Talk:Sinking of the Titanic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New version of article on the way

As I'm sure people will be aware, the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic is now only four months away. I'm aiming to get this article up to featured standard and on the Main Page on the anniversary day itself. I started out by going through the current version but soon found that it has too many problems to fix. Most of it is unsourced, some of the sources that are used are questionable, the article omits a lot of detail and takes some odd tangents, and the standard of writing is very uneven (reflecting the fact that a lot of people have tinkered with it over the years).

What I've done, therefore, is to borrow and expand on the existing structure of the article and use the current content as a guide to writing an entirely new version which is exhaustively referenced. I'm now probably about 70% of the way through; the new version is likely to come in at about 9-10,000 words, about twice as long as the current version. I aim to get it done by the start of the New Year. I'll nominate it for Good Article status and solicit feedback in January. In February, hopefully, I'll nominate it for featured status, which should permit about 6-8 weeks for the review to take place.

I also propose to move this article to "Sinking of the RMS Titanic", as it's a narrative not a timeline, as will be the new version.

Obviously I'd be grateful for any assistance from other editors in getting this done. You can see the rewrite in progress at User:Prioryman/Sinking of the Titanic. One major outstanding issue that we'll have to tackle is the copyright status of the images used in the current article. A review suggests that only a few images are freely usable and correctly licensed. The rest are either of uncertain status or appear to be still in copyright. Many appear to have been uploaded under the wrong licences and rationales. Unfortunately it is likely that most of the current images will not be usable in the new version of the article, though it may be possible to find replacements for some of them. Again, this is a task which will need a lot of collaboration between editors.

I'd be grateful for any comments on this plan and any feedback on the rewrite (though please be aware that it's a work in progress and isn't finished yet). Prioryman (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments are in a few specific areas: I was just (in the context of all of the titanic articles) thinking that very thing regarding the title and scope....that we need a "sinking of" article. Narrower than the overall Titanic article, and broader than "time line". So I think that that is a great idea. But I do think that sequencing some of the info by times and putting times on it is a great way to present some of the material. Also, we just removed the material regarding regarding the testimony positing that she might have survived if she hit the berg head-on. Would you be interested in that material for this article? North8000 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There should be some clarity as to the scope of the article. If anything related to the sinking of the Titanic could be plopped into this article, that could include 90% of the material in all of the Titanic articles. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I've limited the rewrite to a 24-hour timeframe: the main focus of the article is the events that took place between 09:00 on 14th April (when Titanic received the first warning of ice) and 08:50 the following day (when Carpathia left the scene with the survivors on board). Obviously there is going to be a bit of material about the start of the voyage, which is under the Background section, and there will be a bit about the subsequent events, under Aftermath (which I've not yet written). However, this will be very much a summary. Prioryman (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Were you thinking of things focusing on the process of the sinking or everything sinking related in the 24 hour period (which would include, for example, what the other ships were doing, all of the stories about the passengers and crew during the sinking process etc.)North8000 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Mostly the former with a bit of the latter. Obviously I will be mentioning the Californian etc but not in a huge amount of depth, as that is a big topic by itself. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My one concern is that from that description it's looking like a 80% overlap with the main SS Titanic article, or, putting it differently, would cover about 80% of everything related to the Titanic. IMHO an ideal scope would be everything sinking related that is about the ship itself. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The overlap isn't anything like as bad as that. Take a look at the RMS Titanic article; I'm essentially covering the sections titled "Sinking", "Collision", "Lifeboats launched" and "Final minutes", with a small amount of material relating to prior events and aftermath to provide context. I'm mostly focusing on the ship itself but mentioning external events briefly where they need to be mentioned. Prioryman (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the scope of the actual article that you are working on is PERFECT. I'm just saying that via some method we need to be cautious that it doesn't get flooded with all of the other stuff that you did not intend. Who was wearing what dress when it sank etc, what song the band was playing etc. North8000 (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think that really depends on (1) me keeping focused on the important points while writing it, and (2) doing our best to ensure it doesn't get larded up with excessive detail when it gets moved over to here. I expect the article will be tightened up during the review stage (and FAC in particular) in any case. Prioryman (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

New version posted - feedback requested

As promised, I've now posted the new version here. Please add feedback below. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Did a first fast read. What a huge amount of excellent work! ! ! ! I'm still thinking that the question of scope remains an important one, and in relation to the general Titanic article, 80% of which is sinking related. One idea might be be just items related to the (sinking of) the ship itself? Everything related to the collision, (and what led to it) the sinking process of the ship itself, and how and why it sank, including investigations related to that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive response! I do take your point, though it has to be said that Titanic's service life was so short that you could probably say that anything about it is sinking-related in one way or another. As I said earlier, I've focused specifically on the 24 hours from April 14-15 covering the sinking and rescue, with background and aftermath sections as bookends. Are there any specific things that you think I should have included but haven't?

One problem with covering events before and after is where do you draw the line? There's so much detail and so many Titanic-related events that it's impossible to cover or even mention everything in one article. I've been trying to work to a fairly strict word limit of up to 10,000 words (the article is currently 9,523 words long), which will put it towards the top of the list of featured articles by length. If it goes much longer, I know from past experience that featured article reviewers will require it to be cut down. To be honest, the article is currently probably about as long as it's ever going to get - article always seem to get shrunk during FA reviews.

I'm going to advertise the article in a few places to obtain some more feedback. I also need to do some work on the main RMS Titanic article to reduce the overlap with this one; this will involve reducing the "Sinking" section of that article so that it's more of a summary linking in to this one. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If anything I was going to suggest leaving out some things currently in there, possibly the passenger/body related material. But I'm not sure about suggesting that. I think you reinforced my area of question. Nearly everything about the Titanic is sinking related, so the question is what goes in the general Titanic article vs. here? On another note, I've been slowly working on digesting the two big technical reports and the was planning to add/edit material related to that someday and not sure where that would go. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The word count is about 9,523 which is just under the 10,000 word limit. This is the only gauge that really matters. Stick with your 24 hour window; it's working nicely. Pics should be ok as far as licensing goes barring any future changes. Check your harv referencing setup. I'm using a script which shows many broken references. Brad (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell me what script you're using and where you got it from? Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Ucucha/HarvErrors Brad (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that it's a problem with the script. I just tried 10 footnotes at random. All link to the full citation in the References section without a problem. NW (Talk) 17:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? Try 11, 12, 14, 15 for starters. Brad (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I found the problem and fixed it. NW (Talk) 20:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. -- Prioryman (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Prioryman - As requested - some points for consideration ....

In the article lead - middle paragraph - " the passengers were evacuated in a disorganised and inefficient effort". That statement plus related statements about abandoning ship in other sections are true enough, but should there maybe be more in-line citations and references, for clarity? I think the wording, in it's present form, could suggest a lack of effort by the entire crew was the main reason for the disorganisation and inefficiency. (In fact, many of the junior officers and crew seem to have organised their part in the preparations and launchings relatively well - provided we also take account of the limitations imposed on them.) There were other failures at many different levels which extended way beyond Titanic (though I admit that a concise summary of all those failures might be difficult.) - It's also worth remembering that much of the description of key factors in the evacuation are based on evidence from a very small number of witnesses - particularly evidence from 2nd. officer Lightoller - (who seems to have had an inclination to enhance his own role in events !) From the evidence presented, Chief Officer Wilde, who was second in command, almost appears to have been 'edited-out' of the command structure.

In section "0410 to 0915 Rescue and Departure" - first paragraph.... "Titanic survivors were finally rescued about 0400 April 15th. by the RMS Carpathia, which had steamed through the night at high speed and considerable risk. "..... Carpathia's alleged full speed dash through the night, towards Titanic, is one of the lingering myths in the story - despite the fact that it's been fairly easy to make an estimate of Carpathia's actual speed, since the wreck of Titanic was discovered. The estimated distance to Titanic's SOS position was 58 miles but, as is pointed out in the article, that SOS position was wrong and the real distance to reach the first of Titanic's lifeboats would have been about 42 or 43 miles. - Carpathia did that distance in three and a half hours which indicates an average speed of, roughly, 12 knots - rather than the implied average speed of near 17 knots. Although we don't know the details, it seems probable that Carpathia would have been worked up to it's maximum speed during the first two hours and then slowed down, to make the final approach with a sensible degree of caution during the last hour and a half of the rescue run. None of that detracts from the fact that it was Carpathia which accomplished the rescue. However, the improbable speed that was implied in the original report continues to be a curious anomaly which isn't easy to explain.

In section, - "0005 - 0045 - Preparing to evacuate." - 3rd. paragraph - "Titanic had been designed to accommodate up to 68 lifeboats." ... - That appears to be only partly true. - Alexander Carlisle had made some provision for that number of boats, - i.e. by designing the lifeboat davit-arms so that each set could accommodate up to 4 boats (to be launched consecutively). However, it would've been necessary to make further modifications to the ship, before those extra boats could have been used. Carlisle suggested to the British Inquiry that, for such an arrangement to be functional, the davits would have required different boat-lowering equipment (e.g. wire-rope falls, operated via winches) - plus some design changes to the lower part of the ship (i.e. installation of permanent ballast to compensate for the topside weight of the extra boats and fittings.) See British Inquiry page 550 - questions to Alexander Carlisle - nbr. 21255 onwards.... regards Norloch (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Smith

Didn't he have a pretty dodgy record prior to losing the Titanic? --John (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He captained the Olympic when it was in collision with HMS Hawke in 1911 but otherwise had a clean record. See Edward Smith (sea captain). Prioryman (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That was quite a major incident that resulted in litigation that went on after Smith's death. I don't think we can claim he had an unblemished career (or whatever the wording is). --John (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Spurious accuracy

Given that the sources (and the article) reflect the range of estimates as to deaths and survivors' numbers, because of the uncertainty in all the numbers, I don't think we should give such precise-looking figures in the lead. The 1517 figure for deaths is the one most often seen in sources, but a well-constructed article should reflect the uncertainty. --John (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. To be honest, I've struggled a bit with the casualty figures; I'll do some more work on it to see what I can come up with. Prioryman (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do some more thinking too. All in all I am really pleased with how the article looks. Another point in a similar vein I've seen raised in sources is the vastly differing accounts witnesses gave of the appearance of the iceberg; the article covers the contradictions in whether or not the ship broke in two before sinking really well, and it might be worth getting a little more on the chaos and uncertainty of the final moments. When the ships' lights went off the scene must have been one of complete darkness, and there would have been very little to see at all at that stage. --John (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the iceberg would only have been visible for a few seconds, so it's not surprising that eyewitnesses - of which there don't seem to have been many, not surprising considering the time and the cold - disagreed on its appearance (though is that really that important?). We could probably say more about the uncertainties over the ship's breakup. We do at least have the advantage of knowing that it definitely happened, but it's interesting that the people who said it didn't (notably Lightoller and Gracie, whose testimony was given priority in the two enquiries) appear to have got off the ship before the breakup. Those who stayed on it until the very end seem to have been in no doubt about the breakup, but most of those people were second- and third-class passengers, whose accounts attracted little coverage after the disaster. Prioryman (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make is that in general the article could do more to stress the uncertainty and confusion that existed. Too many sources make it sound like everything is known about what happened on the night. The controversy over the ship's breakup is just a (very important) example of that, as is the uncertainty about casualty figures. As often happens in disasters, there are huge discrepancies between what different witnesses said at the enquiries. I believe no second or third class passengers were called to give evidence at either enquiry, a fact worth mentioning in the article perhaps. --John (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

On the same theme of reflecting the uncertainties, there are a couple of points for consideration.

1. It may be worth mentioning something about shipboard timekeeping practices and the fact that the times noted for some events can't established with absolute certainty because the 1912 Inquiries never made a comprehensive effort to standardise all the times quoted by individuals on Titanic or the other ships that were involved.

2. In section "0900 to 2340 - Iceberg Warnings." last paragraph ... "Titanic's high speed in icy waters was later criticized as reckless but it merely reflected standard maritime practice at the time....etc."

That section is a reasonable summary of evidence presented to the Inquiries but it's by no means the whole story. At the British Inquiry, Lord Mersey wasted a lot of time by allowing a lengthy queue of witnesses to state that it was widespread practice to navigate in the vicinity of ice, at night. (N.B. - it was widespread, but definitely not the 'standard practice' with all shipping companies). However, Mersey avoided asking witnesses the most obvious of questions, insofar as it related Titanic. For example, he could have asked - " When you make a decision to navigate in areas where ice has been reported, is that always done for compelling reasons - or are there occasions when it's done casually, for no particular reason ? " - The answer is obvious and this was a key factor which Mersey failed to address. He never established a compelling reason for Titanic to be where it was. A diversion to the south for a couple of hours, on April 14th., would have taken the ship well clear of the reported ice. The ship was slightly ahead of schedule, anyway, and there was also an extra knot in hand to make up for lost time, if required. No evidence was presented to suggest there was intent to achieve an earlier time of arrival at New York. So... "standard maritime practice" does seem to have been a bit of misdirection to avoid the issue ! regards Norloch (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A further point for consideration re. the section "Aftermath" - second last paragraph. - "Captain Lord of the Californian was strongly criticised by both Inquiries for failing to render assistance to Titanic."

The culpability of Captain Lord was a subject on which both Inquiries worded their conclusions in an ambiguously obscure way. Whether intended, or not, it left the facts of the matter wide-open to interpretation. Stanley Lord was never criticized directly ( strongly or otherwise) in either Inquiry conclusions. Indeed, his name wasn't even mentioned and nothing specific was stated regarding the nature or the extent of his culpability. Both Inquiries did, however, censure the ship for failing to render assistance ( which is legal hokum - since a ship is just an artefact.) As Senator Smith and Lord Mersey would both have been well aware of the need for clarity in formal proceedings, it suggests there was some unstated reason for their curious form of wording. Captain Lord was never formally charged with any offence - nor was his professional reputation damaged to any great degree. - It seems that there's a lot about the matter that we still don't know! regards Norloch (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if there was anything going on behind the scenes. Courts of Inquiry were and still are aware of the great responsibility that comes with command, and the crystal clarity that comes with hindsight. They are also aware of the far-reaching effects on an officer's life and that of his family when they do make a severe criticism. Censuring the ship IS censuring the commander, but in a way that allows him to retain some dignity. I have read, and do believe, that the events of this night dogged him for the rest of his life. Rumiton (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton; - I agree that Stanley Lord's personal reputation was much damaged. ( that's why I specified his professional reputation, above). Considering the abuse of his good name, during his lifetime and thereafter, I'm more doubtful about the concept of Lord Mersey being mindful to allow him to retain some dignity in the matter. In effect, Mersey condemned him, without actually saying so, and thus denied him the right to a fair hearing, in law. - Difficult to believe that Mersey didn't realize what the consequences of his ambiguous wording would be ! regards 188.223.5.128 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy and nautical authenticity

Hi all. I have edited these articles a few times before, and have read and thought a lot about this subject. I am a master mariner, and for ten years before retirement had the chance to serve as executive officer (first mate) on each of the last four Titanic-sized coal-burning steamships now operating. I am also a keen Wikipedian and I understand that my nautical experience is pretty much irrelevant, as I am not a reputable source. However, reading this article in its current form, a number of anomalies stand out from a seaman's point of view. I already have a rather daunted feeling about this, as many of the sources being used say some pretty silly things as well, so it will be hard to get the article to be better than the sources. On occasion, intelligent editing might require that some sources be omitted for some areas. If current editors are in agreement, I will try to go through it and point out what I see as the problems. I am not up for pointless agitation. You are the guys doing the hard work, and if you prefer to go with what you have, so be it. Rumiton (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The article can only be as good as the sources it uses, but we can be discriminating about what we use from which source. --John (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do point out the issues you've identified. It's all useful info. Prioryman (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge IS very useful to writing articles. The main limitation is Wikipedia does not allow putting in unsourcable/unsourced things based on knowledge. As long as one does not violate that, there is an immense range of ways that expertise can come into play when writing articles. So, please do. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all, I am much encouraged. I'll start soon. Rumiton (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Here we go: Titanic had received a number of warnings of ice hazards... The warning here is just an Ice Warning. Ice is not a hazard to a vessel that is stopped or going very slowly, so the amount of hazard involved is under the control of the master. The word "hazardous" is normally applied to situations that carry inherent risk, and could cause a problem whatever the ship does, such as carrying flammable, corrosive or explosive cargo. Rumiton (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

...shortly before midnight. We have already been told the time of the collision in the lead. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

...calls for help = distress calls.

passengers were evacuated in a disorganised and inefficient effort. Aircraft and buildings are evacuated; ships are abandoned, or their lifeboats are boarded. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

1,178 people – barely half the ship's complement. The word complement normally refers only to the ship's crew of officers and ratings, not the passengers. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of the lifeboats left only partly occupied. Occupied is not quite the right word for a boat. Might be better to say something like "only partially full" or "with many empty seats." Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now made all of the changes discussed above. Prioryman (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The ship split in two as she sank... The word "split" jars. Normally one would say a ship "broke her back" or "broke in two." Also there is a convincing account by a young passenger that this breaking occurred some time before the final sinking, while the ship was still on an even keel. There are excellent stress and stability reasons why this would almost definitely have been the case, without it being a design fault of the ship, just as there are good reasons why the White Star Line would have tried to hush it up. It was too hard to explain to the public, but we can talk about it if editors wish to. Rumiton (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The mechanism and timing of the breakup are the subject of an interesting piece here. We can't use it as a source but it's worth noting that the breakup clearly happened during the final sinking (the survivors heard it). It also seems fairly clear that it happened while the ship was at an angle in the water - at the time the noise was heard, Jack Thayer put the ship's angle at about 15 degrees, which corresponds with modern computer simulations of the stresses undergone by the hull and keel. Prioryman (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

About 15 degrees could well be right. What is wrong is the creative pictures of the ship with the stern and midsection rearing high above the sea. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It evidently didn't "rear high" prior to the breakup but it clearly did in the final moments - the survivor accounts are virtually unanimous about the stern going perpendicular, or nearly so, just before it sank. Prioryman (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the lead. How so far? Rumiton (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Great suggestions! Keep 'em coming. --John (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

By the time she set sail westwards I know this one is controversial. Newspapers and books often use the term "set sail" to mean a departure from port, but no one in the British Merchant Navy would say that. The normal term is "sailed" or "departed" or "left the port." Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

39 able-bodied seamen and 10 other ranks Able seaman is not a rank but a rating, so adding other ranks to a list of seaman is a misnomer. "Other ranks" is in fact an army term. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

the captain, there were six watch officers, in addition to 39 able-bodied seamen and 10 other ranks There is no one else in the deck department, and this comes to 56, not 76. Rumiton (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Daniel Allen Butler, Unsinkable: The Full Story of RMS Titanic, the Deck Department consisted of:

• Master & Qualified Watch Officers - 7
• Pursers & Clerks - 7
• Carpenters - 7
• Surgeons - 2
• Bosun, Buson's Mates and Quartermasters - 8
• Able-Bodied Seamen - 39
• Masters-at-Arms - 2
• Window Cleaners - 2
• Messroom Stewards - 2

That comes to 76. By the look of it, not all would have been seamen (e.g. window cleaners?). Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Pursers, surgeons and window cleaners etc. are not generally included in the deck department. If someone has included them, then we need to move away from the idea that the deck department was composed of trained seamen. It makes the proportion of seamen among the crew even less. Rumiton (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Smith ordered the crew to set a course further south... Officers, not crew. Specifically the Senior Second Officer, who was the ship's navigator, and who would have put the new course on the chart. Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Although the crew were aware of ice... Officers again, and the master as the most senior officer. Unlike in aircraft, ship's officers are not referred to as "crew." Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

ordered Quartermaster Robert Hitchens to change the ship's course... Not good terminology. To change the ship's course would be to do what the captain did earlier...to put a new line on the chart for the ship's officers to follow. This is a temporary avoidance manouvre. It is better just to say he put the wheel hard a port (though the order would have been hard a starboard.) Rumiton (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The ship's course changed only a few seconds before impact... Same problem. Better to say the ship's head (or bow) started to swing only a few seconds... Rumiton (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough for today. See you tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He also signalled "Full Astern"... "Rang full astern" is better. Rumiton (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

carrying out inspections... "Monitoring the ship's performance" is better. He wasn't inspecting anything, he already knew every bolt and rivet in the ship. He was there to report on any malfunctions, so as to defend the builders against any claims the owners might make. Rumiton (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

lowest levels of the ship... The word level is not used at sea in this way. You would just say the lowest parts of the ship. Rumiton (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

roof of the officers' quarters Ships don't have roofs. Rumiton (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else you would call it? It wasn't part of the deck structure. This is what it looks like now. Prioryman (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't made of steel? Regardless, I think it would just be called the deck above the officers' quarters. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was made of steel, but it's superstructure, not deck. It's universally referred to as the roof by sources (see [1]). Prioryman (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I must be sounding awfully pontifical by now, but the sources "universally" screwed up again. It is a deck, regardless whether it covers part of the accommodation or a cargo hold. If you are standing on it looking down you call it a deck; if you are underneath looking up, you call it a deckhead. There are no roofs at sea. Rumiton (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A first-class lady stood about a one-in-eight chance ... If you were a first-class male ... it was about 50-50. If you were a first-class female, it was 98 percent in your favour ? Rumiton (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the objection is here? The odds given are those of survival. Prioryman (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is a first-class lady a different creature to a first-class female? :D Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. :-) Sorry, that was a typo on my part - I'll fix it. Prioryman (talk)

the noise of high-pressure steam being vented from the stopped engines... The steam was coming from the relief valves on top of the boilers, not the engines themselves. Rumiton (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

a large vessel to starboard around ten to twelve miles away. It made a sudden turn to port and stopped... This seems way too definite. The word "stopped" has critical connotations in the Rule of the Road, as does any alteration to port. You might be able to see that her heading had changed but you just can't tell if a vessel at that range has stopped in the water, and shouldn't say so. Rumiton (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what the source says. Those on Californian saw the ship turn sharply and then become motionless for some time. The ship was brightly lit so they seem to have been able to get some idea of its motion. A few hours later they saw the lights of the ship disappearing from view, as if it was moving off and going below the horizon (or, as was really the case, under the water). Prioryman (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, at ten or 12 miles away, in the days before halide bulbs they would be lucky to distinguish the masthead lights from the decklights' glare, and would have had no view of the sidelights. I stand by my objection, but if the source prevails, OK. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, and in fact the crew of the Californian seem to have been confused about exactly what they were seeing and from what angle. I think it might be worth bringing this out a bit more in the article (though not too much more, given how complex the story of the Californian's role is). Prioryman (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

engineering crewmen... = engine room crew Rumiton (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

at the rear end of the bow section... At the after end of the bow section. Rumiton (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

He gave up on the idea of going astern... Going aft, or making his way aft. Ships go astern; people go aft. Rumiton (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

By 01:30, Titanic was well down by the head and had developed a heavy list to port... If she took water on the starboard side, how is she listing to port? Rumiton (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

On this point, the accounts uniformly state that she was listing to port, and this had a direct effect on the launching of the lifeboats as it caused difficulties in loading them. Laurence Beesley says that she "listed so much to port that there was quite a chasm between her and the swinging lifeboats, across which ladies had to be thrown or to cross on chairs laid flat". Might be worth mentioning in the article. As to why this happened, I would imagine that the ship's compartmented structure made for different rates of flooding in different parts. Beesley says that the ship had a slight list to port before the sinking, which he attributes to the coal bunkers on that side of the ship possibly being exhausted at a faster rate than those on the starboard side. Prioryman (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

After this disaster, new building regs for passenger ships mandated that there be no centreline bulkhead that would prevent equal port/starboard flooding. She may well have started with a slight list, as P/S bunker chutes are normally opened alternately, but I can think of no good way that water ingress in the starboard plating could create a port list. And the boats on the starboard side would be very easy to board if so. Really, it might be just that the sources got their ports and starboards mixed up. This has happened again and again, even in Admiralty courts, and especially in collision cases. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at my copy of Beesley. He seems adamant on the point, with corroborating evidence. Thinking about it, if she truly was listing to port, the only thing that makes sense is that by this late stage, Titanic was no longer a ship. The forward section must have largely parted company with the after part at the keel, and large amounts of water were entering the port compartments. Rumiton (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The physics of the sinking were undoubtedly complicated; I wouldn't like to speculate. All we can do, I think, is report what the witnesses saw. Prioryman (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Lord, when Captain Smith made his rounds just after midnight the ship was slightly down by the head and listing about 5 degrees to starboard, exactly what one would expect from an intact ship. At some time thereafter, the ship righted herself and assumed a port list. This was when she actually broke her back and opened up portside fissures in her bottom plates, and this was when two engineers noticed water entering a boiler room from below, and speculated that the bottom plates must have been damaged. During the final sinking, the two sections finally tore free of each other. I don't expect the article to reflect this view, but I will try to find time to present my case on this soon. Rumiton (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is taking a long time. Maybe I should just start copyediting? Anyone object? Rumiton (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be better to discuss them here first, to be honest, since we're finding a mixture of things that are genuine errors and other stuff that is in the sources (and perhaps reflects confusion over the events of the sinking). But this is proving to be a very useful exercise indeed - thanks very much for your feedback. Prioryman (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll push on. Thanks for your openness. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Titanic's high speed in icy waters... Icy usually just means very cold. We probably need something like "Waters where ice had been reported." Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

water pouring out of a vent... A scupper. Vents are for air. Rumiton (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

flush with the water... Awash. Rumiton (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Rostron ordered a course to be laid in... Course to be calculated. Rumiton (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fleet spotted an iceberg "directly ahead of the ship"... Just "right ahead" is normal usage. Rumiton (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Geographical proximity... seems a strange term to use for positioning on a ship. Rumiton (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

one side of the davit jammed... Davits come in pairs. One of the davits jammed. Rumiton (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It drifted aft... Probably "it drifted astern" is better. Aft is normally only used when someone is still on the ship. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Titanic's band continued to play on outside the gymnasium... Can we drop the "on"? Rumiton (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

causing the ship to slip forward in the water... There is no reason why the ship would move ahead, it could only go downwards at this stage. This can only be an illusion caused by the water advancing up the sloping deck. Rumiton (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

through rotation of the ship's wheel... Is this not superfluous?

BTW, notwithstanding my nautical nitpicking, this is an outstanding article. I have learned a lot from it, on a subject on which I thought myself well-informed. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Californian, which had made an emergency stop in an ice field... An emergency stop is only done when a collision with something is imminent. It means all engines were put full astern to bring the ship up in as short a distance as possible. In pilotage waters it would include dropping an anchor. Do we know this was the case? If not, it would probably be best to say something like "a precautionary stop." Rumiton (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Further astern... further aft. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

that wireless equipment was manned around the clock... The point should be made that this requirement only applied to passenger ships. Rumiton (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

entire ship's complement... Still some improper uses of this word in the article. Rumiton (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

transferred off... Just transferred. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

forced the firemen to evacuate topside... Topside is American slang. Rumiton (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As it was lowered, it was nearly swamped by water being pumped out of the ship... "Swamped" usually implies that a wave surged over the gunnels and filled the boat while it was afloat. Probably better to say it was nearly filled with water from a scupper on the way down. Rumiton (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Rumiton (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've made all of the changes above. Prioryman (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for main Titanic article

I accidentally opened the main article while I was looking through this one. I know editors are working on both, so here are a few things I noticed there.

directing rescuers to a set of coordinates... Just "directing rescuers to a position" is better. Rumiton (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Carlisle's responsibilities included the decorations, equipment and all general arrangements... The term General Arrangement carries a specific meaning at sea. It denotes the first of the ship's plans, a large sheet which shows the decks, tanks, accommodation layout, masts etc. in a side elevation. All on board are familiar with it, as it is usually posted in an alleyway as an aid to fire fighting. Rumiton (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

was connected to the short tiller through stiff springs... Dampening springs. Rumiton (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

during fast changes of direction... heavy helm use at high speed. Rumiton (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Aboard Titanic were 78 stokers, greasers and firemen, and 41 members of crew... Deck crew, including surgeons etc? Rumiton (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

John Coffey, a 23-year-old stoker, jumped ship... Jumped ship is really American slang. British usage is "deserted." Rumiton (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

within the first ten minutes there was a depth of fourteen feet of water in the foremost five compartments... We already said that. Rumiton (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

a wireless station at Cape Race... THE wireless station. There was only one. Rumiton (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm no master seaman as is Rumiton, but this sentence contains a redundancy - A third-class male stood about a one-in-eight chance ... If you were a first-class male ... it was about 50-50. If you were a first-class female, it was 98 percent in your favour. If you were a third-class female, it was about 50-50, and if you were a third-class male, it was 10 to 15 percent. The first part of the sentence states a third class male had a 1/8 chance (=12.5%) and the last part of the sentence states he has "10 to 15 percent" chance. However, the chart directly above the paragraph containing that sentence lists the third-class male survival rate at 16%. So is the survival rate 12.5 percent, 16 percent or an unknown number that falls somewhere in the range 10 to 15 percent? This is ambiguous. Also, the word "favor" doesn't contain the letter "u" unless that's a nautical convention I am unaware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.178.56 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not nautical, British...this article uses British spelling, and we never had the benefit of Noah Webster's entirely sensible improvements. I'll leave the even more confusing stuff about life expectancy to others with the sources. Rumiton (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

New section on nautical authenticity

While it was still on the deck... Boats do not sit right on the deck. They are lowered until they are hanging outboard, but level with the deck, so that people can step into them and be lowered away. Best here to say '"While it was still level with the deck..." Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

left floating on the surface of the water... Just remained afloat. Rumiton (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Carpathia set sail for New York... "departed the area for New York..." Regardless of media usage, ships definitely don't "set sail" when they are already at sea. (see above.) Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Images

I'm sure editors will have noticed that the current version of the article is rather light on images compared with the previous version. The reason is that, in going through the images with a featured article reviewer's eye, I found that there were many problems with them. Put bluntly, most appear to have been uploaded under false attributions and wrong licences. I've made a start at reviewing them at User:Prioryman/Titanic image licence review. I'll add the images that pass; the ones that don't will most likely have to be deleted, I'm afraid, since they are almost certainly still in copyright and can't be used on Wikimedia Commons. Prioryman (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI anything published before 1923 is PD in the United States, which make the two Sphere images PD for our purposes because Wikimedia's servers are located in the US. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Two questions: can we show that the Sphere images were published in the US before 1923 (it was a British publication, so this can't be assumed) and since the author of one of those images, Fortunino Matania, only died in 1963, isn't that still covered by copyright? Prioryman (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Publication is everything in US copyright law. Upload the images to this site (as in, not Commons, .en), tag the first with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, and the known author image with {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2033}} This is why I love having hard publishing dates for images – you won't find that most of the time with online images. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. Prioryman (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there something special about the date 1923, or is it just nearly 90 years ago? i.e. will it be before 1924 next year? Rumiton (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is something special about that date. See Public domain in the United States. Prioryman (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. Nothing to do with this article, but I did a translation of a German WW1 book some years ago. From what I read there, I may be able to publish it in the US in 2021. Not long now. Rumiton (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Standard maritime practice ?

In section "0900 to 2340 - Iceberg Warnings." last paragraph ... "Titanic's high speed in icy waters was later criticized as reckless but it reflected standard maritime practice at the time....etc."

The paragraph seems to suggest that Titanic's high speed could be justified because it was the standard practice of the time to speed 'recklessly' and that made it okay for Titanic to do the same. That's similar to the opinion which Lord Mersey gave in his conclusions. (He stated that Captain Smith was wrong but he wasn't negligent, because he was just doing what everyone else was doing.) - It's certainly a point of view, but one which seems to be based on a distorted interpretation of the practices at the time. Mersey's opinion on this point seems quite perverse because, in reality, Captain Smith wasn't necessarily wrong to proceed as he did but, he does appear to have been negligent due to his failure to take extra precautions. If the phrase 'standard maritime practice' means anything at all, it means exactly that - taking extra precautions to minimize risk when faced with abnormal hazards. It might still be the case that those precautions prove insufficient, but failure to implement them is negligence. Ships always have, and still do, navigate in the vicinity of ice hazards - ( I've done it myself ), but it isn't done casually, or without preparation. There needs be a sound reason for making the decision and extra precautions taken, in ample time. Mersey's conclusion ignored those fundamental points. He didn't identify the rationale for Captain Smith's attempt to navigate in an area where ice was reported and he made little comment about the apparent lack of extra precautions which can be inferred from evidence presented at the public Inquiry. I'm not suggesting that all of that should, or could, be included in the article. These are aspects of the Titanic story which maybe deserve inclusion in a separate article ( one of these days!). However, in it's present form, I feel that section presents a misleading picture of standard maritime practice. Norloch (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We may be veering off into original research here. I have read a theory (which does not make a whole lot of sense to me either) which suggested that the shorter the time one spent in an icefield, the better, so it was best to get through it in a hurry. Anyway, we would need secondary sources to comment on these aspects of Edwardian seamanship. Rumiton (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton - Don't think it comes under the heading of original research. There are primary sources which confirm what I say regarding precautions. See the testimony of Capt. Moore to the US Inquiry - or Captains Rostron or Lord, at the British Inquiry - or Shackleton. - Perhaps the absence of testimony also gives further insight. (e.g. No testimony or depositions taken from commanders of ships that were comparable to Titanic with regard the precautions which they would have taken in the circumstances.) regards Norloch (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that writing from primary sources would constitute original research. If this issue is still controversial (it probably is) then we would need to find other authors with a respected body of work on this subject (seamanship and maritime law) who have analysed the sources and come up with their own interpretation for us. This would apply especially to decisions made on how much weight to apply to testimonies not given. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton - (apologies for delayed reply - I was away.) As noted before, I'm not suggesting alternative views could, or should, be in the article. The paragraph on the subject is only one small part of a large body of work. The niggling question in my mind is how accurately the current wording of that paragraph informs readers about complex circumstances. - Just as an example, let's say a few readers went on to read more about navigation practices in the North Atlantic at the time. Eventually they'd come across the White Star Line's company regulations which very specifically ordered Captains to put the safety of their ships above all other considerations. How does that relate to 'standard practice' described in the article? Does it mean that White Star directors operated some kind of double standard in which they superficially emphasised safety but covertly put pressure on all Captains to take undue risks with speed? They may have done so, but if Lord Mersey had evidence of that kind of dubious practice shouldn't he then have censured the company directors in his conclusions? Does it indicate Mersey had an agenda to protect some of the blameworthy parties? If that's the case, then perhaps it should be explained in the article. Alternatively, was there an unlikely scenario in which Captains conspired with each other to ignore company regulations for their own reasons? I think the broad generalisation in the paragraph tends to raise more questions than it answers. Doesn't matter if it's what an otherwise reliable source has stated - it has loose ends which need to be tied up. Either the paragraph requires more detail to explain awkward questions which arise from it - or maybe it's a subject better avoided.

For reference, Lord Mersey concluded, in regard to Captain Smith - " He made a mistake, a very grievous mistake, but one which, in the face of the practice and of past experience, negligence cannot be said to have any part; and in the absence of negligence it is, in my opinion, impossible to fix Captain Smith with blame ...... " - regards Norloch (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am very pressed for time right now, but regarding the double standard mentioned above, I think every person who has attained senior rank at sea is aware that there is such a thing, and the courts are fully aware of it too. In writing their regulations, the company will ALWAYS say, Take no risks, safety comes first. In person they will wave your missed arrivals and departures in your face and compare your performance with that of another captain who is more punctual but on a lesser vessel. This was the case in 1912 and is still today, and will be tomorrow. I think the court took all this into account in a particularly mature and responsible way, when they could have fried the captains involved. But if you have a specific problem or suggestion, let's discusss it. Rumiton (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton. - I agree that what you say did, and still does happen - sometimes. If it happened in the particular case of Titanic then it should be explained clearly in the article, rather than making a broad allusion to something termed 'standard maritime practice' - which leaves a lot of loose ends. Personally, I think it would require a lengthy explanation to be clear, so maybe it would be better to avoid it altogether. ( I have to say, from my own experience, that the 'double standard' mentioned in regard to shipping companies certainly wasn't universal. Over the years, I dare say that I aggravated many middle-managers in shipping companies, but whenever matters in dispute were taken to the level of the shipowner, or directors, my decisions were never questioned. - Maybe I was lucky !) regardsNorloch (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that he meant that the folks who get the most freight moved the fastest, or who were most always on time etc. are the ones who get promoted, knowing (but not saying) that such may require being less cautious. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That was what I meant, but as I said before, if we go too far into analysing the tension between timetables and cautious seamanship we would be straying into primary documents and original research, unless there exists a reputable source that has already gone into this issue. Anyone know of one? Otherwise the "loose ends" might have to stay there. Or, as you say, we might take it out altogether. Rumiton (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination

We've made quite a few changes between us over the last month, and I think (especially given the approaching anniversary!) that it's time to kick off the Good Article review process. I've submitted it as a GA nominee. If you know of anyone who might be able to give it a GA review, please ask them to take a look at it - it would be great if we could get the GA review done soon so that a Featured Article nomination can be done in time for the anniversary. Prioryman (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to hasten the process, but I think there are still some GA stumbling blocks. Let's give it a few more days at least, to see if we can polish it a bit more? Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What stumbling blocks do you perceive? It would be helpful, by the way, if everyone could list issues below that they think need to be resolved. Prioryman (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been working through them, and I wish I had more time. They are mainly things I missed first time through. eg the word "listing" used incorrectly, the word "rate" not too good either, a misassumption that the deck dept was 100% seamen. These are not contentious, and it would slow us down a lot if we have to discuss every instance. Maybe just let me know if you have a problem with what I do and I will ask if I don't understand something? Rumiton (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

engineers and firemen struggled desperately to keep the steam up in the boiler rooms to relieve pressure... This doesn't make sense. What does the source say? Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. Hopefully the eagle eyes at GA review will not spot any maritime faux pas (is this a plural?) at least (apart from the confusing steam thing above.) Let's hope it gets through OK, it really is a great article. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Names of crew

Just noticed we have a Steward F. Dent Ray and an Assistant Engineer F. Dent Harvey. Were they related? :-) Rumiton (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Got the correct first names from Titanic Crew list and made the change. Rumiton (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fire before fatal voyage?

From my childhood I seem to remember a story about there being a large fire in one of Titanic's funnels as she left port for the final time, which caused some kind of delay. Did that actually happen or am I imagining it? Or, has it simply been omitted from the article? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There was indeed a fire on board, in one of the coal bunkers. Apparently this was not an uncommon occurrence and the fire was reportedly put out before the sinking (while the ship was actually underway; it wasn't held up because of it). Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I've just noticed it being mentioned fleetingly on the alternative theories article, so its omission from this article is fine by me. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Freezing point of ocean water

The majority of deaths were caused by hypothermia in the 28 °F (−2 °C) water[88] where death could occur in as little as 15 minutes.[89]

Wouldn't ocean water freeze at -2 degrees with salinity of about 35 PSU? These numbers seem unlikely to be true. --212.44.153.162 (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Any colder than that and it would freeze, but seawater with a density of 1.025 will still be a liquid at -2°C. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC) And incidentally, due to the latent heat involved in changing state, quite a lot of further heat would have to be removed from the water to lower the temperature below -2°C and turn the water to ice. Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, water can be cooled to as low as -42 °F (-41 °C) without freezing, and liquid water as cold as -40 °F (-40 °C) has been detected in clouds. See [2] for details. Prioryman (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool! (no pun intended) But in a lake / ocean it behaves more "normally". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

True, but it all depends on salinity. Fully saturated saline water can go down all the way to -21.1 °C without freezing [3]. Seawater is much less saline than that, so its lowest liquid temperature is -2 °C [4]. In other words, the water temperature that night was literally as cold as it can get in the sea. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just meant that it couldn't go supercooled, it would just freeze at the norm temperature for water with that degree of salinity. I'm a wussie, coldest I ever swam was a warm 0 deg. C.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Port or Starboard ?

Article section; 0015 - 0025 . Departure of the lifeboats (5th. paragraph.)

Sentences state, (with reference to SS Californian,) .... " Up on the bridge her third officer, Charles Groves, saw a large vessel to starboard, about ten to twelve miles away. It made a sudden turn to port and stopped." - ( referenced with in line citation 93 - i.e. from page 60 of "Unsinkable; The full story of RMS Titanic" - by D.A. Butler.)

Don't know where Butler got his information but it doesn't agree with what Third officer Grove's actually said to the British Inquiry ( See Inquiry transcripts page 186 - questions to Charles Victor Groves nbr. 8111 onwards.) During darkness, Groves couldn't have observed the actual size of the vessel at that range. He said that he couldn't be certain of the length of the ship because it was approaching him at an oblique angle. In fact, what he said was that it was showing a lot of lights which made him believe it could only be a passenger steamer. Nor did Groves say that it made "a sudden turn to port". Quite the contrary to that, Groves actually said ( in answer to question 8228) that most of the bright lights he'd observed appeared to have been extinguished when the ship stopped and he was then able to see the red sidelight ( i.e. the navigation light on the port or lefthand side of the ship.) From his earlier description of the way the ship was approaching him, that would indicate that the ship he was observing had actually made a turn to starboard - rather than a "sudden turn to port". regards Norloch (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I found this reference to be unsatisfactory also. Groves was never cross examined; if he had been the inconsistencies in his stated bearings and aspects of the other vessel (which may not have been Titanic at all) would have become clear. Courts of inquiries tend to go glassy-eyed whenever words like North and South and Port and Starboard come up. If there are no sources that go into this, I suggest we minimise its impact on the article. Rumiton (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, - in agreement with that. Though it depends on Prioryman's reasons for including the sentences. - i.e. I'm not entirely clear about point he's making here. - regards Norloch (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Article section; 0005 - 0045 Preparing to evacuate.

3rd. paragraph - " The shortage of lifeboats was not because of a shortage of space.... etc.

The points noted in the rationale for the limited number of lifeboats are okay, but perhaps not the most important reasons. For example, it's true enough that the purchase cost of extra lifeboats would have been relatively small. However the additional labour and material costs for the year on year maintenance of those extra lifeboats and their equipment would have been a much bigger consideration than the purchase cost of the boats. ( Those old wooden boats and their gear required a lot more maintenance than modern equivalents.) Unobstructed views from the promenade deck may also have been a consideration but maybe not such a significant one. The Atlantic routes, which those ships travelled, tends to have a lot more drizzle, mist, or howling gales than balmy breezes. In following winds the promenade deck would have had copious specks of soot falling down from three funnels and some of the crew would have been on the deck, every day, washing down to get rid of it. The biggest reason by far - the complex dilemma for the shipping companies and the Board of Trade - was organising enough trained men to launch and operate all those extra boats. Extra boats, in themselves, would be pretty useless if the manning was insufficient. I think Titanic would have needed a minimum of 240 trained men to launch and operate 48 boats. (Note; that didn't necessarily mean additional experienced seamen - it could be stewards, firemen etc. - anyone who had undergone an approved training course in lifeboat operations.) The problem was that none of the shipping companies wanted to initiate the process without guidance from the Board of Trade. Who was to be responsible for deciding the appropriate level of training required? If any one company started their own training programme there were then incentives for other companies to begin poaching that company's lifeboat-trained employees. It was a situation which needed firm leadership from the Government department. However, as is often the way of it, the responsible parties spent their time inventing excuses for doing nothing. ( See also British Inquiry page 629 - questions to Sir Alfred Chalmers nbr. 22843 onwards.) Eventually, the Board of Trade did act - but much too late for Titanic's victims. The Board gradually established requirements for adequate numbers of trained lifeboatmen to be part of the crew on every ship and established training courses which permitted anyone working on ships to be qualified as a certificated lifeboatman. regards Norloch (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points. Do you have any suggestions for how to add some of this to the article? Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

These are indeed good points, assuming they're accurate, but I'm afraid there's not much we can do with them without reliable sources to back them up. Prioryman (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi- much thanks. The points were noted mainly for information rather than inclusion. I'm not so knowledgeable about wiki article size processes. but I noted another editor mentioning the article was near to optimum size - so I think it has to be Prioryman's decision about the amount of detail that it's practical to add at this stage. There are sources to verify the points ( some are self evident and therefore not likely to be challenged ) other points refer to inquiries and safety conferences over a long number of years ( They were still debating whether Officers should be exempted from lifeboatman certificate requirements in 1929.) Like Rumiton, I've other commitments so, apologies, but I couldn't provide the info on a short time scale. regards Norloch (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all interesting. Prioryman, could you please direct some attention to this sentence? engineers and firemen struggled desperately to keep the steam up in the boiler rooms to relieve pressure... It's the last thing I really can't understand in the article. If a GA reviewer stumbles over it, it will slow things down. Do you have the source handy? Rumiton (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that. I've rewritten the sentence which will hopefully make things clearer. Prioryman (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)