, I presume this is the height to top of the the funnels. Mintguy (T).

A lot of sources say 882feet in length, but this is wrong. Both Encyclopedia Titanica and Lloyd's Register http://www.lr.org/services_overview/shipping_information/is018titanic.htm give 852ft 6 in. Mintguy (T)

Maybe 852 is at the waterline and 882 is at the deck? But I suppose a typo is more likely. --wwoods 00:14, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I know bugger all about ships, but I used to work for Lloyd's Register, writing software for the surveying of ships. The length is always taken from a line through the centere of the ship bow to stern including any overhanging railings. Mintguy (T)

I think the figure that was on the page for height was for keel to funnel, this figure isn't normally quoted, and I'm not sure its accurate (some sources say 175ft), so I've removed height altogether. Mintguy (T) 10:08, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Units

If the ship was originally built in imperial units, shouldn't it read 852 ft 6 in (260 metres) instead of the other way around? I expect a parenthetical measurement to be a translation of the first one. Kevin Saff 21:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Mintguy (T) 22:35, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

I think a disamb. page should be created rather than having "titanic" redirect here. There is already an article on the 1997 movie, and there may well be others for the other Titanic movies made over the years, but anyone looking for those articles end up in a "dead end" so to speak at the RMS Titanic article. If not a disamb. page, perhaps a subsection devoted to the Titanic in popular culture should be added, including a list of links to the different movies such as A Night to Remember. 23skidoo 19:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An edit by an anonymous TCP number (203.217.71.190) on October 24 removed several important sections including a bunch of external links, a section on the recovery, and an an entire section on the numerous films and novels about the Titanic. This vandalism passed unnoticed, apparently. I will put the information back, but since there have been so many edits since then, it can't be a simple reversion, but will require some care. It will take me a while. Damn! Ortolan88 22:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just put back three graphics, 10 ex-links, 13 foreign editions, the description of the Ballard expedition and the complete (up to now) list of cultural influences. Maybe someone else could go over my work to see if I lost or duplicated anything that might have been added in the last three weeks after all this stuff was removed. It's surprising no one noticed this, don't you think? Including Ortolan88 00:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) PS - Judging from what it took to get it back, someone went to a fair amount of trouble to vandalize the article.

Got by me too, although my eyes do tend to glaze over at the volume of tinkering for this one article. There are other ships in the world... :-) Stan 05:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Editing Requested/Required

I have moved your request at the end...

This page needs copy-editing. Badly. The sentence structure is clunky at best. I'm no Titanic expert, nor am I a trained editor, but I've tried to modify a couple of paragaphs so that they're more readable. -- jdroth

Yes I understand that there's a need for editing on this page. That's exactly why everyone(at least the good guys) here on Wiki is doing. A perfect page is not likely but it does take time for a page to become like prefect.

And about why I moved your request at the end... I believe it's frowned-upon to add your comments at the beginning, for that would mess up the chronological order of the discussions and may seem like you are disregarding the posts 'behind' you. — LegolasGreenleaf 02:31, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Confusing sentence.

The line where it says "had it turned 5 seconds earlier, or 5 seconds later when the iceberg was spotted..." do you mean to say "5 seconds after the iceberg was spotted" because otherwise I don't understand that sentence.

I think what the author of that line is getting at is that had the berg been spotted 5 seconds sooner, the ship may have been able to turn just enough to avoid it altogether, while had it been spotted seconds later, the Titanic would have been forced to ram the berg head on, which would have done considerable damage to the prow and almost certainly would have resulted in considerable loss of life in the forward sections, but whould have breached fewer watertight compartments and left the ship still able to float. G. McVey

I interpreted it as not hitting the iceberg in either way, but as I mentioned in another talk article, I couldn't confirm any of the facts in the rudder paragraph MechBrowman 16:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

fxggfhgjgh

I'm confused. Why it's edit able. People could screw things up or add swear wordsetc.

External links mess

Suggestions on subcategorizing the external links? I think there are far too many (wikipedia isn't a links directory) and perhaps some are redundant. Cburnett 19:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up the links some, there were several that led to the same site and some didn't need to be there. Alot of the link descriptions were a little strange and in many cases seemed opnionated. (Do we really need to say the Titanic was great in a link description?) I guess it could be shrunk even further, many sites contain the same information, and does a link to an Titanic art site serve a purpose? MechBrowman 04:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)MechBrowman

Wildly Innacurate!

Like many other articles here in Whackypedia, this page is full of wild and crazy distortions of the history of Titanic.

This article seems to draw it's facts from Movies and TV Miniseries and not from witnesses who were there.

The movie by James Cameron is full of false stories and this has been attributed to "Hollywood" to suit the filmakers desires.

Cameron makes it look like Bruce Ismay was a coward on that night, but he went down with the ship and was swimming away when he was rescued by a lifeboat.

Many of the things that happened in the movies or this article have no basis in fact and no witnesses to back them up.

Many people who survived wrote much about this event before they died and they should be quoted as witnesses.

People who write for Wikipedia should either stand for God's truth or they speak the Devil's lies.

Supercool Dude 15:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

what are the inaccuracies exactly? I know there are some inaccuracies in the Legends and Myths section (Which I am currently working on improving) but I wouldn't consider that the article is full of inaccuracies. The only inaccuracy you mention is about Bruce Ismay, and you are wrong. Ismay got on a lifeboat just as the movie showed (the movie used Bruce Ismay's own testimony from the inquries)MechBrowman 19:06, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ignore him, he seems more interested in bashing WikiPedia than correcting errors, the fact he refers to it as WackyPedia should clue you in here. The Walter Lord book, which draws heavily on the testimony of survivors, states that Ismay boarded a boat before the ship was lost so that is definately not a Hollywood fabrication.

G. McVey

True, Ismay boarded a lifeboat but he wasn't a coward. He only boarded after it was confirmed that there were no more women or children on that deck, and there was ample space in the boat. The American inquiry confirmed this.

Rudder facts

I wasn't able to confirm how accurate the facts about having a larger rudder might have been able to save Titanic. Also I'm not sure where to mention the part about ramming the ship into an iceberg (it does not belong under myths as far as I can tell its most likely true.) MechBrowman 21:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I have never seen this anywhere but if the propeller was foward of the rudder then then backing full astern would have rendered the rudder mostly ineffective. The backing would have tended to cause the stern to walk to port. If the rudder was full to port and the engines backing full the heading may not have chaged as they would tend to cancel each other out. A ship turns much better with the engines turning ahead.KAM 16:00, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I sort of remember reading or hearing something about this awhile ago. The propellers were forward of the rudder and that backing full astern made it more likely the ship would hit the iceberg. Maybe this info should replace some of the information in the rudder paragraph? MechBrowman 03:45, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The Stern

In the article it states that the stern fell violently and crashed into the ocean floor and the force of its fall destroyed it. This is not true. An investigation in 1998 found that an implosion followed by an explosion caused by trapped air caused the stern to become a tangled mess.

-E. Brown 20 March, 2005

Internal inconsistency

The Disaster section cites the number who died in the disaster as 1498, while the Comparable Maritime Disasters section cites this number as 1503. I can't find the actual figure. Anyone know? Joshbrez 09:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are many estimates of how many people died on Titanic. Before Mike Shetina changed it, this article was inconsitent. The only complete list of people on board of Titanic went down with the ship so all death tolls are just estimates. I have no idea which estimate is the most accurate and haven't found any explanation on why any esitmate is better than the other MechBrowman 17:16, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

There are several versions of passenger lists and muster lists, and there are inconsistencies between them. Therefore it is not known exactly how many people were on board; according to some sources 2220, according to others 2228, or somewhere inbetween. So the exact number of casualties will never be known.

Time zone, Selected anniversaries

It is written: "11:40 p.m. on Sunday evening April 14, 1912, and sank two hours and forty minutes later at 2:20 a.m.". But according to which time zone?
after making this point clear, we should think again on which "Selected anniversaries" template the Titanic entry shoud be. eman 12:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is according to Titanic's local time zone UTC − 4, The date is according to local timezone in any event, I don't think anything would be changed. Titanic belongs on April 15, not 14 MechBrowman 15:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you rely on when saying that, if I may ask? I was trying to find the answer in several sources before I asked the question here.

Currenlty the event was moved to the April 14's template. eman 22:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that when you brought this topic up Im wondering if it should be changed back or not (its only 4 days away), I'm not exactly sure how accurate Titanic's clocks were adjusted for timezone change, but events of that night are always stated in Titanic time. If you look at the US Senate Inquiry final report it said Titanic sank at 12:47 New York time, around an hour behind Titanic. And NYC is UTC − 5. MechBrowman 22:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

In time zones it is written: "Before 1920, all ships kept local apparent time on the high seas by setting their clocks at night or at the morning sight so that, given the ship's speed and direction, it would be 12 o'clock when the Sun crossed the ship's meridian (12 o'clock = local apparent noon)."

SO I guess this answers my question.

Now I found the report you mentioned and they also wrote:

"At 11.46 p.m. ship's time, or 10.13 p.m. New York time, Sunday evening, April 14, the lookout signaled the bridge and telephoned the Officer of the watch, "Iceberg right ahead." [1]

So for them it looked completely natural that the ship's time is not in a whole number of hours difference from GMT.

But now we have a new question. Was it 11:40 ro 11:46 ship's time? :-\

eman 23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The British Report has 11:40 as the time [2], and so does my book resources, 11:40 seems to be the general accepted time. And I'm not sure how to change back Titanic anniversary without possibly casuing an argumentMechBrowman 17:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I see that the main reason for moving the date was that they had enough eventes on Apr 15, and too little on Apr 14 - a legitimate reason if the history can justify it (I do these kind of things in the parallel project on the Hebrew Wikipedia). If you feel this cannot be justified, maybe the best thing is to put a comment on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 14.

I aslo added a comment (ship's time) on the first place a time appears, and added a link to the inquiries page. eman 19:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Most Famous Shipwreck of All

Why? That is the question I would like to pose. Why is this ship so famous? I have my own theories but I would like to hear other people's opinions. I personally am facinated with the subject but have no clear idea why. It seems to be even more famous than Noah's Ark. Even everyday expressions have come from the disaster, it's crazy ("It's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic").

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 05:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its because of an abosultely unbeilievable number of circumstances that came together in one event.

It was the biggest ship at the time, and it was big news when it set off on its maiden voyage. Everything about the ship was new, nothing had been used. No one had a chance to get used to the Titanic being around.
The luxury, first-class was absolutely beautiful. (the whole ship in general was beautiful) The grand stair case, the smoking room, the 1st class dining room, all amazing. 2nd and 3rd class were not bad also.
The people onboard, some of the richest people in the world were on this ship. There were many people who well known before the ship sank on this ship. From the very rich to the very poor, and in the end no matter who you were, you were all in the same boat.
It was supposed to be technologically advanced, practically unsinakble and yet it sank! And on its maiden voyage! To top it all off it killed more than 1,500 people! That shakes your expectations on what could happen in any event. No one ever thought something as completely safe again.
Human drama as the ship sank. It took more than two hours for the ship to sink and no help reached them in time. That leaves plenty of room for interesting stories. While working on this article I more than once became depressed from some of the stories I read.
I really could go on, newspaper accounts that exaggerated some stories, the image of the Titanic sticking out of the water, the way it changed maritime law, the ways it could have been prevented, ect. MechBrowman 16:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

SOS section

The SOS section stated that after the second wireless operator suggested using the SOS signal, Phillips, "who later died," began sending SOS in addition to CQD. I would assume that any adult living at the time of the wreck would have died by now, so I assumed that the writer meant that Phillips died in the Titanic tragedy, and changed the text accordingly. If this is incorrect, please fix the text, but please make it less ambiguous.

John "Jack" Phillips & Harold Bride jumped off the ship together, Harold surfaced, but Phillips was knocked out and drowned. - Molloy

"Titanic" or "the Titanic"

Are we supposed to say "Titanic" or "the Titanic"? I see both in the article. 64.229.109.36 29 June 2005 02:12 (UTC)

Both forms are acceptable. (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Referring to ships.) —Wayward June 29, 2005 02:41 (UTC)

Murphys Law

At the end of the "Titanic curse"-section, there's a sentence about "Murphy's Law" which seems to me totally unnecessary. Every disaster can (and has!) been blamed on this 'law'. I propose to cancel the sentence because it's information value to the Titanic desaster is nil (whereas the specific Titanic-related theories are interesting, of course). --62.214.143.217 29 June 2005 07:54 (UTC)

"Theroies"

Some of the recent additions have been more conspericy theories, curses, ect. There are tons of these since none of them have any basis in fact and were only created to sell more newspapers and books. Maybe an article specifaclly about these should be created to avoid cluttering up the main article with myth? MechBrowman June 29, 2005 20:19 (UTC)

God himself could not sink this ship

One of the enduring legends is that someone associated with White Star actually said "God himself could not sink this ship" - would be nice to debunk or verify this in the article, since most people are probably familiar with the phrase and its hubris. A brief Net search says the phrase was supposedly made by a deckhand, which shouts "urban legend", but I am no Titanic historian. 24.130.29.253 29 June 2005 21:05 (UTC)

I'll try to look up where the story came from, I think there is relevant information in A Night to Remember - MechBrowman June 29, 2005 22:40 (UTC)

Actually, it was one of the stewards who said to Mrs. Alden Caldewell, "God himself could not sink this ship. It is practically nonsinkable." or something to that effect. Morhange 22:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So who's our source?

About the iceberg, that is. Mighty detailed, that account. --VKokielov 9 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what fact you are refering to exactly. Can you clarify? MechBrowman July 9, 2005 15:31 (UTC)

All of this:

"On the night of Sunday, April 14, the temperature had dropped to near freezing and the ocean was completely calm. There was no moon out and the sky was clear. Captain Smith, in response to iceberg warnings received via wireless over the last few days, altered the Titanic's course slightly to the south. That Sunday at 1:45 PM, a message from the steamer Amerika warned that large icebergs lay in the Titanic's path, but inexplicably, the warning was never relayed to the bridge. Later that evening, another report of numerous, large icebergs, this time from the Mesaba, also failed to reach the bridge..." and everything else in "Disaster". --VKokielov 16:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

All that information is mostly from the books listed in References. There is alot of detail available about what happened the night Titanic sank. MechBrowman 23:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comparable maritime disasters

Drowning in Numbers Letter by Steve Parsons, July 2002

In a review of Antony Beevor's 'Berlin: The Downfall' (June SR), mention is made of 'the greatest maritime disaster of all time', the sinking of the Goya by a Russian submarime with the consequent drowning of 7,000 refugees.

However, a disaster of even greater magnitude took place on 3 May 1945, when the RAF bombed and machine-gunned the German luxury liner, Cap Arcona, in the Baltic in the bay of Lubeck, south of the Danish island of Lolland. On this occasion 7,700 died, and what makes the incident even more grotesque was the fact that the victims were concentration camp prisoners.

At the close of the war a determined effort was made by the Nazis to kill the surviving concentration camp inmates by commanding them on forced marches away from the advancing Russians--the infamous death marches. Ten thousand prisoners from Neuengamme, a camp in the vicinity of Hamburg, ended up in Lubeck, where they were then ordered aboard the ship Cap Arcona, and fully expected to meet their deaths by being sunk by the Germans. Sighting British planes they were overjoyed, believing they would now be saved. Of course the British airmen did not know the ship was full of prisoners. Yet their fate has been allowed to disappear from the general historical consciousness, and instead it is the Russians who are given the responsibility for the world's 'greatest maritime disaster'.

Steve Parsons

Denmark

Lack of binoculars for the lookouts

It's unforunate that there were no binoculars in the crow's nest. If the lookouts had binoculars, they probably would have seen the iceberg in time to avoid it. I think there were binoculars on the ship, just not in the crow's nest. Ironically, a submarine that later visited the wreck site, found a pair of binoculars lying amidst the wreckage. A hand-held telescope could also have been used by the lookouts, if they had been given one. Bennett Turk

Jacques Futrelle

It might be nice to add a list of important people who were casualties. Jacques Futrelle is one of them.