This is an archive of past discussions about Titanic. 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.
It belongs
(a) somewhere else in the article and
(b) needs to be referenced.
'An additional problem with the Titanic's design was the ship's incredible length. Smaller ships would be able to ride oceanic waves; however, the Titanic was simply too long to ride up and down with large waves. The engineers who designed the Titanic created a large flexible joint in the middle of the ship to allow the ship to flex with the waves and prevent the ship from searing if the middle was caught in the valley between a pair of large waves. However, the design of the Titanic's flexing joint was not ideal; rather than a ball shaped joint found in a later version of equally long ships, the Titanic's seems to be more abrupt and unable to deal with the massive amount of pressure that it wouldn've had to endure for days. As a result, experts say, the ship's massive bulk folded it in half, shattering the bottom off from the rest of the hull and sealing the fate of the massive ocean liner. '
'This theory has been shown in recent deep sea dives that have recorded the shape of two of the recently found parts of the ship's bottom, which are believed to account for about 70 feet of the bottom of the hull, the spot where the ship shattered. These peices, far to the east of the bulk of the hull, indicate that the parts broke free of the rest of the ship before the bow and the stern had fully filled with water. All of this information was revealed in a series of recent dives done by the History Channel, and more is being discovered almost every week.'
I strongly suspect that this information was taken straight from a certain TV documentary, that was unconvincing, badly researched and poorly presented. The theory is not well researched and is certainly not factual material suitable for an encyclopedia.
For example, the theory that the Titanic's expansion joint 'seems to be more abrupt and unable to deal with the massive amount of pressure that it wouldn've had to endure for days' is utter nonsense, given the fact that her sister ship RMS Olympic had exactly the same joint, and never suffered any problems regarding it at any time during her long 24 year life. Fionnlaoch (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Time zone
When clock times are given for events happening at sea, what time zone is being used? Is this local solar time, or, as I suspect, local time for the time zone that applies at that longitude? They thought they were at 50 degrees, 14 minutes west, which would put them on Greenland Standard Time, aka Poppa Standard Time, three hours behind GMT. The only hitch is, this naval system was not effected until the 1920s, so what did ships use in 1912? Titanic was making a crossing in approximately five or six days, so if they made each day 25 hours long, they would, more or less, be on New York time by the time they arrived in New York; simply add an hour in the middle of the night, say at 1 am, go back to midnight, and do that for five days. If that's the way they did it, and I'm not saying it is, then by the evening they met the iceberg, they would have done it four times, and would be on Atlantic Standard Time. GBC (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In 1912, and for many years after that,and that and that and that and that it was the convention on ships to keep "apparent time". This was indeed local solar time - where 'Noon' - or twelve o' clock midday - was taken to be that point where the Sun reached it's maximum altitude in the sky where it was either due south or due north of the ship.
As noted above, this time varied with ship's longitude. Consequently, ships'navigators estimated where they would be at Noon on the following day and adjusted the ship's clocks overnight, so that the Sun would be at it's maximum altitude at about the time of 'Noon' on the following day. It was the usual thing for the clocks to be altered the requisite number of minutes during the midnight to 4 A.M. watch and this was duly recorded as the official time change in the deck and engine room log books.
To keep things amicable among the different watchkeepers on ships it was customary to sub-divide the total number of minutes of clock change evenly between the watches. For example if a ship's clocks were to be retarded thirty minutes on a particular night and the watchkeeping on that ship was from 8 to 12 followed by 12 to 4 and then 4 to 8 - it would be usual for the watchkeepers on each watch to do an extra ten minutes watchkeeping.
Of course, all these time changes were specific to individual ships and one consequence was that ships in the same general area could be maintaining different times for recording events. Co-ordinating the different ship times to establish precise times for the various events was one of the larger difficulties for both of the Titanic enquiries. sgn. Jim Fowler
Okay, that's very helpful, thanks. Now, did any of the surviving officers recall how many minutes total the Titanic's clock was retarded since they left port, so we know the difference between GMT and the ship's clock when disaster hit? Needless to say, nobody would bother changing the clock time again in the middle of a red alert situation - the clocks'll be at the bottom of the ocean before sunrise, regardless of the time zone they're on. GBC (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
They could not have altered the clocks during the emergency as they would have had no idea where they were going to be at noon the next day. If the above description of 1912 ship's timekeeping is true (and I do not doubt it) it would have represented a total nightmare for everyone on board. It might have been eased a little by the scarcity of personal timepieces, but I can't see how anyone would have ever known what time it was. Calculating the day's run would have been problematic too, as a day might be e.g. 23 hours 17 minutes one day, and 23 hours 21 minutes the next. And no calculators! Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Titanic vs. TheTitanic
This is a totally minor point, but it's the sort of thing I latch onto and I'd be interested in seeing it discussed, however briefly.
In my recollection, the ship was generally--even consistently--referred to as the Titanic, and it was only after that dreadful film that it became commonplace, or even standard, to call is simply Titanic. It reminds me of all of the classical music records that were repackaged as being from Wolfgang AMADEUS Motzart (sometimes with the middle name in fact in all caps) after the release of Amadeus. How much of this switch reflects legitimate practice and how much was bandwagon-hopping by people trying to align themselves in any way with the movie? PurpleChez (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The usage is naval, not necessarily cinematic. Merchant ships are normally THE, so RMS Queen Mary should be the THE Queen Mary. HMS Ulysses is simply Ulysses. As a merchant vessel commanded by a naval reservist, the Titanic could be either. Though as a certified nit-picking nautical pedant, I would always say The Titanic. Rumiton (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If you looked on the side of the ship (before rusticles covered it) then you would see the single name Titanic. A bathroom facility would have a shower, would you say "I'm going to use shower now"? "The" has nothing to do with the name unless that's what the creator/inventor calls it. Seeing as the inventer called the ship Titanic that means that is what the ship should be called. It's a general way of saying things to use the word "The". Jammy (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Titanic was generally RMS Titanic in Britain and SS Titanic in the USA. Some folks new to the Royal Mail system of that era erroneously assume that only Cunard vessels were entitled to the RMS prefix as that line held the main trans-Atlantic mail contract. However, most British-flagged 'express' vessels were employed to carry mail and thus enjoyed the prestige of being designated RMS. In the USA, where the average traveller knew (and cared) nothing about the Royal Mail, the simpler SS prefix was more frequently used. IMM's own US-produced in-house literature usually refers to SS Titanic.
Our website Titanic.com the community website - http://www.titanic.com has been removed from the extern links of this article for some time just like Titanicarchive.net; Will somebody please restore our links, thanks alot.
Webmaster-titanic-com (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2008 (ECT)
Gender pronouns: "she" v. "it", etc.
An editor today changed all occurrences of the gender pronouns such as "she" to their corresponding neuter pronounce (e.g., "it," etc.). The change was reverted, which I agree with. Just to back up the reversion a bit, I note that there is a style guide that suggests not to make such changes. WP:MILMOS#Pronouns says:
Ships may be referred to either using female pronouns ("she", "her") or genderless pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.
The scope of this guideline is for articles in the scope of the Military History project, which this article is not; but the idea behind it is equally applicable to civilian ships as to military ones. TJRC (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the use of female pronouns is appropriate for all ships, not just military vessels. The use of female pronouns for referring to ships in the english language dates back many centuries - there's a long established precedent for doing this.
I've suggested at WP:SHIPS that the project formally adopt the WP:MILMOS guideline for all ships, to help clarify that the guideline quoted above is not just in reference to military vessels. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the feminine gender for ships. It appears that most machines inherit a feminine gender. Steam engines have been traditionally treated as feminine. Paul Anderson (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I just wanted to clear up the cause of the incident involving the New York which was drawn into the Titanic's side. Quite often the propellers are given the blame for this. Wrong. The ship's massive displacement in parallel to the smaller New York is what drew the New York into the Titanic's side. The propellers on the Titanic are of course at the stern of the ship. The stern of the Titanic hadn't passed the New York yet. The New York was drawn in amidships of the Titanic. So I made the change in the text for historical accuracy and for academics. Thanks Koplimek (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what caused the suction? propellers don't just make water, they suck water from in front the propeller and push it away behind. As the bow passes, smaller objects will be pushed away by the bow wave, behind an unpowered vessel (eg when it is being pulled by a tug) objects will be sucked in to fill the void. Alongside a powered vessel, the propellers draw water in toward the ship. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The interactions between large vessels are complex and even today imperfectly understood, though this case seems fairly simple. Interactive forces are different between vessels in deep water and at speed and between slow vessels in shallow water. Koplimek is right to say the propellers had little or nothing to do with this collision. The largest factor would certainly be the flow of water along the side of the hull of the moving vessel, from forward to aft, in the shallow and confined water of the dock. The higher the water speed the lower the pressure, just as an airplane wing creates lift when the air passing over it is faster than that going under it. The two hulls would have been "sucked" together as Titanic passed. Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's as maybe, I was commenting on Koplimek's blanket statement that the propellers can't affect the water in front of them. His statememt reads like OR, and I replied in kind. What do the published sources say? lets stick to them.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Published sources give every possible opinion on this and every other aspect of Titanic. It's in the nature of this subject. We can't stick to all of them, we have to choose among them intelligently if this article is to be coherent. OR or no OR. Rumiton (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
IdreamofJeanie, I never made a blanket statement about the propellers. I said the stern part of the ship, where the propellers are, had not passed by the New York. Surviving photographs taken from a number of angles support this. Also 2nd class passenger Lawrence Beasley's description of the incident in his 1912 book gives credence to where the New York broke her ropes. Beasley witnessed the whole incident. Koplimek (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This section refers to "18th Century steel sailing vessels." As there were none, and the whole section sounds dubious, I propose deleting it. Rumiton (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That does sound kind of odd. I don't know enough about shipbuilding to substantively edit that section, but I at least did correct the quoting. It's from the Titanic Historical Society's website. They have the length of the vessel wrong, too. With two significant errors in one paragraph, as much as I hate to suggest it, perhaps the THS is not a reliable source. TJRC (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I find this part of the article misleading - it suggests that Titanic's rudder was old-fashioned and therefore too small for the size of the ship. In actual fact, Titanic's rudder was only about 1.85 square metres smaller than the general reccommended rudder size for modern-day merchant vessels of the same size. Many modern ships have even smaller rudders. Fionnlaoch (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The "18th Century steel sailing vessels." has crept back in and has been deleted again, but the original source, now footnoted, doesn't make this elementary mistake. The source also explains how it was the shape of the rudder, rather than its area, that was the problem. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I still think it's a bit misleading. The article makes it sound like her rudder was a major design error, which it wasn't. It says that her rudder was much smaller than the Cunarders', but fails to mention that merchant ships of today have rudders of similar, often smaller, size. 92.2.165.4 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Bigger rudders do not necessarily mean better turning abilities. For high speed the rudder should have been more than sufficient and for low speed the ship would have manouvered with the aid of the outer propellers. These were driven by reciprocating steam engines and could have been shifted from full ahead to full astern within 10 seconds when the machines were in manouvering mode. Additionally they provided the full power running astern. Both is not the case for astern turbines, therefore the Cunarder's rudders had to be bigger in order to manouver efficiently even at low speed. Comparing the manouveribility of the Olympic class and the Cunard greyhounds by just comparing the rudder sizes was the idea of a fool. Additionally one should not compare pure merchant vessels with vessels which had to comply with military specifications. --80.138.87.166 (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Additionally this chapter asserts that a full astern command was given prior to the collision. But, as stated in the linked article "Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic" this is NOT proven fact and contradicted by facts and witnesses. Therefore the second chapter of this paragraph should be removed as it is purely speculative. --80.138.87.166 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Added ref for witness evidence to support reversing the engines. Looked very hard for contrary evidence, but found only speculation (the strongest is on page 66 of Brown (2000), which includes a "fantasy" ship's log recording Murdoch's order to stop engines). I would welcome any cited addition of factual material that supports User:80.138.87.166's point. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
HI folks I served on a Submarine, and I consider myself to be a Titanic expert, mainly because I have read every book written about her. Let me clear something up here. A submarine rudder to size of ship ratio is much smaller then Titanics' was. The ship would have turned just fine and missed the Iceberg, had 1st Officer Murdoch not ordered FULL ASTERN as the faster you are going the quicker you will turn. This happened on my submarine many times, and was kinda difficult to get used to while I was qualifying Helms/Planes watch. As every time we would turn at varying speeds I would have to use more, or less rudder. I have also conducted a test using a remote controlled scale model, I even matched conditions right down to water temperature. and each an every time I slowed the ship down I would hit the iceberg. But when I maintained speed and turned I missed it every time. Suffice to say in MY OPINION William Murdoch was responsible for the deaths of over 1,500 people. This was basic ship driving and he should have known it.--Subman758 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not certain that Murdoch did order full astern, and, if he did, when he did it and how long it took for the engine room to respond.WhaleyTim (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That's right, David Brown's The Last Log of the Titanic ("perspective of an expert ship handler" apparently), subjects the collision to a detailed investigation. Boxhall had suggested that Murdoch had ordered full astern, but this was countered by Moody. Murdoch himself reported to Smith that he had intended to 'port-around' the iceberg, and apparently ordered 'hard a port' as the ship approached the iceberg. Brown dismisses claims that Murdoch attempted a 'crash stop', and points that the evidence of how Titanic hit the berg is proof of this. Also Murdoch ordered the furnace dampers to be shut, further indication that he was not attempting to reverse the engines. Murdoch was a highly experienced sailor, and had pulled off a similar manoeuvre seven years previously aboard the Arabic, and (Brown argues) knew full well what he was doing. Seems a bit harsh to blame Murdoch for all those deaths when it seems far likelier he not only knew how to drive his ship, he did so as effectively as anyone could have in the minute or so he had before impact. Benea (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Because of water density and viscosity, scale models do not represent accurate circumstances to run that kind of test in such a basic form. Nor can the manouvurability of a submarine be compared to a ship weighing 52000 tons. No ship of Titanic's size travelling at 21 knots, even today, could take any kind of avoiding action in 500 yards (only 1.7 times the ship's length). Speaking as a qualifying naval architect, I can assure you that I know what I'm talking about. It is completely unnecessary, not to mention ignorant, to blame a third-in-command for loss of a ship and 1500 lives in circumstances beyond his control. Fionnlaoch (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a minor confusion in detail in the section 'Sinking' where it states that 'First officer Murdoch ordered an abrupt turn to starboard (right)'. In fact, Murdoch gave the appropriate order for the ship to be turned to port (left). The confusion arises because there was still an outdated convention associated with steering orders at that time. If a ship's officer wanted a ship to be turned to port (left) it was the convention to order the helmsman to turn the wheel to starboard (right). Similarly, if he wanted the ship turned to starboard the officer would order the helm to be turned to port. It was an old custom which had been valid for ships or boats which were steered with tillers but it was becoming increasingly obsolete by 1912. Subsequently, regulations were introduced which standarised steering orders and steering gear to the present system.
At the time, Murdoch certainly did order the helm (the ship's wheel) to be turned hard to starboard (right) but that order meant that Titanic's rudder then moved to port (left) and the bow of the Titanic would have started to turn to port (left) and, on the evidence available, it has to be assumed that was Murdoch's intention.
As to the extent of Murdoch's responsibility for the loss of life, I think that is something which is beyond the scope of this particular article. Murdoch's actions and inactions were contributory factors - along with many, many, others. The Titanic was 'an accident waiting to happen'.
sgn.J.Fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.20.94 (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There's something here I want to clear up. Some people seem to be under the impression that turning the wheel starboard would steer the ship port. This is not the case - the steering was conventional. It was simply the system of giving helm orders that was inverted. Murdoch ordered hard-a-starboard. Quartermaster Hitchins turned the wheel port. Titanic turned port. Fionnlaoch (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
More Information on the Wreck
I'm of the opinion that more information should be written on the wreck. The article doesn't seem to cover much about that at all. Like images of the overall wreck if possible. More detail on just how bad a shape the stern is (I honestly can't recognize any deck above B-deck anymore). I also think some citations around the sinking would be nice. Just my opinion. Also, it seems a bit odd, but when looking and images of the bow wreck, it looks shorter than it should. Also, is it typical for a ship to split in two when sinking? I mean, if ships sink because of damage, it makes sense. Like the Britannic is nearly also divided into a bow section and stern section. SkepticBanner (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not uncommon that that happens. It can happen where there has been flooding in the fore or after part of a ship, as opposed to across the entire length of the ship. The damaged and flooding part of the ship begins to sink below the waterline. The undamaged half remains more buoyant, at least whilst flooding takes longer to spread further back along the ship. This is then lifted relative to sinking section. In the Titanic's case the flooding was trapped in the forepart of the ship by the watertight doors, with progressive flooding only reaching the after compartments slowly and in stages. The mass of a ship is intended to be supported by the water, but as the stern rose, the gravitational pull of the weight of some twenty thousand tons created huge stresses on the mid section, the axis around which the sinking ship was rotating. The midline on the keel is also the point where the stresses are greatest from the mass of the ship, ie equally balanced with twenty thousand tons on either side. The more of the stern that was hanging unsupported, the greater this stress became until the keel gave way and the ship tore herself in two. The stern then collapsed back onto the water surface, with the forepart of the ship hanging submerged beneath but still attached. The stern part resumed flooding until its buoyancy was exhausted and it too sank. The Titanic's design and the nature of the accident made this a more classic case than most, the water entry was to a small section localised at the bow, whilst the watertight compartments meant that the foreparts flooded almost entirely whilst the afterparts remained unaffected for far longer. This is the cause of all those classic pictures of the stern hanging high in the air, the rest of the ship completely submerged. I'm not entirely sure what you mean about the bow wreck though. Benea (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am in a minority here. Several passengers testified that the Titanic broke in half early in the evening, while still close to even keel. They were contradicted by the ship's officers, who were believed. Photos of the wreck show that the split started at the keel, not the upper deck. This is consistent with the passengers' accounts. When the forward third of the vessel filled up, leaving the forepeak and focsle temporarily dry, the effect was the same as overloading the midship section of a bulk carrier. Hull failure. I believe the dramatic stern "rearing up" images are exaggerated. The stern section just duckdived at the last minute, the bow was already long on the bottom. This also explains the horizontal separation of the two sections. During the time between the sinkings, ocean currents took the floating part a few hundred metres away from the debris already on the seabed. Rumiton (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
When I say the bow looks shorter, I mean I can only see up until the second funnel hole. After that, it is twisted metal for a short bit then ends. As for the stern section, I can only see up to the fourth funnel hole. It's like a middle part of the ship disappeared without a trace. Also, is "explosion" the right word to describe what happened to the stern of the Titanic? It is my understanding that the only way it could have sunk quickly after the bow did was if made, since it was so filled with air. It's no easy task pushing something so full of air in a complicated design two miles down. The air would have to at least partially leave the stern. But as we all know, it didn't, as what's left of the stern will testify. The stern is in pretty bad shape. I mean, both sides of the hull have been blown off. One half leans on the edge of the ship, the other fell down to the sea floor right next to it. Large sections of the decks blown off are now part of the debris field. No decks above B-deck can be easily seen. The poop deck is peeled back. As for the bow, all the decks are clearly visible, the hull is mostly intact except in some areas where it bent and buckled because of the hull bending backwards and the back of the bow where it split from the stern. Also, while it may be common enough for sinking ships to split in two, is it that common for sinking ships to go completely down in the bow, have its stern rise up into the air, split in two, have the bow sink and the stern go to a what, 20˚ angle, then sink under, have its hull structure catastrophically fail because of water pressure, and land in a barely recognizable state almost 2,000 feet away form its bow? Also, it the stern is a lot more than a couple hundred meters from the bow. More than 500, which is more than a couple. But as I've said before, I feel it is important that we somehow give some easy to understand, detailed, information on the wreck. Both parts of it. I mean, very little is said about it. And since the ship is still around (in a sense), we should give details on how things are going for it currently, right? Well, that's all I have to say for now. SkepticBanner (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The inference is that the middle section, being the section where the break occurred, either became part of the debris field after the sinking, or has since disintegrated through the passage of time. The structural integrity of this part of the ship was one of the most affected, so it would be expected that this would suffer the greatest decay and collapse. The bow filled with water slowly, and only sank after being more or less completely filled (the stern keeping the rest afloat as this happened) so the effects of air pressure were a lot less destructive than that experienced by the stern which sank quickly. The result as you've noted is that the stern is partially blown out. The air did leave the stern to some degree, in order for its buoyancy to be exhausted and for it to sink in the first place, but enough was left to cause the damage visible when the wreck was located. Witnesses reported that it floated for a while (steadily flooding), but then sank quickly (i.e. once the point where the buoyancy was exhausted and the weight of the stern exceeded the displacement the air trapped inside was providing.) Also every shipwreck is unique, a combination of the cause of water ingress/hull failure/etc and the design of the ship. Titanic's loss was predictable if you factor in what happens to her, i.e. water ingress to localised section of the bow across a number of watertight compartments causing uncontrollable flooding. The steady sinking of the bow and the water tipping over the tops of the watertight bulkheads to flood further back along the structure causing the stern to rise. Is it common? The answer is it would happen more or less every time a ship with Titanic's specific design met with a similar ingress of water, but slightly change one factor and you'll likely get a slightly different result. The interesting thing to consider is if the keel had been strong enough, would an equilibrium have been reached where the angle of the partially submerged ship would have meant that the water would have only been able to flood up to a certain part, whilst the buoyancy of the stern would have kept the ship afloat in this rather tenuous position? The argument is that if it had been stronger, Titanic would have floated for longer, rescue ships could have reached the scene in time to take people off from the stricken liner and more people would have been saved. See below where there are claims that fatal hull weaknesses caused a break at just 10 degrees elevation. The distance of the stern from the bow is also not unusual when you factor in the distance the sections had to fall, the differing times that they sank and the effect of the currents, as well as the different hydrodynamic features of the two sections. It would have been more surprising to find them more or less together on the sea bed. Feel free to add away as to the current state of the wreck, I agree the article could use a description. Later dives have highlighted just how fast the wreck is deteriorating, so it is quite relevant. Benea (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that humans in the past 23 years have done a huge amount of damage to it. Is the rate of human damage greater or less than that of natural decay? Out of curiosity, what would have happened if the "watertight" doors had not been closed? As for adding information on the wreck, I'm not entirely sure where to find it. All of my books about it are roughly a decade out of date. Also, information on the damage to the stern I find so interesting is difficult to find. Any ideas where to look? Also, I'm not sure how to organize information on the wreck. Do we describe how it ended up like it is today? What specific parts are like? What time has done to it? Also, which section do we describe first? A lot of complicated questions. Although, the majority of information and research is from the bow, as the stern hasn't much to offer in its current state. Well, it has some, but not as much as the bow. SkepticBanner (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
co-founder
I have never heard of Jean-Louis Michel. I saw his page and it hardly has anything on it. Please put a link on him or something or I will erase his name. Thanks. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Why are you going to erase his name? He and Ballard discovered the wreck, it's quite legitimate information to include. Just because a) you have never heard of him and b) he does not currently have his own article is no reason to erase him. Benea (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome to add any sourced additions if you feel they will be useful. But I wouldn't really expect anyone would do it for you. This page has been tagged as needing work for quite some time already. Benea (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
To me 45 is too literal. I looked at alot of testimony and found the man said no more then 45. Others say the opposite, 45 or more. Also he never said it was almost perpendicular, he only corrected his statment from meaning just that. Considerably is apart of no more then 45 degrees actually and therefore a diagonal angle is the peek. Also the untrained eye would seen 45 as 70, so 20 or a little over could be seen as that 45 degree to people.BobtheVila
The man, I forgot the name, but look at the more questions then answers by googling titanic break up and you can find the witness's name. Also look at what he says and you can get what I mean. Everyone else says the opposite of what he's trying to say.BobtheVila —Preceding comment was added at 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, as to your original point the exact angle is indeed disputed. 45 degrees or thereabouts was commonly accepted, but researchers have more recently claimed that the angle was just 10 degrees (see hereor here for reports on this, and that the design and construction of the Titanic was therefore seriously flawed. But its still a contentious point. Benea (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
To me the 10 degree is too low, I written a paper about it and I will show you if you want to see it later, but now I have to go somewhere.BobtheVila —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Bob, I think it would be interesting if I could understand it. Your English is defeating me. What do you mean by "grounding," "stiff boat" and "dome water" for a start? And is this your own research or a published theory? Rumiton (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is quickly typed, sorry. Stiff boat means without bend, I never seen any test without that, dome water is a "duh" actually, just water coming from the dome. Grounding is talking about just adding it to the equation of tests(#4 and #5 fliped). It's not realy importent about publishment, I just found many faults with the 3 versions from park/roger/roy. It is not published, but I looked at testimony on sites and looked through ANTR and other. I wan't to show that the untrained eye did exist and none took a devise to measure the angle during sinking. Also that theyer's drawn version of the boat already shows the angle at half 45 and lower also when it broke. I have mild autism basically, but I wrote the real one on a word and is better with grammer and stuff, this stuff isn't even word for word of it, it's retyped.BobtheVila —Preceding comment was added at 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Bob, can't access that URL. I would like to discuss this with you. Are you a naval architect? Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It should now be a save to a zip file, tell me if it doen't work and i'll find another file site. No I'm not, but I took all the main points of the testimonies and got the answer from that, also I did it based on the on board testimony's notice of the break. I think I have come with similar answer as one though as one. Also I have seen alot of boats sink on the internet though and know how boats sink, so I think it's impossible for the really high angles unless it's going under. The break comes from double bottem's cleanliness, lack of notice of the righting, and Joughin. I have a habbit of writing stuff I have interest in.BobtheVila —Preceding comment was added at 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW it's a zip file, not a site, the internet was gone, so I wrote it in word till we get it again. Also I just put it in a shared folder for publicBobtheVila
Thanks for that. I don't have all the figures with me but I still disagree, to summarize: One of the passengers described and sketched the ship breaking in two early in the disaster, at quite a small angle of head trim. This is right, I think. The ship would have been sailing with about 5 feet of stern trim for maximum speed, and not loaded to her marks (Loadline). Thus, the forward bulkead top would have been far higher above the sea than has been assumed by investigators. Before water flowed over the forward bulkhead several thousands of tonnes would have entered the hull. It was like overloading a bulk carrier. Filling one hatch with the others empty creates a catastrophic bending moment and shearing forces. This is not a reflection on the ship design. After that the passengers watched the stern section filling and sinking. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That person was Jack, there are only 2 pics and the other is one at 5-6degrees with rockets going off, the boat in the pic resembles the test's 17+ mark, and they don't include any upper or grounding water damage. 10 degrees and starting the plunge is rediculous as people where running to the back just then. 20 or more is best as Arthur states it was intact then.BobtheVila —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"Further Reading" Correction
The author of "What really sank the Titanic..." is McCarty, not McCarthy.
the titanic struck an ice burge. people say that there could of been more lifeboats but there wernt
Visualize the Size
This is pretty good article. The one thing it's missing is help with visualizing the ship's size. She was the biggest ship of her period, after all. One of those pictures where various ship images are superimposed would be great.
Why has it been removed from the first line that the RMS Titanic was a “British” ship? When it clearly was a British ship?
I sense some very sad anti-British Pro American editing on an article about a British ship. (Butters x (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
Uh uh, it is the result of sad, mixed up Irish emotions. There was a big controversy about whether the ship should be described as British- or Irish-built. Thoroughly worth not getting involved with. Rumiton (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If you really want to get technical, the Titanic was Irish built, British flagged, and American owned. Even though the ship was built in Ireland and the ship was owned by American owned British company, the ship flew the British flag so it should be called British. A good modern example is the RMS Queen Mary 2, which was built in France, is owned by the American owned British shipping company Cunard, and it flies the British flag because it is registered in Britain. A ship's country of registry is it's country of origin, sort of like citizenship and people. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It gets even more technical than that. It was British-built, there was no country called Ireland in 1912. The subject is better left alone, I think. Rumiton (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just put "Titanic was a British/Irish ship" Or, "Titanic was an Irish-made British ship, or something like that. Something that will contribute both Gregory E. Miller (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC))
The point is that at the time there was no independent Republic of Ireland. The geographical area that now forms the independent nation was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1912, and would be described as 'British'. So the phrase 'Irish-made British ship' just doesn't make sense. 'British/Irish ship' would also not be a desirable solution for the same reason, but also see the Derry/Londonderry and the whole 'Stroke City' controversy for that one. Benea (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
We do what the Irish themselves do and steer clear of controversy wherever possible. Leave it as it is, and avoid making a claim for either British or Irish ownership so far as possible. Benea (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
We've largely reached a stage where we have eliminated any points of controversy. When referring to where she was built we say Belfast, Ireland. Ireland is a geographical rather than a political term, and makes no judgement about being politically British or Irish. Similarly if we talk about her registry, we can say that that was British as that is factually accurate and indisputable, and so on. The key point to be aware of is not to make a sweeping statement like 'she was an Irish ship' or 'she was a British ship', but to be careful to qualify it accurately. So use 'she was a British registered ship, built in Belfast, Ireland' - which is factually accurate, and minimises claims of nationalistic bias. The page should be kept like this, and attempts to swing this unduly to a nationalistic claim, whether British or Irish, should probably be reverted and if a dispute develops, participants invited to a discussion here on the talkpage. Benea (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The photo on the Titanic page with the caption "view of the stern & rudder of the Titanic in drydock" is of the Olympic, back in drydock to repair the Hawke damage. She is also in White Star livery(paint job). I've changed the caption on the pick several times so that it would be accurate giving awareness to Olympic & Titanic in the article. One poster disagrees and keeps reverting. I suggest keep the photo in the article but state it's of Olympic while crediting both Olympic & Titanic since they're the same dimensions. The other poster disagrees. All in all it makes the Wikipedia article inaccurate by not stating which ship is in the pic.
I suggested to the other poster & also others the website LostLiners.com, Olympic section, "A New Leviathan" page, the bottom most picture which is the same view different camera position.
Also in the book "Last Days of the Titanic" by E.E. O'Donnel this picture is stated as Olympic. This book clears up a lot of confusion over a number of Olympic pictures that were thought to be Titanic over the decades. Koplimek (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A fair compromise would be to caption it as 'View of the stern and rudder of one of the Olympic class in drydock.' Then a note explaining where different sources say she is either the Olympic or Titanic. Benea (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The photograph of the clock on the grand staircase and said to be a photograph of the clock on the Olympic is incorrect. The photograph is of the Titanic. The clock at the head of the staircase was significantly more elaborate on the Titanic. This item is regularly cited as one of the differences between the two vessels.
Reference: Page 153, Titanic anh Her Sisters Olympic & Brittanic, PRC Publishing Ltd, London, 1998.
Again this is where a generalised caption and a note may be a good idea. Both the Library of Congress and lostliners.com identify this as Olympic, taken in 1911. Daniel Allen Butler's Unsinkable: The Full Story of the RMS Titanic identifies this as the Titanic though. This thread on Encyclopedia Titanica.com (not an RS I know but they tend to know what they're talking about) seems to indicate that there are no surviving pictures of Titanic's staircase, but the only differences were the animal carving underneath the clock itself had a ram's head on Olympic, whilst Titanic had a lion's head. Benea (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Further to my reference to the Grand Staircase clock, an additional reference is go to www.youtube.co/watch?v=D9-z6Nw2FM which shows both clocks in photographs. The first is acknowledged as not belonging to Titanic. It is in fact Olympic's clock. The next two photos are Titanic's clock. The photo in this article is unquestionably that of Titanic. I will check your reference to the Library of Congrees as I am amazed they have an error. I suspect the photograph says the staircase in the two ships was identical without a reference to the clock. They would then be right. As you can see there are no animals on the Olympic clock so I wonder where you picked up a reference to a lion and a ram.
Incidently, I agree absolutely with your position where a title or a reference can be ambiguous, it should be defined in a way which is acceptable to all until absolute proof can be ascertained. In the case of the clock, however, that point has already been reached and passed.
The Library of Congress identifies the specific picture as being taken aboard the Olympic, they are therefore unambiguously stating that the clock and staircase are both Olympic's. The reference to animals comes from the Encyclopedia Titanica thread linked to above, I can make no comment about how right or wrong it is as a statement. I found your video (the link doesn't work by the way but I'm assuming it's the one titled 'Tribute to RMS Titanic'?) but I'm a little confused. The first two images of clocks are the ornate version you're saying is Titanic's? And the plainer one which appears later is Olympic's? The main concern I have is that in a lot of cases photographs of the Olympic are claimed to be the Titanic, which because of her short career did not have as many taken of her. A publisher or similar would therefore claim that a picture was of the infamous and tragic Titanic, rather than her less well known sister. The compiler of that assortment of clips, for example, assumed that all of those pictures were of the Titanic, despite the completely different clocks. The point is though we have a book that shows two different clocks and states that one is from one ship and the other is from the other, we have sources that suggest that they could well be the other way round, the plainer clock is Titanic's, the well known widely circulated ornate one is Olympic's. Or the plainer clock could be from a different ship altogether. Does your book say anything about the reasons for a plainer clock in Olympic that might clarify the issue? Or give a hint about where they have sourced the photograph from? Books that I have read on the subject suggest that Olympic was the more luxuriously appointed of the two liners, so it is even more surprising to consider she had such a plain clock in comparison. Please don't think I'm being overly nitpicking, as your explanation does sound very plausible, but we have to follow Verifiability rather than truth in these instances, so we have to be very sure we can discount what these other sources are saying. If we can do that, we can correct the article. Otherwise a more ambiguous statement would be more satisfactory. Benea (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Your statement that the Olympic was the more luxurious of the two vessels shows you to be ill informed and poorly read. Note that the Titanic was the larger of the two ships and then read Harland and Wolff's reasons why and you will find it was in part caused by fitting more luxurious interiors and minor adaptions to comfort items which were never fitted to the Olympic. The whole Parisean Cafe was left out of the Olympic and only retrofitted after Titanic sank. The book I cited is included in the Library of Congress in two puiblishers names as ISBN0-947160-350 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum-6. You may care to refer to the National Geographic Society who make the same claims about the ship's appointment and the clock as I do and agree with me as does 'Shipwrecks of the 20th Century,1988, Bookman Publishing, Baltimore ISBN0-8317-7781-8'. You should also note the Steamship Historical Society / University of Baltimore Library agrees with me and so do the White Star publications of the day. Most students of this tragedy are aware that the Olympic was broken up in 1936 with the interior fitments being auctioned. The Grand Staircase from that ship can bee seen in 'The White Swan' hotel in Alnwick where you will also find light fittings, door handles and screens.
You are making a mockery of reasoned thought with your comment about caution on wording of entries by making unsubstantiable false and unresearched claims on this ship. I urge you to restore some credibility by either citing your sources or apologetically accepting that of more learned persons than yourself.
I have pointed out where these sources come from. The Library of Congress itself has labelled this very photograph as being aboard Olympic. You say that you find it incredible that they would make such a mistake, but that is exactly what you are implying, hence my desire to be sure that we can dismiss what they claim as false. But thank you for providing some more references, which national geographic publication is this? I might be able to check this myself. Please understand I will be very keen to correct a mistake in wikipedia, but I'm equally determined to do this right. On a more serious note, if you do plan to continue to contribute to wikipedia, you must read our basic policies, particularly about assume good faith and no personal attacks. You will find your editing privileges withdrawn very quickly if you fail to keep a cool head in discussions like these. Benea (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I also feel we are getting a little sidetracked. Returning to the issue at hand. The question of the staircases and clocks have been already heavily discussed and debated in intimate detail. Here is a massive debate over the ornate version of the clock, one of the contributors is Curator of 'Titanic - The Exhibition' apparently. Anyway, see how carefully they analyse the pictures and how the conclude that is Olympic's. Your 'Titanic anh Her Sisters Olympic & Brittanic' is mentioned, and it is agreed that pictures that they are billing as Titanic's staircase are actually Olympic's. Leo Marriot's 'Titanic' also identifies this picture of the staircase and ornate clock as being Olympic's. Here is English Heritage's version of the picture, attributing it to Olympic. But here's the fascinating thing, the clock still exists apparently, and is held by the Southampton Maritime Museum! So really there is considerable cause for saying it is Olympic's, this is certainly not an open and shut case. You seem to have one source, a source that is contradicted by a number of other sources, and one which seems to have fallen prey to what Marriot warns about in his book, that of, because there are far fewer pictures of Titanic, claiming that a picture of Olympic, or perhaps a different ship altogether, is actually Titanic. Benea (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Fortuneately, the Olympic clock is extant. I have written to the last published organisation in possession of it. I have sought a verbal description and a photograph if the condition of the clock permits. It is nearly 100 years old and flashlight photography may not be in the best interest of the object.
Saying the Library of Congress has a reference does not prove anything to be true. The Library is a reference library not a research library. Researchers may use the Library but the Library does not have researchers to verify the information that it holds. That duty falls to the Smithsonian Institution or a maritime museum that has specialised accredited researchers on the subject.
I have cited two books in that Library which say my information is correct and you have still not told us the name of nor publication details of the book you claim suggests your alternate is true. You must give us the name of the book, its publication details and its Library of Congress reference number so that we can puruse the reference ourselves and then take a educated position as to the veracity of the author. Even my citations are inadequate proof that the photograph is of the Titanic not the Olympic. That information together with the other items I have mentioned and a raft of other other learned opinion leads me to the conclusion that I am correct and the photograph is incorrectly labeled as Olympic. We have a responsibility to verify and correct known errata.
Wikipedia is attempting to create an accurate, well informed and researched encyclopedia. Your endeavours are to dumb the content down to suit personal bias. I agree that where information is challenged that a dumbed down version is better than a false one. What you are doing with this article is not dumbing down but supporting false information. The statement that the photograph is of the Olympic is wrong. Referenced evidence supports that position. You are proposing that an unreferenced claim should be taken as correct contrary to referenced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.135.92 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at the photograph you referred to and which claims to be of the Olympic and taken in 1921. I have never seen any other reference to that date associated with the photograph. It warrants further investigation.
I also accept that Dr Robert Ballard, whose research into the Titanic resulted in his discovery of the wreck in 1987, is accurate and researched his subject very extensively. In his book, 'Exploring the Titanic, 1988, Octopus Publishing Group Ltd, London, ISBN1-871307-00-7' on page 13 lncludes a photograph of the Grand Staircase on the Titanic. It is verifiable as being on the Titanic because it includes some of the passengers from the ill-fated journey. Unless we can find a passenger list of those same people being on board the Olympic simultaneously earlier than April 1912, then the veracity of Dr Ballard's assertion that his photograph is Titanic is good enough for me. He further ascribes a photograph on page 47 to Titanic. Taken in the Grand Staircase and showing the position of the clock on the bulkhead of the wreck, page 46, the outline of the clock and it is clearly shaped like the photograph on page 47. I believe that is sufficient evidence of the clock aboard the Titanic.
I have read the thread you offered. I propose now to see if the original clock was removed from the Olympic during its trooping days and was restored during the 1920 refit. That would place those workmen in the mystery photo into 1920, give a reason why the clock had no hands as it was being refitted. It also explains the clock attributed to Olympic by many as it could be the temporary fixture there during WW1. The issue of the dating of clothing would be more easily resolved as the Ballard photograph has both men and women in the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.135.92 (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am close to being done and restate my original claim that the photograph of the Grand Staircase in this article is a photograph of the Titanic not the Olympic.
The stair tread protection strips were brass on both the Titanic and Olympic until they were changed to rubber in the 1913 refit of the Olympic. A brass handrail was attached to the top of the level rails before June 1920. Your photograph that you refer to is the Bedford Lemere photograph of October 1921 and it has both those items in the photograph. The photograph in this article has neither.
Then the photograph in this article must be either the Titanic or Olympic prior to March 1913. I have always believed that the clock on Olympic in the ornate fashion was unable to be delivered on time for the Olympic's maiden voyage so a temporary clock was installed, (see photograph of temporary clock at bottom of page 153 in the 'Sisters, book). The final article was to be installed at a later date and may have been retrofitted in the 1913 refit, removed for trooping duties and refitted at the 1920 refit, or it was retrofitted in the 1920 refit. The 'Sisters' photograph of the Olympic was taken prior to 1913 as the Olympic has the brass tread protectors that were replaced with rubber ones in 1913. I believe this confirms that the ornate clock photographs with the brass tread protector are all Titanic photos and may not be as rare as most researchers believe. It doesn't matter whether the retrofit was either 1913 or 1920, it was after the rubber staircase tread protections were added in 1913. This leaves the only possible combination of brass tread protectors and an ornate clock, aboard the Titanic.
The only way I can be wrong is if the photograph was taken before March 1913 and the ornate clock had been installed aboard the Olympic. Then we would never be able to decide which ship this is a photograph of and the caption in this article is incorrect. There is no possible conclusion that the article is correct.
Saying the photograph is of Olympic is wrong. Saying it is on either the Olympic or Titanic is failure to research the last small detail. Saying it is probably a photograph of the Titanic Grand Staircase with further research required is the only acceptable conclusion. That research needs to be about the clock aboard the Olympic. We need its history which I hope to obtain from the Southampton Maritime Museum.
The article you referred to had the solution in their hands but missed the opportunity. The hands of the clock are missing on the so-called 'Mystery Photograph' that the evidence suggests was probably a retrofit in 1920 rather than in 1913. if our learned colleague is correct about male fashions of that period. That is completely out of my depth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.135.92 (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, one last piece of evidence and final proof that this is a photograph of Titanic.
At the head of the stairs on the port side of Titanic was a doorway leading to the First Class cabins. It was not originally put into Olympic and was retrofitted in 1913. The photograph in this article shows the door ajar. You can't see it very well in the photo as is but by taking the photo into Adobe Photoshop and lightening the shaddows, the frame of the door becomes apparent because of the heavier shadow line caused by the door being ajar. Also the alignment of the trim around the door is changed when the door is ajar.
Our picture now has three items that I claim were different, the stair tread protection was brass, the clock is the ornate version and the port side door leading from the landing to the Fist Class Cabins are all visible in this photo. Two of those items are chronicled as being fitted to Olympic after the sinking of Titanic, the tread protector and the door, ergo, the photograph in this article is of the Titanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug H Australia (talk • contribs) 09:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
To correct what might be an ambiguity. The three items, the brass tread protector, the door and the clock were only ever simultaneously on the Titanic. The rubber tread protector and the door were added simultaneously on Olympic at the 1913 refit. Logically, the photo can only be possible as a photo of the Titanic as this same combination never existed together on the Olympic. In fact, you can remove the clock entirely from the equation if you want to, the combination of the remaining two pieces of evidence never existed together on the Olympic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug H Australia (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I honestly haven't looked at the image or sources; but I do want to point out that what the sources say is what matters. Remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Evaluating any image on our own is not relevant as such analysis would be original research and not acceptable for article content per wikipedia policy. Please focus arguments on what is said in sources, not what your own evaluation of the images suggests. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. Information in Wikipedia says that the brass step tread was changed in 1913, ergo, any picture with brass tread is pre 1913. Information in Wikipedia says that the door was added to Olympic in 1913, therefore any photo with the door in it is Titanic or Olympic post 1913.
It is not new research to say that any photo with a brass step tread and a door leading to the First Class cabins from the landing of the forward Grand Staircase can only be Titanic. It is only merging the two Wikipedia statements that have been researched and verified by others and then placed into Wikipedia.
I am not a qualified researcher, but if I've got two proven parts of an apple, I'm not stupid enough to call it an orange. Likewise two previously verified items verified by others can only exist in a predetermined and irrefutable manner. These two Wikipedia pieces of evidence when conjoined mean the photograph is Titanic and can not be anything else. Calling the photograph Olympic does not make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug H Australia (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Making an analysis on our own, regardless of if the pieces that justify that analysis are stated on Wikipedia or not, is original research. We are restricted to what the sources state the image represents. If the sources say it's Titanic or Olympic is the only question that is relevant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sir, I am not analysing the facts to give a position. Dr Robert Ballard has said this photograph is a photograph of the Titanic. My position is that I merely sought to inform myself of which claim was likely to be correct. My position is that the correct reference is his and recommend that Wikipedia select his reference as the correct one for the reasons I have stated. You have multiple diverging references on this matter. Either way the references are supposedly verified. I choose Dr Ballard's because it makes logical sense and the other one doesn't.
My understanding of the policies and guidelines is that if there are multiple otherwise reliable sources that have different explanations or descriptions; but one view is held by the majority of those sources, then state the majority opinion. If both views are prevalent across the sources, then the best path is to state on the image caption that there's disagreement on the contents of the image, and to cite sources for each position. Or another simpler option is to leave out the disputed image if possible and allow other images to act as the illustration for the article - although that can frequently result in debate on if the image should be re-added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't take this as rudeness, but using a simple majority rule is what the arbiters of knowledge (the Popes) did in the middle ages and then executed the minority with an opposing opinion. By your rule we would still be saying the Sun revolved around the Earth. Dr Ballard was better than all others who tried to locate the Titanic because his research was more thorough before he went looking. He says it is Titanic and that is logically more than likely correct. I reaffirm my belief, the photograph is Titanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug H Australia (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to your belief, and you may even be correct - I'm not stating my opinion either way. But, we are bound by Wikipedia policies and guidelines on article content here. To do otherwise would mandate either going to the WP:V, WP:RS, and/or WP:OR talk pages and convincing the comunity to change those policies, or to go to a different website that doesn't use those policies so as to avoid those restrictions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We gotta stop this but you are stating an opinion. The article says it is Olympic without any qualification. That's an opinion right or wrong. Change it to a statement that shows Dr Ballard says otherwise and why that may be correct, or, remove the article altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug H Australia (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Barek. As I stated right at the start before this enormous debate began, there are sources which say Titanic, there are sources which say Olympic. You have been trying to prove to us that this is Titanic, but under WP:OR we can't accept your original research, under WP:V we can't accept what you claim to be the truth no matter how likely or unlikely we think it to be and under WP:POV we can't just accept that your point of view can take precedence here. A caption which states that it is one of the Olympic class's grand staircase is factually accurate. Follow this with a note which states where different sources identify this as Olympic, and others the Titanic and we have a neutral caption which acknowledges a dispute amongst the sources. What we cannot do is bring this dispute onto wikipedia and take the view of one of these sources over the others. And please don't accuse editors of dumbing down, of being biased or attempting to hide the 'truth'. the key thing to do is always assume good faith, not matter how heated the debate gets. These guidelines and policies have been established because of the collaborative nature of wikipedia and therefore must be upheld here as with anywhere else on the encyclopedia. Benea (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've altered the caption and indicated some sources that cover both sides of the debate. Is this acceptable to you? Please note that we cannot add an editorial comment about why one source may be right for the reasons outlined above. We have to let readers follow up the sources if they are partciularly interested and decide for themselves. Benea (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Until an independent research source confirms the photograph is or is not Titanic based on the additional information I have now collected at a single spot, (our 'discusion' even if somewhat warmed by a reasonable private conviction, now assembled on these pages), a label that the staircase is on one of the Olympic class liners is acceptable and ought to be to all. I, like anyoune else who chooses to, will seek to find a new reseacher who will state catagorically it is Titanic for the reasons I tied together. Then, expect me back.
I have received a response from Alastair Arnott, Curator of Local Collections at Southampton City Council. He tells me that the Southampton Maritime Library has never been in possession of the clock from the Olympic. They do have the panelling depicting Honour and Glory through Time, but never the clock.
This response advances neither position on the authenticity of the photograph and we must rely on the brass tread protector and the portside door to the First Class cabins.
Hi everyone, it's great to see detective work in solving photo disputes. Some accurate conclusion should come out of it. Did anyone ever think of just e-mailing Harland & Wolff about the clock in the grand staircase. Maybe if Harland & Wolff had labeled their photographs a bit more professionally there wouldn't be this problem of identifying pics. It is well known that Olympic photographs were used as standin for Titanic after the disaster. Even Olympic's 1911 newsreel arrival in New York with the tugboats' names scratched out was for many years said to be Titanic but only when you see the New Jersey shoreline across the river from Olympic's stern do you know which ship it is. Library of Congress is a great depository for pictures and they often receive pictures with captions already written on the photos. Many time these captions are incorrect and are in need of a double check. Olympic & Titanic were virtually identical meaning they had the same dimensions of the hull & superstructure. Certain amenities made Titanic heavier by only a few hundred tons. Some of these amenities on Titanic were shag wall-to-wall carpeting, heavy cherrywood furniture, the special parlor suites with enclosed promenade all combined to make Titanic standout from Olympic. Frank Prentice a surviving steward from the disaster who died in 1982 said Titanic's carpeting was so thick you could sink in it. So both ships had enough pros & cons to settle the individual travelers whims. The more sedate passenger might opt for Olympic because he/she didn't want too much sumptuousness. Or they might travel by one of the Cunard giants. Bigness & sumptuousness would only last until the next biggest ship comes along, in Titanic's case had she survived she would've been superseded in tonnage and grandeur by HAPAG's Imperator 52,000 tons with a Pompeiian style swimming pool and unfortunately an equilibrium problem. I've tended to stay away from interior Titanic/Olympic photos because it's hard to tell which ship is which. Unless they are absolutely notated by Harland & Wolff or White Star. In conclusion I can only guess that many of the interior shots are Harland & Wolff company shots and since Olympic was the first of her class the company documented Olympic with pictures with the idea that Titanic would be a virtual copy and no need to photograph. A number of genuine Titanic interior shots survive as a result of Father Francis Brown who left Titanic at Queenstown Ireland taking his camera and it's soon to be valuable documents with him. Perhaps others took onboard Titanic photos but their cameras went down with the ship ie Daniel Marvin's motion picture camera in which he filmed on board. Koplimek (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
These are I agree fascinating ships, and it is frustrating that these inconsistencies seem to occur. If only we had a time machine and a first class ticket (though I would, with the benefit of hindsight, take Olympic over Titanic!) But as to 'Some accurate conclusion should come out of it' can I please again stress basic wikipedia principles such as WP:OR. We can only go off what published sources say. If there is contradiction, we can make a more general statement that avoids taking either side. Detective work on here may be great fun but this isn't really what these talkpages are for, nor can our deductions be used in the article, no matter how likely we think them to be correct. Encyclopedia Titanica on the otherhand has forums dedicated to discussing Titanic issues, and I expect that these debates would be well received over there. Benea (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I would echo Benea's thoughts and strongly urge anyone interested in this issue to browse through the Encyclopedia Titanica forums. Many of the posters over there are not simply Titanic buffs; they are some of the foremost Titanic experts in the world, and some of them are respected published authors. I haven't been over there in months, but last I checked, the consensus was that all known existing photographs of the Grand Staircase are indeed from Olympic, regardless of what published books have printed up until now. At one point, I believe they even consulted wood fiber and photograph experts who confirmed through magnification and other means that authentic photos of the Olympic Grand Staircase taken circa 1912-1920 indeed exactly matched the wood fiber patterns of those shown in photos once alleged to be of the Titanic's Grand Staircase - meaning that the photographs indeed conclusively showed only the Olympic's Grand Staircase. I didn't believe it at first, either, but this was the consensus reached at that time. Either someone from here who really cares should go over and converse with them on the subject, or we should recruit one of them to come over here and clear up the matter. In all fairness and with all due respect to the efforts shown here, if you're going to find someone on the Net who has done the best and most comprehensive "detective work" on the subject, it's going to be in that forum ... not on this discussion page. Harry Yelreh (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The Titanic: Only first class now?
Frankly, I have a bit of a problem with the photographs. I think they're way too uneven. What I mean is you have photographs of almost the same thing: the Titanic passing through Belfast, departing Belfast, departing Southampton, docked in Southampton, sea trials, three of her getting built. The three getting built differ but to me, all the departing and docked ones look the same. And then there are eight pictures of first class parts; none of second or third. I don't know much about the copy right rules. I don't upload pictures of newer things in fear I'll do it wrong. I do know though that anything before 1923 is fair use, meaning we can take it from a website because there is no copyright over it.
There are so many pictures out there. Second and third class cabins, smoking, public and dining rooms, the barber shop, the pool, the last known photograph of the Titanic, the elevator, even a picture of the wireless room with someone in it. I've found two websites with different pictures, and I'm wondering which ones would work:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/keesree/palace.htm This has a picture of the wireless room but the rest of the pictures are small and grainy.
http://www.titanic-online.com/index.php4?page=167 That one, you need to click 'the ship' and then what level and where. But they're larger and better photos than the first link, except the one of the third class cabin is coloured so it's been doctored.
The ship wasn't just first class, so it's a bit discriminatory to have it ALL first class, in my opinion. And there are so many fair use pictures out there that there's no reason to keep it like this. I'll upload the pictures - I'll have to figure out how to first - but I just need to know which ones people want. Babylon pride (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, the 'image gallery' section should be reduced if you think that there are too many which are too alike, rather than being expanded. There are many more images in the commons section, so you could have a look to see if there are pictures there that you might want to bring in to illustrate a second/third class view, rather than uploading redundant images. But under the wikipedia is not a repository of images, we should be selecting images to illustrate a particular point discussed in the article, rather than just because it is a picture of Titanic. If you upload them to commons first, we can discuss whether to add to or replace ones in the existing gallery. Benea (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I do think some of these pictures need to be deleted. One or two pictures of the ship sailing is enough, and one cafe is enough. Same with the sitting or smoking room; they are about the same thing. I'll upload pictures later today or tomorrow and post them here; if wanted, I can use Photoshop to put them together, so like there can be a photograph of all cabins together of all classes, maybe all smoking rooms, etc. I don't really care and I don't like making all the decisions. I just hate seeing just first class and the ship. Babylon pride (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As a note (came here from the DYK link on the front page) I would mention that the pre-1923 copyright thing is for the United States (other countries have their own rules - which may or may not be the same) and the picture had to be first published (not just created) before 1923. --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Featured article?
A bot keeps adding FA and Jammy tells me it is correct. My understanding is that FA for this article was revoked and has not yet been restored. Who is correct? Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This article, i.e. Titanic on the English wikipedia is no longer a featured article its true. The bot was indicating that the Indonesian article on the Titanic, id:RMS Titanic is a featured article, which appears to be correct. Benea (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Very slight error
High there, in the section of the article it mentions references in pop-culture. It states the Titanic as having a brief appearance in 'Ghostbusters II' This is incorrect, it was actually the first Ghostbusters movie, however I cannot edit the article. CosmicEntity (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
CosmicEntity, I'm fairly sure you're wrong and the scene is in Ghostbusters II. The scene is when ghosts are appearing all over the city wreaking havoc, at which point the Titanic docks and starts unloading her specteral passengers. That this happens in Ghosbusters II is is on imdb and several other internet film forums, e.g. here and a clip of the scene is on youtube. It's also in our article on Ghostbusters II come to think of it. Benea (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my mistake. I got it confused with being in the first moviw because the scene where the animals on the woman's coat comes to life was scripted for the first movie and left for the second. CosmicEntity (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Length
I'd just like confirmation that the length o/a given in this article is correct. It is given as 882 ft 9 in - 3 inches shorter than the length of Olympic (according to the Olympic article) - 882 ft 6 in. I've found White Star Line documents that say that both Olympic and Titanic were 882 ft 6 in. I've also found sources that give the length of 882 ft 8 in. Which is correct? Fionnlaoch (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Why has this been removed?
The article originally stated the majority of deaths were caused by hypothermia in the freezing water. Why has this been removed? I think it's goes without saying that it's highly important to state that about 1000 people died of hypothermia in -2 degrees water. Afterall, the biggest impact of the sinking was the deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicEntity (talk • contribs) 01:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The superlative Titanic site
Can someone remove the advertisement link to titanic-model.com, or if it is relevant at least clear the language. The user that added the link has been doing the same in other pages as well, see User talk:Swwinte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.199.149 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"At the time of her launching in 1912, she was the largest passenger steamship in the world."
Ships do not have genders. It should be changed to "At the time of the ship's launching in 1912, it was the largest passenger steamship in the world."--69.152.203.127 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
See above for a discussion on the different time zones and measures used. 2:20 AM was the ship's time, i.e. the position in the Atlantic that the Titanic had reached up to that point, but the relationship between this and GMT/NY time are still controversial. See here for a more detailed investigation of the differing time periods. Benea (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I'm surprised that there wasn't a note already, a lot of sources just give a time without a qualifier. I'll add one now. Benea (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The only land based time I can find (as basing time of other maritime vessels would probably be problematic as they all set thier own time) is Cape Race. In "The Titanic Disaster Hearings" by Tom Kuntz on page 113 he has the pertinant notes on it. Though I am a bit confused by the wording on it to try and figure out the time that Titanic hit the iceburg (and subsiquent events) by Eastern (or just a fixed) time zone. Here is the passage:
Titanic. Received from Associated Press from Cape Race 3:05 A.M. Monday April 15. 10:25 P.M. E. S. T., Titanic called C. Q. D.; reported having struck iceburg and required immediate assistance. Half an hour afterwards, reported that they were sinking by the head. Women were being put off in boats and weather calm and clear. Gave position as 41.46 north, 50.14 west. Stop this station. Notified Allan liner Virginian, who immediately advised he was proceeding towards scene of disaster. Stop. Virginian at midnight stated was about 170 miles distant from Titanic and expected reach there about 10 A.M. Olympic, at 4:24 A.M G. M. T. in latitude 40.32 north, longitude 61.18 west, was in direct communication with Titanic and is now making all haste towards her. Baltic, at 1:15 A.M. E. S. T. reported himself as about 200 miles east of Titanic, and was also making toward her. Last signals from Titanic was heard by Virginian at 12:25A.M. E. S. T. He reported them blurred and ending abruptly.
How many members does the Titanic's band have
According to the article, Titanic's band has 8 members. Nonetheless, I see just 7 people depicted in the image named Titanic's ochestra on Commons. Any explantion reasonable?.Tran Quoc123 (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually two bands on the Titanic. Wallace Hartleys Quintet (Five piece) and a trio of Violin, Cello and Piano, making eight musicians in total. [[1]] Not seen the picture you refer to, but I guess it is simply that one is missing.WhaleyTim (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Presumably it was just easier to arrange the photographs in that oval design if there were seven rather than eight depicted. Woe to Roger Bricoux! Here is another design, this time with all eight featured. Benea (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Very possibly. Not sure of the origin of this photograph, but in the aftermath of the sinking many newspapers and magazines rushed to print articles that were incompletely researched, incorrect or just made up by the journalists, which gave rise to many of the persistent myths we have today.WhaleyTim (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit has substituted 4030 m for the original 3800 m. The original figure of 12,400 ft (3800 m) is from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,[2], who found the ship and made the original video survey. I don't think the Woods Hole figure should be discarded without some discussion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A quick look through googlebooks reveals a range of depths, which I suspect has something to do with the actual figure awkwardly being between two and two and a half miles deep, and attempts to round off the figures nicely, and their conversions giving this varied range. The most precise figure I can find is in 'The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage', which gives a depth of 12,460 ft (3,798 m). Benea (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The explanation from User:Benea seems a very plausible. I would be very happy to run with 12,460 ft and treat the Earth Sciences Demystified diagram as an aberration, possibly resulting from rolled-up "rounding errors" as suggested. It corresponds well with Ballard's "12,500 ft of cable" in his own book [3] page 150. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
since i'm too lazy to do it; someone should nominate this article for a Good article; it would pass with flying colors; i see it used to be a featured article. - -[The Spooky One] | [tcr]05:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no it wouldn't. There are a few {{cn}} tags and sections lacking in-line citations. The best outcome from a GAN would be on-hold, and then you'd only have 7 days to fix the problems identified. -MBK00406:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please learn English
Moon = The name of Earth's only natural satellite. This is a noun with a capital 'M'.
moon = Any natural satellite orbiting any planet.
Thanks, and well done, but please bear in mind mistakes are common and unintentional. Saying 'please learn English' for a minor grammatical error like this comes across as a little incivil and over the top. Benea (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Unsinkable
Contrary to the article, according to Myths of the Titanic by Richard Howells the Titanic was not popularly believed to be "unsinkable" until after she sank. Also there is no unqualified description of her as unsinkable -- either in the White Star Line publicity or trade journals or popular press -- until after the disaster, whereupon the claim was endlessly recycled; the first such unqualified utterance being by the vice-president of the White Star Line upon hearing of the sinking when he says he always thought that she was unsinkable.--Michael C. Pricetalk13:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Titanic. 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.
