Jump to content

Talk:Passengers of the Titanic/Archive 1

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

Progress

  • First class passengers
  • Second class passengers
  • Third class passengers

Morhange 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You are doing a nice work. I am also interested to be a part of this work. Could you please tell me who are you collecting these information so that I can also help you regarding this issue? -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Names in bold

Why are there some middle names in bold? Eje211 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are the names that the person or people were generally known by. For example, the two Allison children were always referred to by their middle names, Lorraine and Trevor, and Edvin Rojj Felix Asplund was known as Felix, etc. As opposed to people to were known by nicknames, like Margaret "Molly" Brown, where the nicknames are in quotes, and those who travelled under an alias, who are put in paranthesis. Morhange 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Um...

Is it even possible for this list to be fully completed? Novody has the exact list of all the 2500+ passenegrs. Codelyoko193 Talk 20:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia-Titanica.org has the most complete and up-to-date list avaliable. I haven't had much time to work on this, which is why it's still unfinished, but afaik, ET's list is complete as well as the most accurate, having been researched by some of the best Titanic historians out there. Morhange 21:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I got my answer that I asked you just one min back. Very soon, you'll find me beside you preparing this list. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing people

Why are so many passengers missing in this list? I can't see Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin Howard, Mrs. Mary Mack, Mrs. Imanita Shelley, Mr. and Mrs. W. J. R. Turpin and many others on this manifest. Someone should complete it. If it's not complete, It's just bulls**t, isn't it?. By the way many names are written incorrectly. OfficeBoy (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it and the crew article. It's hard when there's just one person usually doing all the work, but I'm getting there. All the first class passengers, and all second and third class families with children are finished. Morhange (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr William Thomas Stead, journalist and linked to Unlucky Mummy (British Museum E22542) story died on the Titanic according to your article on him but he is not listed in your list of passengers. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomas_Stead
Imeldaosuzara (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello, I have been editing several survivors' biographies on Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Titanica, and would be glad to assist your work in any way!

I noted that Harry Sadowitz is missing from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.91.138 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking

I noticed how over-linked this article is. Per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, each target should really only be linked once. --John (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

About F-list failure

It is really sad that this list failed to qualify on F-list. One of the main reasons is its incomplete look and also lazy effort. I am currently working on another list that I have nominated for F-list two days back and now I am feeling the real heat. These days, I am spending 10-14 hours on Wikipedia to make necessary corrections as per reviewers suggestions. It is quite natural. To pass a list on F-list, active editors have to contribute massively at least during the review period. Anyway, as I promised to work on this list (also opened an account on Titanic encyclopaedia), I will get back soon and contribute my 100% effort to pass it as a Featured List. Cheers! -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel bad for being lazy but as a college sophomore, my schedule is SO busy, I don't have much time to do much aside from minor corrections. However, over spring break, I did finish the second class list. I've been primarily working on this on my own, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Morhange (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thesexygerman changes

New user Thesexygerman (talk · contribs) has made two sets of changes: 1 and 2. It seems likely that he is giving us reliable first-hand information; so now we need to find some reliable sources to bad it up. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Encyclopedia Titanica, generally a reliable source of information for survivors and victims, gives Edith's birthdate as 1875, making her 36. ET also notes that Ida Hippach is the daughter of Edward Fischer and Julia Boehm, which would make her maiden name Fischer, not McGrath, nor does it give additional names for Ida or list Jean's name as Gertrudia. Judith Geller's book gives the same information (Edith Corse Evans aged 36, not Edith Martha Corse Evans, aged 26) and Ida Sophia, née Fischer. I cannot find any sources for what Thesexygerman (talk · contribs) has added, so unless they can be provided, I'm reverting. Morhange (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide some direct links to the pages being used as references? John Vandenberg (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If you mean references for this page, I'm primarily using information from Encyclopedia Titanica and Judith Geller's book, Women and Children First which is avaliable through Google Books, although some parts of the passenger list on there are omitted (I own a copy of the actual book though) Morhange (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

I just got an email, reproduced below without personal information etc., regarding an issue with this article:

it says that 'williams, mr leslie' was in 1st class but travelled with a mr bowen from treherbet
mr bowen is listed in 3rd class

i've searched web for related articles & most say mr williams paid same price as mr bowen for his ticket & mr williams was also in 3rd class.

Posting here because I'm not very knowledgeable in the subject, hopefully someone who is can look at this issue. Regards, Daniel (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Columns for survived and sex

I'm interested in using these 3 lists as an example dataset for a wikibook. It would be helpful to have columns for sex and whether the person survived or not. Having these 2 extra columns might also be useful for people reading wikipedia and wanting to sort by sex or survival status. Would there be any objections to me adding these two columns to all 3 lists? HYanWong (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary to create a lot of extra columns for gender. Everyone is already identified by gender; if their name isn't a giveaway, they have Mr/Mrs/Miss/Master, and the blue highlights to survived and who didn't :)And I really need to get back to work on this article, do some cleanup and finish it. After exams are over :) Morhange (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
OK - I guess the only thing is that you can't sort by sex or survival at the moment. But if the consensus is for the fewest columns strictly necessary, then I won't bother to add and fill the columns. HYanWong (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Willy_Stöwer

This Person, is mentioned to be a survivor on his wiki page, but his name isn't anywhere. Can there be a confirmation on this? Willy_Stöwer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saariko (talk • contribs) 08:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

3rd class passenger like Anne Mariel Peters

I just searched on enyclopedia titanica and there's no Anne Mariel Peters listed on the 3rd class passengers list. Instead there is a 3rd class passenger named Katie Peters who boarded at Queenstown as 3rd class passenger. Maybe Anne Mariel Peters is a first or second class passenger or one of the cross-channel passengers. (User:Japee) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.90.181 (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Antoinette Flegenheim(er)

Have a look at www.schmidt-grillmeier.de/Flegenheimer.htm --92.206.24.23 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Where's Passenger #227

I've read many articles about body #227 which would be Joseph Dawson born Sept. of 1888. Of all the people in the list figured that he should be on there. Was surprised that he wasn't since his grave is the most visited. Don't know what class he was in though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.228.157 (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

He was a member of the crew. See List of crew members on board RMS Titanic. Valfontis (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

passengers stuck below decks

"Ship's regulations were designed to keep third class passengers confined to their section of the ship. The Titanic was fitted with grilles to prevent the classes from mingling and these gates were normally kept closed, although the stewards could open them in the event of an emergency. In the rush following the collision, the stewards, occupied with waking up sleeping passengers and leading groups of women and children to the boat deck, did not have time to open all the gates, leaving many of the confused third class passengers stuck below decks.[21]"

I removed this part, but it was reverted because it is sourced. The source in question is a 2009 book. Has anyone access to it, so we can see which sources the book itself cites? If it cites none, it can hardly be considered a reliable source on the matter.

Reliable sources on this would be testimonies on one of the two inquiries, statement or interview by one of the survivors, wreck footage which shows closed gates in passenger areas or deckplans which show gates that could trap passengers. As far as I know, there are none of these to support the quoted claim. What is true:
-There are gates filmed on the wreck. But gates around cargo areas or around cargo hatches do not count of course.
-There are gates on the stairs in the well deck. But these is not below decks and these were eventually opened (testimony by 3rd class passenger Mr Abelseth at the US inquiry)
These were the only physical barriers preventing 3rd class passengers getting to the boat deck (testimony of Mr Wilding at the British inquiry)
-There were doors, not grilles as in the 1997 film, separating 3rd class areas from 2nd and 1st class areas. That these were not the bostwick type of gate can be seen in the photograph of the 2nd class pursers office. Doors to be used by stewards etc. Again according to the testimony Mr Wilding these were normally unlocked during the voyage. And there exist several testimonies of firemen or greasers who passed through these doors without any problem. The testimony of Mr Wilding is very detailed about the escape routes for all sections of the ship.

There may have been stewards instructing passengers to stay where they were, given probably very few people knew the ship was actually sinking. But this is something completely different than implied by the current text. Or someone knows a more reliable source to support the current text, or the text is rewritten, or is removed. Any suggestions?ZVdP (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

People who didn't board

Is there any record of names of people who bought tickets but didn't board the ship? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Guernsey and Jersey Residents

I note that entries for Guernsey and Jersey residents are listed as "England", this is incorrect as neither island is part of the United Kingdom. Therefore "England" should be deleted, unless anyone has a valid reason for leaving it in?? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

name of the passenger from Madrid

The name of the 1st class passenger from Madrid is wrong. Women in Spain do not change their names when they marry and they have never done so. Therefore, she was M. Josefa Perez de Soto y Vallejo, and not Penasco Castellana. This is a common error of wikipedia when writing about names of married women from Spain. A similar error was made with the biography of Letizia Ortiz, which was later corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.151.87 (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Main Page appearance on 15 April

Please note that I have nominated Sinking of the RMS Titanic to appear on the Main Page next month on 15 April. In conjunction with that, it is proposed that this article will also be linked from the Main Page on the same day. Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#April 15 for details. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Will be going through this article sometime this week to make sure everything is accurate. I've noticed a lot of vandalism, so it would be nice to get a lock request on this after I do, people seem really intent on adding themselves/random names here. Morhange (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Mountjoy, Major Samuel Snowe

He is listed (1st Class) as not surviving, yet is listed as being on lifeboat 'B'. I assume his fate was similar to one other entry (Beattie, Mr. Thomson, which is footnoted), however there is not a similar footnote for Mountjoy, Major Samuel Snowe.
Btw, this is an amazing list -- I can only imagine the amount of work involved; great job! ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eric, there was no passenger on board named Samuel Snowe. I've deleted the entry but thank you for bringing this up! Morhange (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Page views on the centenary day

This article was one of eleven Titanic-related articles linked from the Featured Article box on Wikipedia's Main Page on 15 April 2012, the centenary of the Titanic disaster. I thought editors here might be interested to know the level of usage the articles got on that day:

Well done to everyone who contributed to making Wikipedia's commemoration of the Titanic such a big success! Prioryman (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ottowa or Ottawa?

Original issue

I went to correct the spelling and found this in the edit box:

*OT – SS ''Ottowa'' <!-- Do not change this to Ottawa; spelling is correct, re [http://www.webbitt.com/volga/st-albans-H100-H161.txt] --> (body 335)

It seems the SS Ottawa did not have that name on April 15, 1912. Was there really a ship called Ottowa or another one called Ottawa? I can't find the former in google.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing isn't it? There definitely was an SS Ottawa, as you've found, but it apparently changed its name in 1910. There are however plenty of Google references to an SS Ottawa picking up bodies of Titanic victims. So which ship is this second Ottawa? Prioryman (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Details from these documents, and discrepencies quoted from SS Ottawa naming dates.

  • port of entry, ship, date of crossing
  • Quebec, QC, SS Ottowa, October 27, 1905
  • Quebec, QC, SS Ottowa, October 11, 1906
  • Quebec, QC, SS Ottowa, March 30, 1907
  • Quebec, QC, SS Ottowa, October 18, 1907
  • Quebec, QC, SS Ottowa, October 24, 1907(6 days later?)
  • Quebec, QC, SS Ottowa, September 17, 1908
  • Quebec, QC, SS Ottowa, November 24, 1909
  • Quebec, QC, SS Ottowa, November 24, 1909
  • "summer sailing for 1909 over"
  • "15 May 1911, carrying the name Gul Djemal"
  • Quebec, QC, SS Ottowa, September 18, 1911

"On 5 January 1905, Germanic was renamed Ottawa. For the next four years, Ottawa plied the Canadian waters, sailing only in the summer, between Quebec City and Montreal. With the summer sailing for 1909 over, Ottawa was laid up for winter"

"In 1910, the Government of Turkey bought the ship from IMM, and it became part of a five-ship transport fleet, leaving Liverpool for the last time on 15 May 1911, carrying the name Gul Djemal, and operated by the Administration de Nav. A Vapeur Ottomane." I wonder if the original microfiches are still around.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I googled an found 4 ships that could fit the bill. 3 named Ottawa where none of the dates look correct. One sank on its maiden voyage in the late 1800s, with no souls lost. I am okay with leaving Ottowa spelling as the recovery ship until we can cite one of the other two. It is the only one that has dates that match well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Another mystery Ottawa

I found another mystery ship called Ottawa:

(note: this is probably one of the four mentioned above)

Seems it had that name years before the SS Germanic (1875) was renamed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

55 ships named Ottawa

I emailed the gov.ca research library to see if they have any info that can help. They seem to have an extensive list of most ships that ever sailed in Canadian waters. I found 55 named Ottawa, but search result for Ottowa was 'no results'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ottawa found with references

I emailed the Canadian research library and they found documents on a ship called Ottawa that was first registered to Lloyd's in 1888 and found the last body in June, 1912. This was long after more official body recovery records were asked for. They sent me text, links, and a pdf file of the original Lloyd's document scan. I will check terms of use on the text and paste it here if there are no copyright issues. I also sub-sectioned the 1st post to this main section to sort things better.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Accurate count needed?

It has been brought up on other Titanic pages that the dead and survived counts are inconsistent. tip@titanicinquiry.org is the email of a site that seems to have documents from the 1912 enquiries of the UK and USA. Should we email and ask their opinion, and should we have this discussion on this page or the main Titanic talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the enquiries gave different numbers, and subsequent investigations have produced further differences. There wasn't an accurate count of who boarded because some people boarded under false names while others booked tickets or signed on as crew but didn't board. Prioryman (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Should we make note of this in all the articles that have counts? I don't think the term disputed can be used then. The term unknown should be used in my opinion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Survivor Duvaney?

History Channel's recent "Titanic at 100" special mentions a survivor with the last name Duvaney. Anyone else heard of her? I can't remember the first name. --24.20.167.224 (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What the hell???

Rose Dewitt-Bukater and Trudy Bolt under the passengers? Is this your idea of a joke?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.160.151 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Caldwell, Mrs. Sylvia Mae (née Harbaugh)

Encyclopedia Titanica:[1]

  1. ^ "Wife of State Farm Founder Dies at 80". Unidentified newspaper published 15 January 1965. Encyclopedia Titanica. 17 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012. Mrs. Sylvia Mecherle, 80, ... was married to Albert Caldwell in 1909. The couple later taught at the Bangkok Christian College for Boys in Siam (now Thailand). En route home from assignment there, they boarded the liner Titanic on the voyage of 1912 ending in disaster. Mr. and Mrs. Caldwell and their 10-month-old son were among the survivors after the line rammed an iceberg and went down at sea. She came to Bloomington in the early 1920's and on January 8, 1944, was married to George J. Mecherle [founder of State Farm Insurance Companies].

--Pawyilee (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources on Arab passengers in the Titanic

From Al-Arabiya:

پيش از آنکه تايتانيک به قعر دريا برود، مهاجران لبنانى آواز خواندند و گلوله خوردند]." (Archive) - دوشنبه 17 جمادى الأولى 1433هـ - 09 آوریل 2012م

ﻋﺮﺏ "ﺗﺎﻳﺘﻨﻚ" ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺴﻴﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﻣﻨﺬ 100 ﻋﺎﻡ]." - ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺎﺀ 18 ﺟﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ 1433ﻫـ - 10 ﺃﺑﺮﻳﻞ 2012ﻡ WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ray Hanania's article: "Arabs on Titanic: We Share the Pain But Not the Glory." (Archive). Published April 8, 1998. Updated December 19. 2009. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

World Lebanese Cultural Union: http://ulcm.org/docs/newletter/lebanese-emigrants-remembered-updated.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6M9OS15Of WhisperToMe (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 06:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. This was certainly a thorough article/list. Well done to all that improved this article. Passed.

RfC: Modern country names vs. their 1912 equivalents

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a clear consensus to use the country names used in 1912. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

There are several countries on this list that are currently under their current modern names (ie Belarus, Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary, Lebanon, Macedonia, Slovenia, Turkey etc.) I was wondering whether or not it would be better to list these countries under their modern names (as listed above) or under the names they had during 1912? So Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, etc. I don't know whether we should go for period accurate or ease of understanding for modern readers, so it would be great to get some consensus on this, whether we should list countries by their 1912 name or use modern names, even if they aren't accurate for the period. I suppose the same would go for some cities as well, since we use Queenstown rather than Cobh, although Queenstown is the common name used when discussing the city during the Titanic period. Morhange (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Use contemporary names. Not being familiar with this subject area (I saw a Legobot note on someone else's talk page), the closest parallel I can imagine is the Olympics. Event pages for the 1912 Olympics, e.g. Swimming at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metre breaststroke, list competitors under their contemporary country names, not names from today. For a random example, Paul Malisch was from Landsberg an der Warthe, now the Polish city of Gorzów Wielkopolski, but we list him as being from Germany because that's what it was at the time. In the same way, we ought to list these people for their nationalities, not the nationalities of people who live there 100+ years later. In addition to that, contemporary names will always be correct (your nationality can't change 100+ years after the fact), but should international borders change, this article might become out of date if we use today's jurisdictions. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Use 1912 names. Nyttend sums it up pretty well. The place the passengers were from at the time is more relevant than what that place became 100 years later. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • QUESTION Why not use the 1912 names and in the cases where there is a new name put it in parens? It seems like there is room. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought about that, but it would maybe be better to just use a wikilink with the city of origin and someone could click that if they wanted to know more? Otherwise we'd be listing two countries constantly and it would almost seem to make the change pointless? But I don't know. Morhange (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A footnote would be a good way to do this. See first class passenger #39 with the footnote saying that Belfast, Irelend, UK is now the Republic of Ireland. Ideally the footnotes would be at the end of the tables, rather than in the references section. I don't envy the person who goes through the entire passenger list and finds the modern political affiliation of each location.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I did some initial editing to the first class section and I was trying to figure out a way to use footnotes at the end of the tables rather than in the reference column, since I think the reference column is in danger of becoming too cluttered--I'm just not sure how I would go about that. Morhange (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I separated out the Republic of Ireland notes in this edit [1]. Instructions on markup are at Help:Footnotes#WP:REFGROUP. There may be better ways of doing it and a better placement for the notes section. I just noticed the passenger's age was 39, not the passenger's number, and of course it's Ireland and not Irelend.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that the notes will likely cover entries from several different tables, it may be better to have a single note section (separate from the references section) rather than having the notes at the bottom of each table.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
That could lead to a lot of notes. Whereas a direct link to the city (whatever country it lies in now) will work tidily. (PS I did edit that Ireland note, since Belfast remains in the UK). GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops, that was my fault, thanks for that! I just searched for Ireland and pasted the ref link en masse. Morhange (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2014 (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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Extra column in Third Class passenger table

I've notice that there is an extra column in the table of Third Class passengers.

In the tables for the First and Second Class passengers, the column "Hometown" includes both Town and Country. In the table for the Third Class passengers, this HomeTown contains just the name of the town. There is an extra column for Country.

Should this be tidied up so that the tables contain the same columns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markjowen (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Was the removal of info on Arab/Levantine passengers sourced from Al Arabiya justified?

@PopulationGeneticsLevant:

I notice a removal of content sourced from An Al Arabiya article with the rationale "Al Arabiyya is not a historical reference and the source is not a historian" - It seems like the sources are journalistic recollections from oral histories gathered in the Lebanese towns where these passengers came from. I'm not sure if it's necessary that a formal historian had to do this research. Would it be necessary for the source to come from such a person?

I am aware that many Christian Lebanese don't think of themselves as Arabs, I wrote the section calling them Arabs because the original source (Al Arabiya) identified them as such. I would have qualified/modified it if another published source came out disputing that those particular passengers were Arab/considered themselves Arab. I don't want to get into Wikipedia:Original research territory. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed these people were citizens of the Ottoman Empire, almost all Christian (mainly Maronites); we cannot even make them "Arabs" as the Arab League did not exist at the time. Further, Hanania (mentioned later) is a stand up comedian and Palestinian activist, not an academic reference. There may be a way to fix by keeping the information without the label and the Arabist propaganda. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Proposal to trim passenger list

No consensus, so retain the status quo. My rough count is 10 in favour, 11 against. Looking at the question, I would have guessed that WP:INDISCRIMINATE applied here, but instead it seems like a stronger argument against trimming the list. With or without the list, this is an interesting article that I didn't know existed, and thanks to all the editors involved. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

The passenger list seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information, since most of the individuals have no notability outside of this single event. It seems appropriate to establish some sort of criteria for inclusion. As a starting point, I propose that the list be trimmed to only include blue-linked names. –dlthewave ☎ 19:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree, notability isn't an issue and you shouldn't apply notability rules here, this is a comprehensive list of passengers and is an excellent resource of information regarding the events over the passengers that were on the boat, where they went, survived, etc. You can't just straight up remove it without some discussion. Govvy (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. WP:NNC is right there prominently at the top of the notability guidelines so you can't miss it. WP:LISTPEOPLE says we typically make lists of bluelinked notable people, but not always. WP:CSC again says lists of non-notable people are valid. This issue is getting a lot of attention as a policy question and Passengers of the RMS Titanic is of interest to a lot of editors as a case-in-point. I'd like to hear more from the editors who have worked on the topic of RMS Titanic, and on this list of 1300+ names here for more than 10 years, four as a Good Article. It's extraordinarily long, but that sometimes happens. We've heard all about how this relates to Wikipedia as a whole, but not how this serves the subject of the RMS Titanic passengers. What are the reasons this list should or shouldn't have this many names with respect to the topic? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I see this as an editorial decision, not something dictated by notability rules. Several editors in the deletion discussion supported the idea of only including notable passengers instead of a comprehensive list, so I'm proposing a change to the scope of the article. My opinion is that naming every passenger (along with other trivial details such as the body number or lifeboat number) does not further the reader's understanding of the topic. The list is heavily based on Encyclopedia Titanica, so it may be helpful to simply provide a link to that resource instead of attempting to mirror it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Including body/lifeboat numbers absolutely contributes to the reader's understanding. It provides additional information about how survivors were rescued--I mean, for goodness sakes, we have an entire article that discusses the ship's lifeboats, so that information is obviously of interest. As well, for the victims, readers may be interested to see whose body was recovered. It would be one thing if we listed shoe size or hair color, as this is irrelevant information and absolutely trivial detail, but lifeboat numbers and bodies recovered ties directly to the passengers fate during the sinking. I'm not sure what purpose it would serve to omit that information. Piratesswoop (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Even many bluelinked people are not notable. Crook1 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (as I commented at the recent deletion nom) This page is a massive 217kB, but 174kB of that are the needless tables with lists of non-notable passengers (except for a few in 1st class), and even more needless tables of lists of "who-died-when". That means there is perhaps 43kB of possibly useful info, but that may also just be duplicated from the main Titanic article (which is 171kB), that also has it's own "passengers" section. Remove the tables, give the rest a serious overhaul, then determine if this page is worth keeping, merging to the main article or deleting. - wolf 00:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support any kind of simplification/clean-up that would reduce the size of the page, including removal of pointless table-bloat. One simple expedient might be a split: List of casualties of the ''Titanic'' sinking, List of survivors of the ''Titanic'' sinking. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Cut the tables of any non-notable individuals. A list of a thousand meaningless names is of no use in an encyclopedia article. For anyone doing genealogical research or needs the names for another reason, there are other websites suited to that type of information. An encyclopedia is not. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment To attract wider input, I've left messages with all editors who participated in the deletion discussion as well as related Wikiprojects. I did not notify the location-based projects (New York, Hampshire, England, etc.) as they are not directly related but I would be happy to do so if others see fit. –dlthewave ☎ 22:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support cutting the tables I used this article as an example of excessive listing in a recent discussion of whether listing all victims in an article about an event resulting in fatalities was appropriate. I think this article extends far outside the scope of an encyclopedia. - Donald Albury 22:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - The readable prose of this article is only 35 kB so it isn't WP:TOOBIG, and, as stated above by Govvy and Dennis Bratland, notability guidelines do not apply within articles. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - The first argument, "the individuals have no notability outside of this single event" sounds something like WP:BIO1E, which is inapplicable. The second argument offered, that the names and ages, and "trivial information" like lifeboat number, "does not further the reader's understanding of the topic", doesn't have a justification behind it. Names obviously contain information. They convey ethnicity, gender, marital status, etc. Age is meaningful. Origin and destination are biographical details that matter. Lifeboat number is arbitrary, but when dealing with data in aggregate, it tells part of the story of the rescue -- who they shared a lifeboat with, and other records correlate with lifeboat number, such as which lifeboat was picked up when and by whom. The table sorting feature lets readers group everyone on the same boat together. It is a very large number of names, and probably represents the upper limit of how many lists of names we'd have on a Wikipedia article or list. The century of extreme public interest in this topic has helped to make the names of even so many people something readers can use. So I would defer to the editorial judgement of editors who have spent a lot of time with the Titanic topic, and feel it merits an extraordinary amount of detail. If an editor steeped in Titanic scholarship happens to think this article is better without so many names, that's a reasonable opinion. I just don't see any absolute policy or guideline restriction that make it out of the question, and the potential value of the names appears to be a reasonable possibility. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep To quote from WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". I think this article does that well and I do not think that it would be a better article if we removed information from the tables. If this was the main Titanic article I would understand the argument, but this is specifically about the passengers. As noted, WP:TOOBIG says "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose". The list is finite and it provides the reader with easy access to information that would otherwise take a lot of extra text to provide. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is just a collection of indiscriminate information which gives too much weight to mostly non-notable individuals. Cut it down to a list of notable passengers, along with any non-notable individuals who did something significant during the sinking and are mentioned by name in reliable secondary sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    • How do you quantify that, though? Many of the adult survivors, and several of the child survivors (Billy Carter, Eva Hart, Frank Goldsmith, Michel M. Navratil, even Millvina Dean) have been featured in reliable secondary sources. Disaster hearings, interviews, news articles. Frank Aks was less than a year old but had brief notoriety in a modern day Judgement of Soloman scenario on the Carpathia. Judith Geller's book, cited in this article, retells the story of several passengers who have stories of significance--do they all stay? There was a passenger who was travelling with a married man and conceived their child on board the ship. Is that significant? If we're going to do this, then there needs to be some hard and fast criteria for how we determine which "non-notable" people get to stay and which go. For example, both Michel M. and Edmond Navratil were notable following the disaster for being orphaned and the quest to find who their mother was, but Michel gained further notoriety for being the last living male survivor. So would both he and his brother be included for their post-rescue feature in international newspapers? What about their father? Just Michel Jr.? We have an article on the entire Allison family, currently linked through the patriarch of the family to avoid overlinkage. His son's nanny has an urban legend based on her and was used as a character in the 1996 TV film based on both fact and myth about her. Is that enough for notoriety? Do we only link Hudson Allison? The entire family? Loraine had minor notability for being the only child between first and second class to die. I honestly could go on, but it's really not enough to just say we'll keep people who did something significant during the sinking/are mentioned in secondary sources because you'll find many such passengers are, beyond the blue-linked names. Piratesswoop (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Keep. None of the 4 criteria at WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. WP:LISTPEOPLE provides exactly for this type of list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep As Michael Bednarek mentioned above, none of the criteria for WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to this article. It's not a summary-only description of something; it's not a music database; it's not software logs. Even looking at the unexplained statistics criteria does not apply here, as the statistics within the passenger list are provided with context. Sorted by class, names, origin and destinations, their fate and how they escaped the ship. The criteria even says accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context which is exactly what was done here! And unlike other passenger ships, since mention of the Luisitania and Empress of Ireland have popped up in prior discussions, the collective occupants of this ship are of immense interest due to the disaster and have therefore received lots of coverage. There is no similar cultural interest in the passengers on board either of those ships. Furthermore, unlike lists that require constant updating and are almost impossible to corroborate, this list is limited, does not require constant updating (aside from monitoring for routine vandalism) and can be easily sourced via passenger records, especially now that the UK National Archives has published the passenger list. I think it's a valid resource, and I'm not just saying this because of the long hours it took me to construct the table, mostly on my own and I would be devastated personally, to see my hard work destroyed. I don't mind getting rid of the tables about first survivors to die/last surviving survivors, perhaps footnotes for Millvina Dean and Maria Nackid (if we keep the list)/Archibald Gracie if we trim to blue-linked names. Piratesswoop (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A question for those who want to keep the tables (actually, two questions): what use is a list of names of non-notable individuals to the average reader? And what are we trying to write here, an encyclopedia article or something else? If the former, a list of names of non-notable individuals has no place in it. If the latter, then you're in the wrong place - there's Encyclopedia Titanica for those who want to write specialist material. We do not need to mirror their content (nor should we). Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    • According to WP:5P & WP:ENC, Wikipedia is more than you suggest, and this list fits well into those criteria. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Can you explain how you think 5P or ENC supports your statement? Neither of those suggest we ought to be effectively reproducing primary documents. There are better places for this sort of information, as I have pointed out above. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Among other things, Wikipedia is a modern almanac. Further, an encyclopedia is a complete compendium of knowledge. If, as suggested here, this particular list doesn't need to be covered by Wikipedia because there are external sources providing that information already, I expect a torrent of AfDs for filmographies, discographies, lists of works, etc. In fact, Wikipedia isn't needed at all because all of it is available elsewhere. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
          • And what relevance is an almanac to this discussion? As for encyclopedias being compendiums of knowledge, we can quibble over dictionary definitions of words all you like, but doing so just reveals that you don't know the purpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, it is not meant to reproduce primary sources in their entirety. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Parsecboy, I definitely listed several reasons why it’s useful to readers above. Are you asking me to repeat what I posted? Should I put it in bullet point form? In all caps? Govvy gave reasons. Piratesswoop gave reasons. You ask for justification, editors give you justification, and you go on haranguing for more instead of addressing or refuting the uses given. It’s called sealioning. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Dennis, that you don't understand the question doesn't make it sealioning. I'm asking what useful information is conveyed by the tables for an encyclopedia. Perhaps I should have spelled that out, but I figured the "for an encyclopedia" bit was implied by the second question. No one has answered that. And even the answers you think have been given tend to verge toward special pleading - you assert some tidbit is meaningful but don't have any justification for it (eg: "Origin and destination...matter" - um, how exactly?). Or you dismiss an argument against the tables without an actual argument. As for Pirateswoop and Govvy, I do believe you're mistaken - they didn't attempt a reason the information is useful. I'm still waiting. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
        • You really can't imagine the possibility that your arguments are not persuasive. All you can think is that those who don't buy what you're selling must have something wrong with them, and it's your job to prod them until they see the light. How about before you rush to post put-downs of those who saw your posts and weren't impressed, you stop and consider that maybe you didn't do such a fantastic job of convincing them? Maybe one of the other editors who agrees with you, maybe someone who hasn't posted yet, will come along and state your case in a more convincing way. But if you badger everyone, and blow up the thread with bludgeoning demands to satisfy you, most likely they will see the dumpster fire and not even bother. Respect the process. Respect other editors. Take a step back and let others make a contribution. If you're as right as you think you are, then many others will be able to say so as well or better than you can. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support proposal to remove non-notable names, per NOTEVERYTHING. An external link to a complete list of passengers and crew is sufficient. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep (for the third time this week) there is no requirement for individual list entries to be notable. However the encyclopedic value of the overall article is improved, the more complete the coverage is. Applying simple WP:N to this will generate a bias in favour of the first class, but even the third class passengers are just as important for the overall impression of who was aboard. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    • third time this week" - Really? And, do we need to list every. single. name, just to give an "impression"? What encyclopaedic value is there in adding "John Smith was in steerage"...? Or in any of the non-linked, non-notable names? - wolf 07:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I really don't see why people are trying to apply a notability argument, I've already commented above about that. I always feel there is room for improvement, and removing the list is not an improvement. You would negate the article of it, there are plenty of comments over keeping the list and I tend to agree with them and Dennis Bratland has pretty much covered what I might of also said anyway. Govvy (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment some of these "keep" comments should be discluded from any consensus as they don't seem to be addressing the nom, but instead are commenting as if this is an AfD on the whole page. It's not. - wolf 07:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Please don't make condescending assumptions. They aren't idiots. Everyone gets what "proposal to trim passenger list" means. We all know what we're saying. Please gracefully accept that not everyone agrees. The editor closing this discussion is smart enough to see the merits of all the points made without any needing to be "discluded". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Neither "condescending" nor "assumptions", so how about you stop casting aspersions? (And didn't we have a recent et separabis about the volume and especially frequency of your talk page discussion posts? Perhaps we should have added the need for them in the first place as well?) - wolf 09:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Nope, you couldn't be more wrong about any of those things. I don't think you're treating editors who don't share your point of view with the respect they're entitled to. Instead of respectfully disagreeing, you're saying that the fact that they aren't on board with your agenda and don't share your opinions means that they aren't qualified to have an opinion. What's more condescending than that? Let their arguments be judged on their merits, which is no less than what you're entitled to. That's simple respect. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
          • It's fascinating how the utter hypocrisy of your comments is somehow lost on you. So, now you're accusing me of having an "agenda"? When will these personal attacks cease? When you get your way? When you've finally either bludgeoned anyone who disagrees with you enough that they finally bow and give in, or when you've chased everyone else off with your constant, endless pagefill diatribes? Focus on edits, Dennis, not editors. (Oh and the "badgering" you just accused Parsecboy of... literally "laugh out loud" irony that was.) - wolf 22:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is one of the most famous, analysed, researched, written about and filmed incidents of all time. In this instance I think it's worth keeping the list in its entirety. It is certainly not an "indiscriminate collection of information". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you explain what benefit to readers a list of a thousand names that might as well all be John Doe is? So far, no one who wants to keep the list has answered this question, and this is at the core of any decision to include or exclude content from an article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So your intent is to re-post the same thing every single time an editor !votes keep without saying whatever it is would satisfy you? It isn't necessary. If another editor posts we see that you don't respond by changing your !vote, that's all the evidence we need that their comment didn't meet your criteria and it failed to persuade you. It's implicit.

    Assume good faith. Assume competence. Every editor who posts after your comments should be given credit for basic reading comprehension, and for having the diligence to give the previous posts the attention they deserve. If they choose keep, it is implicit that you didn't persuade them. It's condescending to jump to the conclusion that they didn't read your argument, or they read it but failed to understand it. Try to conceive of the possibility that your argument wasn't as good as you think it is. Badgering each editor who doesn't !vote your way doesn't make your argument any more persuasive. If you think you've made the best argument you can make, then you don't need to say anything more. Let everyone make up their mind without having to be pestered. This is spelled out in WP:BADGER: "The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mandate that others (or anyone in particular) address it."

    If you realize that your argument could have been stated better, and you've composed what you are sure is a more convincing version, then, and only then, would you have another constructive contribution to post. But if you don't, then don't bludgeon the process. --Dennis Bratland (talk)

  • One wonders how you can imagine that I'm badgering anyone after I respond to literally a single !vote. And one wonders how you imagine that you are assuming good faith when you jump to such unfounded accusations. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove this isn't Wikisource; we shouldn't include the ship's entire manifest here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Trim the list Less is more, more or less. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Being a passenger on the Titanic is the notability. The name of the article assumes completeness. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline states that A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement (and) The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable source. This guideline does not support the inclusion of non-notable individuals who are associated with a notable event. –dlthewave ☎ 22:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove per the usual caveat that people listed have to be notable, measured by either having a wikipedia article or have the potential to have a stand-alone wikipedia article outside of the one event (just to cover the few who could have an article but it hasnt been written yet). MilborneOne (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as this list is of significant historical, cultural and literary interest. I disagree that the list is indiscriminate. On the contrary, the list is finite (approx. 2500) and neither likely to increase or decrease. The sinking of the Titanic is an event which captured headlines in the day, and since then has been covered heavily in literature and media. The list is somewhat like List of Mayflower passengers, both voyages were significant and enough stuff has been written about them, both fictional and non-fictional. I do agree that we do not need to keep lists of passengers of other voyages, but this list is significant due its long term interest.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep because the list is an important historically documented list of interest to many people. Also, this list gives us a place to redirect attempts to create articles on less or non-notable passengers per WP:NOPAGE. That way we don't need to debate the notability of each person we can just decide if the listing here is enough. Legacypac (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2018 (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.

Strictly a question of time

"The Titanic was fitted with grilles to prevent the classes from mingling and these gates were normally kept closed, although the stewards could open them in the event of an emergency. In the rush following the collision, the stewards, occupied with waking up sleeping passengers and leading groups of women and children to the boat deck, did not have time to open all the gates, leaving many of the confused third-class passengers stuck below decks."

I understand it's a matter of sources, but this can't seriously be the only explanation Wikipedia presents for third-class passengers receiving this treatment. Isn't it a bit glossing over likely motivations to reduce what happened there to a problem of "time"? --62.224.62.164 (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Passengers_of_the_Titanic/Archive_1&oldid=1252039527"