Talk:Sinking of the Titanic/Archive 6

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

completely inaccurate account of Smith's actions

Either this article or Edward Smith (sea captain) gives a completely inaccurate account of Smith's reaction to the crisis. That article claims he was effective and even heroic whereas this one claims the following:

Captain Smith was an experienced seaman who had served for 40 years at sea, including 27 years in command. This was the first crisis of his career, and he would have known that even if all the boats were fully occupied, more than a thousand people would remain on the ship as she went down with little or no chance of survival.[1] As Smith began to grasp the enormity of what was about to happen, he appears to have become paralysed by indecision. He had ordered passengers and crew to muster, but from that point onward, he failed to order his officers to put the passengers into the lifeboats; he did not adequately organise the crew; he failed to convey crucial information to his officers and crew; he sometimes gave ambiguous or impractical orders and he never gave the command to abandon ship. Even some of his bridge officers were unaware for some time after the collision that the ship was sinking; Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall did not find out until 01:15, barely an hour before the ship went down,[2] while Quartermaster George Rowe was so unaware of the emergency that after the evacuation had started, he phoned the bridge from his watch station to ask why he had just seen a lifeboat go past.[3] Smith did not inform his officers that the ship did not have enough lifeboats to save everyone. He did not supervise the loading of the lifeboats and seemingly made no effort to find out if his orders were being followed.[2][4]

--Espoo (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is a featured article. The other one is protected because it has so frequently been the target of vandalism and long-term abuse. The lifeboats could take 1,178 people but only 710 got in them, 400 people died needlessly. Indeed, the last boat, designed for 65, took 74 to safety, so it would have been possible, given the calm seas, to take more than 1,178. As captain he was responsible for ensuring that each boat was fully loaded. But he did not. I therefore think that it is this article that is the better and truer. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ballard 1987, p. 22.
  2. ^ a b Butler 1998, pp. 250–52.
  3. ^ Bartlett 2011, p. 106.
  4. ^ Cox 1999, pp. 50–52.

Image

Treemap of passengers and crew by class, men, women or children, and whether saved or lost

Since I was looking at some of this data I went and made up a treemap of the passenger and crew breakdown. There's an svg file File:Titanic casualties.svg over at the passengers article, but it's mostly wasted whitespace, and it requires some keys and explanation to identify what all the marks are. I think about 1/8 of the space is the empty area telling you there were no child crew members. I think this treemap gives an intuitive feel for the numbers and ratios of men, women, children, first, second and third class, and crew, and how many were saved or lost. I found one data error and fixed it, but now I think it's all correct.

I think it should go below the crosstab in the Casualties and survivors section. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

The site of the disaster is wrong. Titanic sank at the coordinates 41° 43 57 N, 49° 56 49 W

—70.49.190.24 (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Amended to match [1]. DrKay (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Name

Common, and equally correct, use is to refer to the ship as the Titanic, not Titanic. The definite article should be used throughout, which it currently is not. RMS Titanic or The Titanic, not both. I suggest a title name change. Do we all agree? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Stupidity and Tempting-fate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think some of the contribution to the mortalities could be attributed to stupidity and fate-temptation, given that some of the crew didn't know some of the emergency-procedures, some of the passengers not taking the emergency seriously, and that all assumed other ships would always be close by or always arrive sooner than expected just because it was a busy route pretty much qualifies as such (in my opinion at least).184.186.4.209 (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages aren't really a forum for discussing opinions like that. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK. If you got this from a reliable source, that might be relevant to improving the article, but otherwise we don't discuss it here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Binoculars?

Why no mention of the binoculars, and the missing key? David Blair covers this, but not this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The binoculars are mentioned: "Because of a mix-up at Southampton the lookouts had no binoculars; but reportedly binoculars would not have been effective in darkness which was total except for starlight and the ship's own lights." DrKay (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Smith's actions

This article seems to be in support of the suggestion that Captain Smith was in a 'daze' and ineffective in the face of disaster - which has often been repeated in books. Instead of supporting such claims, more closer look at the eyewitness accounts, show that he did his best under the terrible circumstances and did give orders, right until the very end, with no signs that he had suffered any kind of breakdown. One example of a source we can use is from “On a Sea of Glass: The Life and Loss of the RMS Titanic”, so all credit to the authors of that book - Tad Fitch, J. Kent Layton, and Bill Wormstedt - for their research efforts. (You can find more about the details and accounts of Smith's action, in ‘On a Sea of Glass’.) I think we keep Butler's and Cox's sources as outdated sources, especially as Butler has been considered as an unreliable source today (you have to look at the controversy surrounding him to know that. One of Butler's sources says here that Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall did not find out the ship would sink until 01:15; Boxhall testified at the British inquiry that he had a conversation with Captain Smith at about 12:25 in which he said Smith had told him Andrews told him the ship would last an hour and a half.2.97.27.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrews and the painting

In Bullock's book, he mentioned that Andrews was standing in a state of shock in the first class smoking room, but didn't mention the painting and wrote "what did he see" and "whatever he saw". Walter Lord mentioned the painting in his book, and that probably derived into later movies. It seems that the 'extra' detail about the painting was just an imaginative addition to Stewart's account that was tacked onto it by Lord who felt a need to 'pin down' the exact cause of Andrew's "stood like one stunned". 2.97.27.181 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected

I've semi-protected the article. The amount of disruptive editing over the last month or so is excessive for this article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Titanic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright.

@DrKay: Cut the shit. I tried being cordial by bringing it to a talk page, you spat in my face. You're undoing sourced edits for being unsourced. I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first but I've verified, personally, the sources contain the information added to the article — and are cited and used other places on the article. Your reasoning is completely devoid of logic. Explain. 74.90.120.40 (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You were not cordial. You made false claims that were factually wrong and used a curse word. I'm not the one doing the spitting. DrKay (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
My claims were not false. You not only completely switched reasonings as to why you were reverting the sourced additions, you removed discourse from a talk page and blocked me from editing for a quashed pretext without explanation. At no point was there a single false claim that was factually wrong. Also, as for the new claim of using "a curse word" please point out the curse word in this, the exact text of my message with nothing edited:
"So, let me get this straight. You revert an edit made on Sinking of the Titanic for being unsourced, I point out they are sourced, and revert. Suddenly you change your reasoning and make up a rule that says featured articles can't be modified, and then out of nowhere you block me from editing? Hell, you even violated 3RR? Can you explain your reasoning at all? 74.90.120.40 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)"
74.90.120.40 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hell is a curse word. You said I "change[d] my reasoning". I did not. You said I "ma[d]e up a rule that says featured articles can't be modified". I did not nor would I ever do so. You said I "violated 3RR". I did not. These claims are factually wrong, and repeating them does not make them any less false. DrKay (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@DrKay: Took a day or two to 'breathe', as it were, I can see you are right on most of these points, and that my arguments mostly derive from an apparent lack of reading comprehension on my part. I apologize for the stress, that's all on me. 74.90.120.40 (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Per cent

Please note that per cent is the correct British English spelling of the word. Percent is an American spelling which while occasionally used in en-GB isn't that common and per cent is preferred. So for this article the per cent spelling is the preferred form of spelling. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No, there's no such thing as the 'correct' form. Either form is correct and so either can be used. As 'percent' is the standard worldwide form (including in Britain), it is generally preferable. However, since the spaced form is the form originally used in the version of the article that was promoted to featured status and is acceptable in any case, the change is trivial. The edits of long-term abusers, who think all Americans are retards,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] are traditionally reverted. DrKay (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Not denying a LTA account, however per cent is the recommended OED form for British English. Canterbury Tail talk 15:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong central description

All I want to say is the central description is wrong because it says the disaster was on the night of 15 April through to 16 April, it was actually from the 14th to 15 April. Someone should change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:C97E:6521:A8FB:ED1D (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it has been changed, if by central you mean the Wikidata desc. GeraldWL 10:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

1992 Reappraisal

Friendly greetings DrKay, I’m hoping you’re just going to tell me I’ve made a silly mistake and the MAIB report into the behaviour of the Californian is fully referenced. The 5 lines I added which Martinevans123 kindly corrected was the absolute minimum a new public inquiry by the country where Titanic was registered deserved. My own professional background includes Royal Navy aviation so I knew RN ships always keep GMT but the report explained that it was then common for merchant ships to use local time. The 1992 report is very critical of Captain Lord but suggests some uncertainty about the purpose of the rockets, combined with cold & real tiredness at the end of the watch led to the decision. I just want the best possible article, please reconsider.

Regards JRPG (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your opening comment does not match against my edit summary[11], and therefore does not address the objections of primary source inline and repetition. DrKay (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Greetings again DrKay, I appreciate there are significant events taking place in the US ATM so I intend to leave any talk page response for at least a week. FWIW I'm much more familiar with the 1994 MV Estonia sinking which triggered significant changes to SOLAS and identified the ineffectiveness of lifeboats. Unfortunately it appears that this report achieved very little. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced caption

The caption of the first figure in Sinking_of_the_Titanic#Grief_and_outrage reads "According to an eyewitness report, there "were many pathetic scenes"..." but is unsourced. The description of the image doesn't mention that. Is there a source for the caption, or is it WP:OR? --Happyseeu (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

pls leet me edit 83.99.146.69 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The edit request template is for requesting specific edits in a 'please change X to Y' format not to request edit access. DrKay (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Does this need protecting again? The amount of random IP vandalism and disruption is bizarrely high on this article. Canterbury Tail talk 17:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. Rosejoyleader (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

20kts into an ice field?

What were they thinking going that fast. My understanding is that that was brought up later. Deserves mention in the lede.

The cargo ship California was near by and had stopped for the night rather than risk it. It was critized for not helping the Titanic. Also deserves mention. Tuntable (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Time offset

I get that there would be a 3-hour difference between GMT and the local time where the sinking occurred, but why the 2-minute offset? ManlyMatt (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s explained in the note below it in the infobox. Basically ships time was incorrect. Canterbury Tail talk 18:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't incorrect, although it had not yet been adjusted for the following day. Before 1920 ship's time was derived from the ship's projected position at solar noon the next day. Time zones were not used. So the offset could be anything, and was not usually a multiple of 60 minutes different from Greenwich. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

You can add a new file with a map of the Titanic's route. The map is in Russian, but is more complete and accurate than the current one

Route diagram of the Titanic April 10-15, 1912

Michael Lex (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: A Russian map isn't helpful to English readers – if you're able to provide a translated version I'd be happy to add it, though. Tollens (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: RMS, Royal_Mail_Ship

Please link RMS (in the lead sentence) to Royal_Mail_Ship 124.187.219.128 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Moons of Io (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

I could request to edit some more people aboard the RMS Titanic when it sank on its doomed maiden voyage in 1912. 71.178.35.120 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinking_of_the_Titanic/Archive_6&oldid=1221503690"