Talk:Passengers of the Titanic/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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.
This article has serious problems that need to be addressed if the GA rating is to be kept.
- First and foremost, the article is quarried extensively from encyclopedia-titanica.org. This is a user-generated site and is not a reliable source. It needs to be expunged and replaced with quality sources.
- Ditto for websites like webtitanic.net (which is dead), taxguru.org, this page, this page, etc. This should not be construed as a complete list of problematic sources. There are many more.
- I've gone through and added citation tags for material that has no source altogether.
- Significant copyright problems with the images - being taken before 1923 is not the same as being published before 1923. There are no dates of publication or sources for almost all of the photos in the article, only vague assertions that they were published in contemporary newspapers. We need sources and dates, or the images need to be removed.
It's not really worth going through and looking at the prose until the serious sourcing issues are resolved (if they can be - the topic is probably too arcane for actual reliable sources to cover the details in such depth, and is probably indicative that the article ought to be deleted outright, but that's a discussion for another day). Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- It might be good for everyone to know that the Administrator Parsecboy is locked in a protracted, longwinded (my fault, sorry) debate over whether WP:NOTMEMORIAL forbids listing any names of non-notable casualties. It's over at Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision#WP:NOTMEMORIAL edit. Yesterday this GA was cited as one of several FAs, FLs and GAs that include the names of people who didn't play a prominent role the event, other than as as bystanders, victims, or casualties, as examples of the global consensus is that the NOTMEMORIAL policy doesn't limit content this way, much like notability requirements are about article topic notability, not the limiting content within notable topics.
I'm more than happy to see the community scrutinize Passengers of the RMS Titanic and help reaffirm or clarify the global consensus (if any) about how the NOTMEMORIAL as written is applied. I don't understand why Parsecboy isn't arguing that this article should be delisted for violating the NOTMEMORIAL policy -- he's very emphatic that the policy forbids listing the names of seven hapless sailors killed in a Navy collision; it would seem obvious that 1300+ hapless passengers whose names are not blue linked would also violate policy. It isn't even worth looking at the sourcing issues above if there are over a thousand obvious policy violations right up front.
Please do review this article, but be aware of the issues swirling around it and the possible ulterior motives that may be afoot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Parsecboy doesn't wish my comments to be seen here, calling it "trolling" and "off topic". An editor's prior involvement when decision is being discussed is of course relevant. There is at least the appearance of WP:POINTy ulterior motives. Anybody discussing this article with Parsecboy has a need to be aware that he has other, tangential goals that may be served by getting this article delisted. I welcome a broader discussion and reevaluation of this article, but everyone's cards need to be on the table. At AfDs, it's routine to add notes to !votes by the article creator or an editor with a known COI.
If a neutral, uninvolved editor dislikes how I worded it, please replace my note with a neutrally-worded notice letting everyone know what's up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Both of you knock off the bullshit, we've enough problems with anons and trolls on this site as is, we (as in the community as a whole) don't need this here. @Dennis Bratland: you're assuming bad faith. Just because you had one bad run in on this page doesn't mean everyone out to get you, so keep an open mind and work on the sources. Surely there must be more than one place to find a few thousand names no one's ever heard of and only a few people really care about for a ship as famous as this one, so locating additional sources can't be that hard, can it? And @Parsecboy: you could look through the prose as well just to avoid having to make a +1 pass later to find things you could have found and reported on in the first place that may (or will) keep that article from getting to GA-Class. A little cooperation here and we'll get through this slowly and with with great distrust as opposed to ending it early because it was judged to be a battlefield for disagreeing editors. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Tom, you're way off base here. The dispute between Dennis and I started on another page - he came here merely to WP:HOUND and cast WP:ASPERSIONs.
- There's no point in going over prose when much of the material will likely need to be culled due to insufficient sourcing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. That said, I was a neutral editor and I called it as I saw it. Honestly, I'm waiting for the afd nomination because I see no real point to having this here, but its phun to watch people struggle so valiantly for what is ultimately a lost cause. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really care whether the article is deleted or not - there probably is an encyclopedic way to write it - but the current article isn't it. My purpose in coming here is either making sure the article meets the GA criteria or is delisted. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. That said, I was a neutral editor and I called it as I saw it. Honestly, I'm waiting for the afd nomination because I see no real point to having this here, but its phun to watch people struggle so valiantly for what is ultimately a lost cause. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Both of you knock off the bullshit, we've enough problems with anons and trolls on this site as is, we (as in the community as a whole) don't need this here. @Dennis Bratland: you're assuming bad faith. Just because you had one bad run in on this page doesn't mean everyone out to get you, so keep an open mind and work on the sources. Surely there must be more than one place to find a few thousand names no one's ever heard of and only a few people really care about for a ship as famous as this one, so locating additional sources can't be that hard, can it? And @Parsecboy: you could look through the prose as well just to avoid having to make a +1 pass later to find things you could have found and reported on in the first place that may (or will) keep that article from getting to GA-Class. A little cooperation here and we'll get through this slowly and with with great distrust as opposed to ending it early because it was judged to be a battlefield for disagreeing editors. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Parsecboy doesn't wish my comments to be seen here, calling it "trolling" and "off topic". An editor's prior involvement when decision is being discussed is of course relevant. There is at least the appearance of WP:POINTy ulterior motives. Anybody discussing this article with Parsecboy has a need to be aware that he has other, tangential goals that may be served by getting this article delisted. I welcome a broader discussion and reevaluation of this article, but everyone's cards need to be on the table. At AfDs, it's routine to add notes to !votes by the article creator or an editor with a known COI.
- Titanic Names: A Complete List of the Passengers and Crew OCLC 767566700 (2011) should be helpful if someone can get hold of it. It's in some Portland, Oregon area public libraries. Other dependable lists online exist such as Library of Virginia, ancestry.com (paywall) via the UK National Archives, and so on. There's even a Reuters story (2007) about the list being online. Bri.public (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- The book was published by a Rocklin Press, which appears to be defunct, since their website is dead - not likely to indicate that Rocklin Press was anything but a vanity press that is no longer in business. Ancestry.com is not an RS either. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ancestry.com is republishing the UK National Archives records (BT 334/52 for passengers and BT 334/53 for crew). These are also available online from commercial reseller BACM Research for about US$8.00 and another one linked from the UK Archives site for a fee. This is for a complete microfilm scan -- searching UK Archives for a specific name is free, which could be done manually to verify the current list, but admittedly laborious. I just pointed out ancestry.com because a volunteer may have already signed up for access. Bri.public (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- The book was published by a Rocklin Press, which appears to be defunct, since their website is dead - not likely to indicate that Rocklin Press was anything but a vanity press that is no longer in business. Ancestry.com is not an RS either. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why do we even have a list like that? How about a list of passengers drowned on board RMS Empress of Ireland? Crook1 (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- A good question indeed, and I don't disagree with you, but this isn't really the place for it. This article may well end up at WP:AFD (and you're free to take it there if you choose). Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Crook1: we have list like this because people dare to presume that their information will be accepted as encyclopedic. On more than one occasion its come as a shock when the community turns on the information claiming its bullsh*t and must be deleted. And I say this not to be mean, or cruel, but as a statement of fact from one editor who repeatedly learned that lesson the hard way. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Because many of the passengers, both survivors and victims, have become well-known and infamous in the years since the disaster. There are probably more well-known names among third class passengers on Titanic than all of the EoI passengers, independently notable or otherwise. The death of the last living Titanic survivor was noted in major newspapers worldwide. Can the same be said for the last living survivor of the Empress of Ireland? The notability of many survivors and victims may come from the sinking itself, but there are many others who were quite notable independent of the disaster too. Piratesswoop (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- A good question indeed, and I don't disagree with you, but this isn't really the place for it. This article may well end up at WP:AFD (and you're free to take it there if you choose). Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It's been almost two weeks now - is anybody working on this article? Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- It seems there is no interest in working on the problems I've identified, so I'll be delisting the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)