Talk:Sinking of the Titanic/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Sinking of the Titanic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
TFAR draft (last revised 19 March 2012)
- For WP:TFAR on 15 April. Text is 1,184 characters long. This links to ten Titanic-related articles: Sinking of the RMS Titanic, RMS Titanic, Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic (in preparation), Passengers of the RMS Titanic, Crew of the RMS Titanic, Changes in safety practices following the RMS Titanic disaster, RMS Titanic in popular culture, List of films about the RMS Titanic, Titanic (1997 film) and Wreck of the RMS Titanic.
The sinking of the RMS Titanic on 15 April 1912, with the loss of over 1,500 lives, was one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in history. Four days into her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York, Titanic – at the time the world's largest ship – struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic off Newfoundland. Five of her watertight compartments were holed, causing Titanic to flood deck by deck. The ship carried too few lifeboats for her 2,223 passengers and crew, and many seats were left empty due to a poorly managed evacuation. Titanic's officers loaded the lifeboats "women and children first", leaving most of the men aboard the ship. Two hours and forty minutes after the collision, Titanic sank with over a thousand people still aboard. Almost all those who jumped or fell into the freezing water soon died of hypothermia or drowned. The RMS Carpathia rescued the survivors from the lifeboats a few hours later. Public outrage at the loss of life led to tougher maritime safety regulations. Titanic's wreck was not found until 1985. The disaster has inspired a wealth of popular culture including many films, most notably James Cameron's Titanic in 1997. (more...)
Comments on draft
- Starts off good and punchy but the second half seems to lose momentum. How about...
The sinking of the RMS Titanic at 02:20 on 15 April 1912, with the loss of 1,517 lives, was one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in history. Four days into her maiden voyage, Titanic – at the time the world's largest ship – struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic. The collision buckled her hull and breached five of her sixteen watertight compartments. The ship carried insufficient lifeboats for the 2,223 people on board, and many were not completely filled due to a poorly managed evacuation. Two hours and forty minutes after the collision, Titanic sank with over a thousand passengers and crew still aboard. Almost all those who jumped or fell into the freezing water died from hypothermia within minutes. The survivors in the lifeboats were rescued by the RMS Carpathia a few hours later. Following the disaster, public outrage at the huge loss of life led to the introduction of much tougher maritime safety regulations. Titanic's story has since become a widely commemorated cultural phenomenon. (more...)
It's just a suggestion. The "widely commemorated cultural phenomenon" also seems a bit clumsy, but I can't think of anything else right now. Rumiton (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Better. It avoids "full capacity", which is redundant. And "far too few lifeboats" does not need the "far". As for the last phrase, unneeded. Some may commemorate the sinking and loss of life, others may be interested in the deep impact it made (which may be what is meant by the "cultural phenomenon"), but people do not commemorate the cultural phenomenon. Kablammo (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've replaced it with a version based on Rumiton's. I've also replaced the cultural phenomenon line with a link to the Wreck of the RMS Titanic article, which seems to me to be more relevant anyway, and worked in references to two other Titanic articles. Prioryman (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)- I've posted a new version which now links to five other Titanic articles - we might as well try to publicise them for the anniversary. Any thoughts? Prioryman (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's come to my attention that the 1,200 character limit applies to the wording of blurbs, not simply the entire character count including markup. I've therefore expanded the blurb a bit so that we can link to two more Titanic-related articles. Prioryman (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Where can we see the new draft? Rumiton (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- See above! Prioryman (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh. Duh. OK. Rumiton (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why is it not submitted? I can do it if y'all wish. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh. Duh. OK. Rumiton (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- See above! Prioryman (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Where can we see the new draft? Rumiton (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's come to my attention that the 1,200 character limit applies to the wording of blurbs, not simply the entire character count including markup. I've therefore expanded the blurb a bit so that we can link to two more Titanic-related articles. Prioryman (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've posted a new version which now links to five other Titanic articles - we might as well try to publicise them for the anniversary. Any thoughts? Prioryman (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It's still getting better. Maybe leave it another day or two, at least. Rumiton (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not submitted yet because TFAR is currently only accepting submissions up to April 13th if the submission in question has five or more points. This article has ten. The submissions window should be open within the next day or so. Prioryman (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Size
Titanic was not "50 per cent heavier than the previous largest ships (RMS Lusitania and RMS Mauretania)", as now stated in the article. Titanic was about 50% larger, measured in gross register tonnage (which is how passenger ships were measured), but was not 50% heavier. Titanic actually displaced 52,310 tons according to the Description of the Ship section of the British Wreck Commissioner's report. The displacements of Mauretania and Lusitania are given from 40,000 (The Expansive Working of Steam in Steam Turbines, Watt Anniversary Lecture read before the Greenock Philosophical Society, Jan. 16th, 1909, published in The Evolution of the Parsons Steam Turbine, London 1911, p. 11; see also Plate VI and VII in same work, giving same figure) to 44,000 tons (Lusitania Home, atlanticliners.com; Builder's Data, MaritimeQuest.com). Gross tonnage is not the same thing as weight. Kablammo (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- A more precise dp of 41,440t for Lusitania is stated in the testimony of Cunard's superintending engineer at the British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry. Kablammo (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I thought of raising the same point but the thought of going into the difference between displacement and the various measures of a ship's capacity with their exemptions and peculiarities filled me with faint-heartedness. Glad someone else did though. Rumiton (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks and agree. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction, well spotted. Prioryman (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- This page from author Mark Chirnside’s webpage says
I would add it to the article to support the point discussed here, but am unfamiliar with the strange citation format. Kablammo (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)When she entered service, Olympic was by far the largest liner in the world; almost one hundred feet longer than Mauretania and with a gross tonnage almost fifty percent higher.
- Sigh, I thought this would happen. Gross tonnage has no connection to a ship's size or weight, it is a legal figure that measures space inside the ship available for cargo. It is arrived at by adding a lot of different volumes inside the ship and subtracting a lot of others. Many taxes, pilotage fees and port dues used to be paid on the gross tonnage of the ship, so the owner/builder would use every artifice, including claiming that some quite large hull spaces are "open to the weather" (because they are covered by a removable hatch cover) and therefore not "enclosed by the hull", and claiming that other spaces are "accommodation" or "machinery spaces" to get this figure as low as possible. If we are comparing ship sizes, overall length is of interest but the best indicator is displacement, which really does mean the weight of the ship. We have those figures above. Rumiton (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the distinction, and am aware that, for example, BRT differed from the one the Yanks used. But I disagree that the best indicator is displacement. When we buy a house, we are interested in how big it is, not how much it weighs. GRT measures volume of the hull and superstructure (and has fewer exceptions than net tonnage, which is more closely connected to cargo capacity) and is a better measure of overall size than how much the vessel weighs. In fact Titanic likely displaced more than Costa Concordia, but the former's grt was less than half the latter's gt. And for all the romance and "nostalgia" (if that word can be used for a ship of which there is no living memory) of Titanic, the passenger spaces could be found to be impossibly cramped by the contemporary cruising public.
User:Jmvolc, a naval architect who used to edit here, stated that the objective of naval architects is to reduce displacement and therefore the power requirements to drive a vessel. See Talk:RMS_Queen_Mary_2/Archive_1#Gross_Tons_the_accepted_criterion_for_largest.3F Hence the shallow-draft vessels, with compact diesels below, and towering superstructures above enclosing vast public spaces.
In any event, whether we like it or not, gross tonnage and its variations are how passenger ships have been, and are, measured, and they are generally useful to compare one vessel to another. Kablammo (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The naval architect will, of course, try to get the displacement down, as the steelwork that causes displacement is expensive and cuts down on the ship's earning capacity. But his job is finished when the ship is built, then Lloyds or DNV or some other classification society takes over, and on behalf of the shipowner they do everything in their power to get the GRT for the existing ship as low as possible. In 1912, and in fact until the 1980's, GRT had a LOT of exceptions. Ever heard of a "tonnage hatch"? Or two-tiered tonnage certificates, showing different tonnages for different ports which did or did not allow the shipowner's scams? Disallowing the tonnage hatch will immediately raise the GRT by about 30%. It was possible for a ship to leave London with a GRT of 11500, and arrive in Montreal with a tonnage of 9100 (random examples), just because of the different rules. Things have stabilised somewhat since then, but the rules for passenger ships (eg when balconies and cabin lockers can or can't be included) are still completely artificial. I disagree it is a useful method for comparing ships and I don't think anyone who has really looked into how these figures are obtained would say that. Rumiton (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Either way, GRT should not be given as a measure of weight, because it isn't. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Precisely, if it has to be quoted it should have no units at all. But its nature and inherent uncertainties also need to be explained, and personally I think that is beyond the scope of a peoples' encyclopedia. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Either way, GRT should not be given as a measure of weight, because it isn't. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The naval architect will, of course, try to get the displacement down, as the steelwork that causes displacement is expensive and cuts down on the ship's earning capacity. But his job is finished when the ship is built, then Lloyds or DNV or some other classification society takes over, and on behalf of the shipowner they do everything in their power to get the GRT for the existing ship as low as possible. In 1912, and in fact until the 1980's, GRT had a LOT of exceptions. Ever heard of a "tonnage hatch"? Or two-tiered tonnage certificates, showing different tonnages for different ports which did or did not allow the shipowner's scams? Disallowing the tonnage hatch will immediately raise the GRT by about 30%. It was possible for a ship to leave London with a GRT of 11500, and arrive in Montreal with a tonnage of 9100 (random examples), just because of the different rules. Things have stabilised somewhat since then, but the rules for passenger ships (eg when balconies and cabin lockers can or can't be included) are still completely artificial. I disagree it is a useful method for comparing ships and I don't think anyone who has really looked into how these figures are obtained would say that. Rumiton (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the distinction, and am aware that, for example, BRT differed from the one the Yanks used. But I disagree that the best indicator is displacement. When we buy a house, we are interested in how big it is, not how much it weighs. GRT measures volume of the hull and superstructure (and has fewer exceptions than net tonnage, which is more closely connected to cargo capacity) and is a better measure of overall size than how much the vessel weighs. In fact Titanic likely displaced more than Costa Concordia, but the former's grt was less than half the latter's gt. And for all the romance and "nostalgia" (if that word can be used for a ship of which there is no living memory) of Titanic, the passenger spaces could be found to be impossibly cramped by the contemporary cruising public.
- Sigh, I thought this would happen. Gross tonnage has no connection to a ship's size or weight, it is a legal figure that measures space inside the ship available for cargo. It is arrived at by adding a lot of different volumes inside the ship and subtracting a lot of others. Many taxes, pilotage fees and port dues used to be paid on the gross tonnage of the ship, so the owner/builder would use every artifice, including claiming that some quite large hull spaces are "open to the weather" (because they are covered by a removable hatch cover) and therefore not "enclosed by the hull", and claiming that other spaces are "accommodation" or "machinery spaces" to get this figure as low as possible. If we are comparing ship sizes, overall length is of interest but the best indicator is displacement, which really does mean the weight of the ship. We have those figures above. Rumiton (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- This page from author Mark Chirnside’s webpage says
Right now we have, she and her slightly smaller sister Olympic had almost half again as much gross register tonnage as Cunard's Lusitania and Mauretania... The syntax is a little clumsy, but I am sure the figures are correct. The not very different length figures that follow hopefully put things into perspective. I can live with this version. Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If anyone is feeling the need to be even more confused on this subject, try this. Rumiton (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Which boat was it?
The caption says Boat 14 was nearly lowered onto Boat 13, but Boat 15 is more likely to be the one coming down, as they are both starboard side boats and Boat 15 would be stowed immediately aft of 13. Source? Rumiton (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes... it's a puzzling depiction. It does appear to be showing Titanic's starboard side (i.e. odd numbered lifeboats - 1, 3, 5 etc. ) but then, it also seems to show the bows of the lifeboats are apparently pointing aft. ( i.e. no rudders or tillers apparent ?) regards Norloch (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think boats in those days were mostly double ended...no rudder or tiller, they were steered with a sweep attached to the after thwart with a grommet (rope spliced into a circle.) Here is a photo. But the question remains; I think it was almost certainly Boat 15 coming down. Let's wait for another look at the sources. Rumiton (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just checked my copy of Lawrence Beesley's "The Loss of the Titanic", ISBN 0 352 30409 X, p55. In a footnote he says, "In an account which appeared in the newspapers of April 19 I have described this boat as 14, not knowing they were numbered alternately." That explains it. I will make the change. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. - The superstructure has the caboose on the starboard bridge wing shown distantly, in the background, so the foreground must be aftside starboard. The depiction of the boats isn't so important - maybe the drawings have a bit of artistic license. Though, the 1912 regs. certainly did require lifeboats to be equipped with rudders and tillers (or yokes and lines ) There are also a few mentions of tillers being used in the transcripts of the British Inquiry. (e.g. - being used to beat off anxious passengers on a couple of occasions !! ) regards Norloch (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is certainly the starboard bridge wing. I think the boats' depiction is fairly accurate if we compare them to this photo.[1] Rumiton (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually there does seem to me to be one major inaccuracy in the depiction. Notice that Titanic's portholes are parallel with the waterline? Prioryman (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's true, well spotted. Also there seems to be no port list, which would have been apparent by that stage. Rumiton (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- This pic [2], if accurate, explains the steering arrangements on the boats. The rudders would not have been shipped until the oars were manned for getting under way. Rumiton (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's true, well spotted. Also there seems to be no port list, which would have been apparent by that stage. Rumiton (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually there does seem to me to be one major inaccuracy in the depiction. Notice that Titanic's portholes are parallel with the waterline? Prioryman (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is certainly the starboard bridge wing. I think the boats' depiction is fairly accurate if we compare them to this photo.[1] Rumiton (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. - The superstructure has the caboose on the starboard bridge wing shown distantly, in the background, so the foreground must be aftside starboard. The depiction of the boats isn't so important - maybe the drawings have a bit of artistic license. Though, the 1912 regs. certainly did require lifeboats to be equipped with rudders and tillers (or yokes and lines ) There are also a few mentions of tillers being used in the transcripts of the British Inquiry. (e.g. - being used to beat off anxious passengers on a couple of occasions !! ) regards Norloch (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.prlog.org/11654376-wwwrmstitanic100couk-rms-titanic-lifeboat.jpg){kind=link}
- Yes, that's a good representation in the 2nd picture. (As a general point, if circumstances permitted, it was worthwhile fitting the rudder just before the boat entered the water. - It could sometimes be a pig of a job getting that lower pintle engaged into the gudgeon once it was underwater.) First photo is interesting. Not much resolution for detail but you can see the rudder of the nearest boat on the port side bench aft.( bow is to the right of the picture. Second boat has bow pointing to the left of the picture - but can't see gudgeoons on the stern post.) regards Norloch (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are stirring my ancient memories from the 1940's built ships when I was a cadet in the 60's. I do indeed now recall wrestling with rudders that had to be fitted like that. But I also clearly recall that there was one particularly long oar on board the boats intended to be used as a sweep, worked from a grommet as I wrote above, mainly I think when a beach landing was to be made. Do I misremember? Rumiton (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Gosh, you guys do have long memories! :-) Prioryman (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are stirring my ancient memories from the 1940's built ships when I was a cadet in the 60's. I do indeed now recall wrestling with rudders that had to be fitted like that. But I also clearly recall that there was one particularly long oar on board the boats intended to be used as a sweep, worked from a grommet as I wrote above, mainly I think when a beach landing was to be made. Do I misremember? Rumiton (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good representation in the 2nd picture. (As a general point, if circumstances permitted, it was worthwhile fitting the rudder just before the boat entered the water. - It could sometimes be a pig of a job getting that lower pintle engaged into the gudgeon once it was underwater.) First photo is interesting. Not much resolution for detail but you can see the rudder of the nearest boat on the port side bench aft.( bow is to the right of the picture. Second boat has bow pointing to the left of the picture - but can't see gudgeoons on the stern post.) regards Norloch (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Rumiton, - exactly right, again. Sweep oar - with the blade painted white, to differentiate it from other oars, in the dark. (P.S. - It's not exactly long memory, Prioryman, - it's more a case of having the scars of our misdeeds and mishaps to remind us ! ) - regards Norloch (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Norloch. (Prioryman...That's why we're so good at this 1912 stuff...we were practically there.) Rumiton (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
RMS Titanic GA review - request for assistance
I've been doing a lot of work on the main article, RMS Titanic (which has had over 2.2 million page views in just the last 90 days!). I'm planning to put it up for GA in the next couple of days. I'd be very grateful if editors could take a look at sections 1 to 6 of that article (the introduction through to "Aftermath of sinking") and let me know if they see any issues. I'll be working through the remainder of the article (Wreck and Legacy) before putting in a GA submission. Prioryman (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Currency
This must have been dealt with before, but why does an article on a British-built ship give all its building and operating costs in dollars? Rumiton (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- No opinion on what it should be, but my first guess would be that's how many of the sources did it, and that based on communication to readers. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- The main article above used pounds. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's a fair point. I'll see if I can harmonise the two articles. Prioryman (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- The main article above used pounds. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
My first thought was to answer that the movie was made by Americans, but then I realized we're not talking about the movie. We're talking about the sinking. Yet, my answer after re-thinking it, still comes back to a similar conclusion. Many rich Americans on Titanic. The profitability of the ship probably depended the most on rich American Industrialists sailing to and from America. 74.166.156.250 (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Time Zones
The Notes give the ship's time relative to UTC. This standard did not exist in 1912. It is based on the atomic clock and was not formulated until 1961. Should just be left as GMT. Rumiton (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Title
Why the overly long and formal title? Would not Sinking of the Titanic (now a redirect) be better? Here is how other “Sinking of” pages are handled: Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, Sinking of the Bismarck, Sinking of the Maine, Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, Sinking of the Rochdale and the Prince of Wales, Sinking of PNS Ghazi, Sinking of USS Housatonic, and Sinking of HMS Peacock. Kablammo (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would guess it's to fit in with the title of the parent article, RMS Titanic. The articles on Royal Mail Ships do all seem to be prefixed that way. At least it allows for predictable titles, I suppose. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Time magazine
This week's edition cites a recent study that claimed a once in a several thousand years closeness of moon and sun had created super-high tides just before the sinking, which may have floated off an unprecedented number of icebergs normally aground off Newfoundland and Greenland. Do editors feel this is worth inserting here? Rumiton (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Very interesting, and worth mentioning, I think. Prioryman (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this "tide theory" is a totally unsubstantiated and speculative theory. Little more than a plea for attention on the centennial... 205.178.104.37 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Crew's actions
The statements about "standard maritime practice at the time" and "were unaware that they were about to steam at full speed into a line of drifting ice several miles wide and many miles long" bother me. First, what was the scale of this standard practice of going at full speed even in the iceberg areas? I guess it concerned only the undernoted North Atlantic liners and if so, the sentence should be narrowed IMO. But, most importantly, if the crew was ordered to "keep a sharp look-out for ice", then they should have been aware of the danger. "... but they were unaware that they were about to steam at full speed into a line of drifting ice several miles wide and many miles long" looks like a cheap whitewashing from Ballard amid that order and should be removed imho. Brandmeistertalk 15:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. I think that "Standard martime practice" was to use your expertise and judgement to get the ship where you are going without sinking it. I think that saying that decisions that directly caused the wreck to be "standard martime practice" is either out of context or questionable. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- First, you can't simply substitute your opinion for that of the source - that's original research. Second, it was indeed standard maritime practice. Titanic was following what was called the Outbound Southern Track, a standard shipping lane agreed between all of the major merchant shipping companies. It was basically a great circle route but for safety's sake the ships were confined to specific lanes inbound (i.e. towards Europe) and outbound (towards America). That's why there were several vessels in the vicinity of Titanic when she sank - they were all following the shipping lanes. Now, it was absolutely standard practice to steam at full speed even in the ice-affected areas. It was not confined to Titanic but was something that all the passenger liners did. Lusitania and Mauritania were much faster than Titanic and they certainly didn't slow down. To understand why, you have to consider what the perceived risk was. It was common to see drifting pieces of pack ice in the shipping lanes (as Titanic's passengers did in the afternoon before she sank) but these were relatively harmless and big icebergs were rare. Seeing "a line of drifting ice several miles wide and many miles long" was virtually unheard of - the ice conditions at the time turned out to be the worst for at least 50 years. Without that factor, Titanic probably never would have hit an iceberg. Bear in mind that dozens if not hundreds of ships, including Titanic's sister Olympic, had safely travelled along the exact same route that year, steaming at full speed, without any serious incidents. The disaster has similarities with the loss of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003 - the practice they followed was undoubtedly unsafe, but they got away with it for a long time because the risk on any specific voyage was small. They didn't fully appreciate the risks until it was too late. Prioryman (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- That is still hard to reconcile with the order to keep a sharp lookout, especially because that iceberg was "several miles wide and many miles long". A lookout in the crow's nest should be aware because it's his job; the sentence indeed says the lookouts "were well aware", but then it suddenly jumps to "were unaware", which is sourced to another author. It's better to clarify that inconsistent part by writing about the exceptional ice conditions you have mentioned; as it stands it looks like an unconvincing whitewashing imo. Brandmeistertalk 23:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- The belt of icebergs was miles wide and long - there was no single iceberg that big. The lookouts were aware of the general hazard of floating ice, but were unaware of the specific hazard of this particular ice belt. It's like the difference between being aware that the road ahead may be icy, but being unaware that there's a slick of black ice just around the corner. Prioryman (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- That is still hard to reconcile with the order to keep a sharp lookout, especially because that iceberg was "several miles wide and many miles long". A lookout in the crow's nest should be aware because it's his job; the sentence indeed says the lookouts "were well aware", but then it suddenly jumps to "were unaware", which is sourced to another author. It's better to clarify that inconsistent part by writing about the exceptional ice conditions you have mentioned; as it stands it looks like an unconvincing whitewashing imo. Brandmeistertalk 23:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- First, you can't simply substitute your opinion for that of the source - that's original research. Second, it was indeed standard maritime practice. Titanic was following what was called the Outbound Southern Track, a standard shipping lane agreed between all of the major merchant shipping companies. It was basically a great circle route but for safety's sake the ships were confined to specific lanes inbound (i.e. towards Europe) and outbound (towards America). That's why there were several vessels in the vicinity of Titanic when she sank - they were all following the shipping lanes. Now, it was absolutely standard practice to steam at full speed even in the ice-affected areas. It was not confined to Titanic but was something that all the passenger liners did. Lusitania and Mauritania were much faster than Titanic and they certainly didn't slow down. To understand why, you have to consider what the perceived risk was. It was common to see drifting pieces of pack ice in the shipping lanes (as Titanic's passengers did in the afternoon before she sank) but these were relatively harmless and big icebergs were rare. Seeing "a line of drifting ice several miles wide and many miles long" was virtually unheard of - the ice conditions at the time turned out to be the worst for at least 50 years. Without that factor, Titanic probably never would have hit an iceberg. Bear in mind that dozens if not hundreds of ships, including Titanic's sister Olympic, had safely travelled along the exact same route that year, steaming at full speed, without any serious incidents. The disaster has similarities with the loss of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003 - the practice they followed was undoubtedly unsafe, but they got away with it for a long time because the risk on any specific voyage was small. They didn't fully appreciate the risks until it was too late. Prioryman (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Prioryman, many good points there. Except IMHO the OR argument. First, I never suggested putting my opinion into the article. But my main point/ thoughts were twofold. First that "standard practice" certainly including the captain etc. using their brains in addition to following procedures. Second, selecting particular content that emphasizes (and possibly exaggerates) the extent that actions that led to the sinking of the ship were standard practice may not be the best approach. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- To me the danger here is not that of whitewashing the Titanic decision makers but rather leaning towards the tabloidal; veering towards a scandal-seeking treatment. The court of enquiry found no one punishable, and the defense for not slowing down of "standard procedure," after evidence given by other shipmasters, was accepted. For all the above given reasons (previous experience of only much smaller, isolated and fairly harmless "bergy bits" etc.) it would have been unreasonable for the court to censure Capt Smith, and they didn't do so. Ordering the lookouts to be especially alert as they approached the coast of Newfoundland was entirely reasonable, too. They were looking for bits of pack ice, hard to see under any conditions, that could dent the stem or impact the propellers. If the other ice reports had reached the bridge then maybe Smith would have been reprimanded for not slowing down; but they did not, and he was not. So we should not. Rumiton (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that the lookouts were specifically instructed to watch for sea ice and growlers - the very smallest size of iceberg, no danger to a ship but possibly capable of causing minor damage. That is a pretty good indication of what the crew thought they might encounter. Bear in mind that these were very experienced sailors, many of whom had travelled exactly the same route aboard the Olympic before transferring over to Titanic. It's true that there had been a handful of accidents involving ships colliding with icebergs in the years before Titanic sank (see e.g. SS Arizona), but these had not caused sinkings or serious casualties. They had good reason to think that the risk was low, given that record. Prioryman (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- To me the danger here is not that of whitewashing the Titanic decision makers but rather leaning towards the tabloidal; veering towards a scandal-seeking treatment. The court of enquiry found no one punishable, and the defense for not slowing down of "standard procedure," after evidence given by other shipmasters, was accepted. For all the above given reasons (previous experience of only much smaller, isolated and fairly harmless "bergy bits" etc.) it would have been unreasonable for the court to censure Capt Smith, and they didn't do so. Ordering the lookouts to be especially alert as they approached the coast of Newfoundland was entirely reasonable, too. They were looking for bits of pack ice, hard to see under any conditions, that could dent the stem or impact the propellers. If the other ice reports had reached the bridge then maybe Smith would have been reprimanded for not slowing down; but they did not, and he was not. So we should not. Rumiton (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Prioryman, many good points there. Except IMHO the OR argument. First, I never suggested putting my opinion into the article. But my main point/ thoughts were twofold. First that "standard practice" certainly including the captain etc. using their brains in addition to following procedures. Second, selecting particular content that emphasizes (and possibly exaggerates) the extent that actions that led to the sinking of the ship were standard practice may not be the best approach. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! and Amen! and so forth. Rumiton (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was just offering thoughts thinking as a manager rather than as a seaman. One additional observation which is a finding of offenses severe enough for punishment is the other extreme; deferring on that does not rule out the middle ground which is avoiding material which appears to state that they did their job just fine. Never mind the minor issue that they hit an iceberg, sank the ship and over 1,000 died; getting the ship safely to New York was not in anybody's job description, only to follow standard practices. That said, I was only offering thoughts; going either way with the articles is fine with me. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I know I tend to overreact a bit when I see criticism of deck officers. It always puts me in mind of a famous British court case where the actions of a watchkeeper were strongly condemned after an investigation that dragged on for several weeks. At the end of it, counsel for the defendant stood up and said, "My Lords. This court has just spent 35 days discussing the decisions made by my client as officer of the watch; decisions which my client had less than a minute to make." We have had nearly a hundred years to ponder the decisions made that night. I think the article makes it clear that the way the radio room was run was irresponsible; the crew lifesaving appliance training almost non-existent; the boat boarding procedure shameful, and the launching chaotic; and that Captain Smith was responsible for all of it. During the abandonment when he was most needed, he appears to have gone into something like a hibernation. Also he violated the most important Rule of the Road...the unwritten Rule 39, which states, "Do not have a collision." He had one, albeit not with another vessel. But still, the court did not find him negligent in having the collision, and neither should we. Rumiton (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. And, BTW, it is so cool being at an article that has immensely expert people like yourself active at the article. And seeing such an immense amount of excellent work done as Prioryman has done. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliments. :-) The White Star Line did actually emphasize the need for safety (after all, they didn't want to lose expensive ships) so they weren't oblivious to it. While it's true as Rumiton says that Captain Smith did get a lot of things wrong, the biggest failures were collective and corporate. The shipping companies all used unsafe navigational practices. None of the big passenger liners, of any nationality, had enough lifeboats to go around. Nobody was tracking the ice, as there was no ice patrol then. If any of those things had been different, Captain Smith's failures probably wouldn't have mattered, as he was due to retire anyway. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. I blush. And thanks again to Prioryman for your amazing diligence in this article in particular and for being such an exemplary Wikipedian in general. Rumiton (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliments. :-) The White Star Line did actually emphasize the need for safety (after all, they didn't want to lose expensive ships) so they weren't oblivious to it. While it's true as Rumiton says that Captain Smith did get a lot of things wrong, the biggest failures were collective and corporate. The shipping companies all used unsafe navigational practices. None of the big passenger liners, of any nationality, had enough lifeboats to go around. Nobody was tracking the ice, as there was no ice patrol then. If any of those things had been different, Captain Smith's failures probably wouldn't have mattered, as he was due to retire anyway. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. And, BTW, it is so cool being at an article that has immensely expert people like yourself active at the article. And seeing such an immense amount of excellent work done as Prioryman has done. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I know I tend to overreact a bit when I see criticism of deck officers. It always puts me in mind of a famous British court case where the actions of a watchkeeper were strongly condemned after an investigation that dragged on for several weeks. At the end of it, counsel for the defendant stood up and said, "My Lords. This court has just spent 35 days discussing the decisions made by my client as officer of the watch; decisions which my client had less than a minute to make." We have had nearly a hundred years to ponder the decisions made that night. I think the article makes it clear that the way the radio room was run was irresponsible; the crew lifesaving appliance training almost non-existent; the boat boarding procedure shameful, and the launching chaotic; and that Captain Smith was responsible for all of it. During the abandonment when he was most needed, he appears to have gone into something like a hibernation. Also he violated the most important Rule of the Road...the unwritten Rule 39, which states, "Do not have a collision." He had one, albeit not with another vessel. But still, the court did not find him negligent in having the collision, and neither should we. Rumiton (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
"Saw to starboard"?
Although I consider the nautical terminology in the article easy to understand, I've found the following phrase in this paragraph somewhat cryptic: "[Californian's] Third Officer, Charles Groves, saw a large vessel to starboard". Does it mean that he saw the starboard side of the ship? Waltham, The Duke of 16:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, remember that starboard simply means the right-hand side. Seeing something to starboard simply means that he saw the other vessel on the right-hand side of his own ship. It's a description of the direction he was looking in. Prioryman (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- That clears it up for me. Tonight I saw Titanic 3-D at the theater and didnt understand why I heard Starboard, when the action taken was to steer to portside to try to avoid the iceberg. "saw to starboard" is what I was hearing in the dialogue. I did notice in the movie, the iceberg scrapes and punctures the side of the ship. Recent speculation has been whether the iceberg extended under the keel and buckled the keel bottom. 74.166.156.250 (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I get it now. Thank you.
- Great job on the article, by the way; it makes for a fascinating read. I knew much about the circumstances of the sinking, but I was shocked to find out that the ship was only half-full. I was also surprised to find that James Cameron's film got so many details right (about the ship and the sinking, not the characters).
- One more thing... The article does not describe exactly the manner in which the ship broke up, but it does give a maximum down angle of 10°. Does this mean that it happened as described in this video? Waltham, The Duke of 17:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Cameron's film gets the ship itself pretty much right - he was obsessive about the detail. However, the mechanism of the sinking is still not entirely clear. He depicts it as splitting apart on the surface, which seems to be wrong (it probably split just under the surface), while it was at a steep angle in the water and from the top down, as in that History Channel documentary that you linked. Various simulations and calculations have suggested that it might actually have split from the bottom up, where the stresses were greatest, and at a much shallower angle. The History Channel gives a 30° angle but Titanic's bending moment has been calculated to have been reached at 10% or above. If I remember rightly, Archibald Gracie - who was aboard when she went down - said that the angle was about 15%. One thing Cameron definitely got wrong was Titanic's stern falling back into the water and wiping out swimmers underneath it. It looks very dramatic but nobody reported that happening. Prioryman (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- It certainly makes sense that the ship split beneath the surface, because it explains why many witnesses didn't realise that it split at all. I suppose the element you describe might be poetic licence on Cameron's part; if he researched the event so exhaustively, one would expect him to have seen that this couldn't have happened.
- I don't know whether this will interest you, but there's someone else trying to make the 15 April deadline... It's an interesting endeavour, to be sure. Waltham, The Duke of 21:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
A substantial amount of witnesses did testify the ship broke in two though. Enough so that Harland and Wolff redesigned the expansion joints on the Britannic. Why it was never fully accepted was because Second Office Lightoller testified the ship sunk in one piece, and as the ranking officer who had survived, his word was taken as fact by the inquiry, which ignored the fact he was fighting for his life on an upturned lifeboat at the time. About two years ago they actually found a fully intact piece from side to side of the Titanic's bottom, measuring about 90ft long. Analyzing it along with how the decks look on the wreck many now think that the decks actually after initially splitting, collapsed into themselves. Then the weight of the bow sinking split them apart on the surface before the double bottom finally snapped under water. Though regardless, it's entirely true that the angle was nowhere near the 45/50 degree mark as shown in the movie. Also of note, the command "hard 'a starboard" actually means hard left, i.e. to turn a ship to port, and vice versa for "hard 'a port". It's an old sailing term that was still in use at the time that is a reference to the position of the rudder. These were done away with in the late 20's.TheMadcapSyd (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
KEEPING THE SHIP LEVEL FOR LIFEBOATS
"What Sank Titanic" was a documdrama in 2011 on Discovery channel, and was narrated by actor Bill Paxton. The docudrama alleges that the Captain gave the order to unlock the watertight doors, so they could try to pump water out of boiler rooms 5 and 6. Of course the water was still coming into the ship, and those boiler rooms were too flooded for any pumping. The docudrama then shows a deck officer informing the Captain that boiler room 5 is lost, and he asks if the watertight doors should be shut again. Captain Smith tells his officer to leave the watertight doors open, because they need to be level to launch the lifeboats. Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Trim angle would not affect lifeboat launching until it became extreme, while even a fairly small list could mean the high side boats might jam against the hull and not be launchable. Rumiton (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- After re-viewing some segments of the Discovery channel docudrama on youtube, let me say this: I understand what you are saying. But lets keep in mind the fact that water in the bow was getting so high that water was spilling over the watertight bulkheads, AKA the "flooded ice cube tray" effect. When they re-opened the watertight doors to try to pump water, that was a futile effort. However, that just maybe have given them more time. That might have given them enough of a delay that they needed, to try to put off trim angle for just enough time to launch lifeboats. HOWEVER, this whole point raises a good question. The docudrama states the bridge could only electronically "Unlock" watertight doors. The actual LIFTING of watertight doors was a manual operation. Someone would have to physically turn the wheel on the watertight door to re-open it. The question becomes: How many of the watertight doors were actually re-opened. How long did they stay open? Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- If this is it, it seems to be a weak source. The excerpt I just watched started out something like, "Now, for the first time, a forensic study has been made of the evidence." This is nonsense. Forensic science is the study of crime, and no crime was committed. The accident investigation started the day after the sinking, and has been going on informally ever since. I was also offended by the actor's voiceover shouting "Hard a port" when the actual order given was "Hard a starboard." The green sidelight showing on the port side of the ship was irritating, too. I think this sensationalist source disqualifies itself and can be disregarded. Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- When the subject is Titanic, isnt every source a sensationalist source? But I'm willing to admit that "What Sank Titanic" fails to accurately inform facts with regard to Smith's decision to not re-close those watertight doors. We dont know which doors were re-opened, do we? If Captain Smith did order the buttons be pressed to unlock the watertight doors, he may have made an assumption that all the doors were re-lifted. Men rushed to the bow to pump water from boiler room 5. These men came from where? From Boiler room four? From Boiler room three? Did men leave the farthest aft-portion of the engine-room to pump water from the bow? Captain Smith was told that boiler room five was lost, and For Captain Smith to have assurance that not re-locking watertight doors would keep him level for lifeboat launching, he would have been making a big assumption: that every watertight door was re-lifted all the way from boiler room five all the way aft to the last and final watertight door in the engineroom. As for the word Forensic, I think the correct use of the word "Forensic" is perhaps more broad than its use as explained in your argument. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- If this is it, it seems to be a weak source. The excerpt I just watched started out something like, "Now, for the first time, a forensic study has been made of the evidence." This is nonsense. Forensic science is the study of crime, and no crime was committed. The accident investigation started the day after the sinking, and has been going on informally ever since. I was also offended by the actor's voiceover shouting "Hard a port" when the actual order given was "Hard a starboard." The green sidelight showing on the port side of the ship was irritating, too. I think this sensationalist source disqualifies itself and can be disregarded. Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Many sources are sober and well-informed, and they are the ones preferred. This article currently refers to 4 journal articles, 2 news reports, 39 references, 203 footnotes and the full text of the British Wreck Commissioner’s Enquiry of July 1912. The obvious faults in this documentary make it a dubious source (not just a sensationalist one) which means that any information we draw from it needs to be supported from the better sources that I have listed above. The rest of your post is speculative. Wikipedia editors are not original researchers, we just repeat what the best sources say. If you can find solid information relating to conversations Captain Smith had about watertight doors, let's see it. It would be very interesting. Rumiton (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- The documentary that aired on Discovery might be viewed by you as dubious, but maybe someone has the time to research what their sources were, for the documentary. As for my post being speculative, Im raising an question, Im not reaching my own conclusion. I raised an Interesting question, did I not? 74.166.156.250 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Heck, yes! But that is the fascinating thing about this saga, there is an almost infinite number of interesting questions that can be raised (and over the years most of them have been raised.) We need to stick with the more reputable sources to avoid creating an article that is so full of whats and what-ifs that it becomes unreadable. Thanks for your interest. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The documentary that aired on Discovery might be viewed by you as dubious, but maybe someone has the time to research what their sources were, for the documentary. As for my post being speculative, Im raising an question, Im not reaching my own conclusion. I raised an Interesting question, did I not? 74.166.156.250 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
New article
I've written a new article for the forthcoming centenary: Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic. Comments would be welcomed. Prioryman (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good job ! I just put a link to the French Wikipédia, where our "Canots de sauvetage du Titanic" article was created some years ago. LittleTony87 (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for the Main Page on 15 April
Please note that I have now nominated this article to appear on the Main Page next month on 15 April. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#April 15 for details. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
New article on Titanic in popular culture
Editors here might be interested to have a look at a new article that I've contributed, RMS Titanic in popular culture, which will be linked from the Main Page on the centenary day. Please leave any feedback at Talk:RMS Titanic in popular culture. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
'd' (lower-case)
"Titanic disaster" -- with a small 'd' should also redirect here, since "Titanic Disaster" already does. These links are case sensitive, and "disaster" is probably more commonly used than "Disaster" (proper noun?!). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for that suggestion. Dolphin (t) 05:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unbalanced since revision
I noticed that the whole Titanic articles which were under major revision during the last months ended in a quite unbalanced selection of sources. Several statements contradict the findings of the last decades. Its a pity that during the revisions several valuable sources were removed. --DFoerster (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- It would help if you could give specific examples... Prioryman (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK. The most prominent statements are the five compartment damage and the ice cube tray effect. It is already stated in the inquiry that at least the first six compartments were damaged and very likely also the seventh. There is a comprehensive scientific study about the flooding by Bedford and Hacket. I added this information and the source in an earlier version of the article but now we are back again with the five compartment damage desription. Second most prominent assertion is th crash stop manouvre. There is a lot of evidence that this never was executed, but this article claims that it reduced the effectiveness of the rudder. I could make a very long list... --DFoerster (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Comparison of RMS Olympic & Titanic hulls
I've taken out a newly added comparison between the Titanic's collision with an iceberg and the Olympic's collision with a U-boat. Unless the source makes this specific comparison, I'm afraid it's likely to be original research and thus ineligible for inclusion. Additionally, I don't think it's a valid comparison: U-103 weighed about 1,100 tons at the most and was hit head-on by Olympic, whereas the iceberg weighed tens if not hundreds of thousands of tons and was only struck a glancing blow. The type of damage was very different - raking damage to the length of the hull versus localised damage to the bow. Remember that the watertight compartmentation was designed specifically to be able to cope with head-on collisions, as those were seen as the most likely threat. If Titanic had rammed the iceberg head-on she probably would have survived, as the SS Arizona did a few decades previously. Prioryman (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a valid comparison to the iceberg collision, but the photo in the source clearly shows buckled hull plates on Olympic 's starboard side. Hence this fact contradicts the assertion that the wrought iron rivets were near their stress limits even before the collision. This statement implies that the liner was not seaworthy for its normal service, at least to the normal reader. As was proven by the Olympic 's career, this is far from being true. Hence it cannot be left uncommented. This is one of the points which I mean with unbalanced. Depending on what information and source one uses it is possible to build up completetly contradicting stories about the Titanic. To my opinion, one must be careful when selecting statements or sources which make such extreme assertions. --DFoerster (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Without wanting to assert anything about the metallurgy either way, sister ships are not congenital twins. The builders use whatever material is available at the time that they hope will do the job, so the rivets on Olympic may not be the same as on Titanic. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, they can't be the same but similar. Most important, the 31 wrought iron rivets tested by Foecke/McCarty were definitively also not the same as those ones in the hull shell plating of Titanic's bow, most of these 31 rivets were not even from shell plating at all. The problem is not the metallurgy, but the conclusions that were drawn. And no, the builders would not have used whatever material available. They have to assure a certain quality level as the vessels have to sustain considerable stresses in heavy weather. By the way: Foecke/McCarty themselve use photos of the Olympic damage after the Hawke collision as an example for rivet failure. --DFoerster (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- As general examples of rivet failure, by all means, but I hope they didn't try to draw any specific conclusions. The rivets may not even have been very similar. These were days long before quality control and even before metal analysis was a precise art. The foundrymen who forged them could not "assure a certain quality level", not with any degree of accuracy. They could not even have told anyone exactly what the steel composition was. Rumiton (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- NO, they could not tell about the composition, but the yard can test the rivet bar stock. Just a mechanical test. This was a standard procedure even in that days. I would not expect any yard blindly using any crap they could find. The yard has to ensure the stability of the ship. But that's excatly what Foecke/McCarty do. And their argeuments are 31 rusty rivets which were not from the hull shell plating. And even within this small quantity the slag content varied between 1.1% and 12.8%. That's not a basis to accuse H&W for using unsuitable material in structurally important parts of the vessel and hence this stuff SHOULD NOT BE CITED in this wikipedia article, at least not without any comment! I would like to add an extra argument: In the cited source Broad 2008 [3] there is an figure called "Not So Unsinkable". It shows the approximate boundaries between iron and steel rivets. Even if these boundaries are approximate, the leak at boiler rooms #6$5 is clearly inside the steel rivet zone, which complies with other sources which say that the outer 20 % of the vessel's length were iron riveted. Hence it is highly probable that this parted seam was steel riveted. The steel rivets from the big peace (these are definitively rivets of the shell plating!) were also analysed by Foecke/McCarty and were of good quality. So there is no argument left for the theory that the seams only parted because of bad quality rivets. --DFoerster (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- As general examples of rivet failure, by all means, but I hope they didn't try to draw any specific conclusions. The rivets may not even have been very similar. These were days long before quality control and even before metal analysis was a precise art. The foundrymen who forged them could not "assure a certain quality level", not with any degree of accuracy. They could not even have told anyone exactly what the steel composition was. Rumiton (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, they can't be the same but similar. Most important, the 31 wrought iron rivets tested by Foecke/McCarty were definitively also not the same as those ones in the hull shell plating of Titanic's bow, most of these 31 rivets were not even from shell plating at all. The problem is not the metallurgy, but the conclusions that were drawn. And no, the builders would not have used whatever material available. They have to assure a certain quality level as the vessels have to sustain considerable stresses in heavy weather. By the way: Foecke/McCarty themselve use photos of the Olympic damage after the Hawke collision as an example for rivet failure. --DFoerster (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Without wanting to assert anything about the metallurgy either way, sister ships are not congenital twins. The builders use whatever material is available at the time that they hope will do the job, so the rivets on Olympic may not be the same as on Titanic. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Nobody seems to react further on this dispute. There were several rebuttals of this theory (e.g. by Tom McCluskie in The Titanic Commutator, Issue 182). As the assertion the wrought iron rivets were near their stress limits even before the collision is an unproven theory (there were no iron rivets of the hull shell plating tested by the authors) but is presented as fact here I add the template [neutrality is disputed] at the corresponding position. --DFoerster (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't add the passage in question, but it seems to me that what we have here is a disagreement between sources; some say one thing, some say something else. The correct way to deal with that is not to add a [neutrality is disputed] template to a sourced statement that you disagree with, but to explain the disagreement between sources. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've thought it would be the best to just leave out this assertion as it is scientifically unfounded. A pity, but no one seems to agree. As I have my library not at hand I used an internet source and added again the Olympic example, additionally with citation of McCluskie. So no one can call this original reasearch anymore. --DFoerster (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't add the passage in question, but it seems to me that what we have here is a disagreement between sources; some say one thing, some say something else. The correct way to deal with that is not to add a [neutrality is disputed] template to a sourced statement that you disagree with, but to explain the disagreement between sources. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Bulkhead F
In the diagram which shows the bulkheads, bulkhead F only extends to F deck. This is definitively wrong! As can be found in many sources and also in the BOT report [4], all bulkheads reached at least to E deck! --DFoerster (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Something certainly seems wrong. What do you offer by way of a tie-breaker? Rumiton (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have them with me at the moment but in the two larger investigation/technical reports on the sinking the got pretty deep into the height of the bulkheads and how that affected the course of events during sinking. North8000 (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- One doesn't need any investigations. Someone has drawn red lines ontop of the section plan of the original Olympic-class layout. This cross-section plan is not a bulkhead plan! So the problem was just that someone has drawn the bulkhead positions who did not have a plan of the watertight compartments. For some reasons this cross-section plan indiactes most of the bulkheads, but not all. Actually I see that the same problem exists for bulkhead P: The red line ends at E deck while this bulkhead extended up to D deck. The situation is somewhat more complicated for bulkhead A (collision bulkhead): While it indeed extened up to C deck it was caulked only up to D deck. Hence regarding the watertight compartmentisation it should be left like it is actually in the figure. --DFoerster (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have them with me at the moment but in the two larger investigation/technical reports on the sinking the got pretty deep into the height of the bulkheads and how that affected the course of events during sinking. North8000 (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Blatant inconsistency
Section "Casualties and survivors" is internally inconsistent. Table clearly indicates that third class men had twice the survival rate of second class men, and this is reinforced by text below "Proportionately, the heaviest losses were suffered by the second-class men". However, immediately following in the same paragraph, it is stated "It was for this reason that [Cameron] chose to centre his film on a love affair between a first-class female and a third-class male, individuals with respectively the greatest and least chance of survival." One of those two statements has to be erroneous. Someone with access to the reference indicated at the end of the paragraph, please fix. Fnj2 (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, both of those statements are wrong. The highest rate of survival was 2nd class children (100%), while the lowest was 2nd class men (8%). But it makes a better movie the way Cameron filmed it. (Hollywood producers never let facts get in the way of an exciting movie script!) T-bonham (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- There was quite a bit of discussion on this issue leading up to the centenary of the sinking. I rectified the problem - see my diff. However, I see that some time between then and now my wording disappeared from the article. Dolphin (t) 12:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Table
Irrespective of the above users complaint. The table used on this page for Casualties and survivors is very confusing and should be split. It should list the numbers involved but overall percentages should be separate along with the totals. Currently the crew and the passengers figures are crudely lumped together. There is no way, without doing the calculations in ones head, to accurately discern groups. For example the survivors and survival percentages by class e.g. first, second or third. Then the crew. Frankly by trying to do a one-table fits all fails to do either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.211.62 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Note "a" states that the clocks on the ship were set to 2:58 behind GMT, yet the first paragraph states that 2:20 (ship time, presumably) is 5:47 GMT. What is the correct GMT of the sinking?
"struck an iceberg at 23:40 (ship's time[a]) on Sunday 14 April 1912. She sank two hours and forty minutes later at 02:20 on Monday 15 April (05:47 GMT)"
"a. At the time of the collision, Titanic's clocks were set to 2 hours 2 minutes ahead of Eastern Time Zone (UTC−05:00) and 2 hours 58 minutes behind Greenwich Mean Time.[1] In other words, her time was close to UTC-3 (only 2 minutes ahead)."
--mikeu talk 18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It now states:
02:20 [i.e. ships time] on Monday 15 April (05:18 GMT). So GMT time minus ships time = 2:58. "behind GMT" is to be read as "earlier than GMT". When the sun rises at Greenwich, New Foundland is still in early morning darkness. -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Cultural impact of James Cameron's film: notable or trivial?
A short time ago, I mentioned that a claim was endorsed by the script of Cameron's landmark 1997 film, Titanic. I said I was making the insertion for notability. User IdreamofJeanie countered that it's trivial. It is well understood in America that mass media, like dramas in film and television, can get the masses to believe things, particular points of fact or cultural values. That general truth alone would make many claims in Cameron's script notable in this article or the general article. Adding that Cameron's film is one of the highest grossing of all time, that it was in itself a cultural phenomenon (there were many feature news reports about the obsession of pubescent girls over it, many watched in it groups multiple times), that makes misinformation in this film notable. The misinformation at issue here is the idea, already reported in our article as "myth", that the head of the shipping company wanted to "set a transatlantic speed record". If this claim is indeed false, it is not trivial that one of the most famous movies in all movie history stokes it. Hurmata (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. (As an aside, we're talking about RW notability, not wp:notability). You seems to be saying that since the film is notable that that makes a statement contained within the film notable? North8000 (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- If the film raised a fresh myth then it might be notable. if every man and his dog believes a myth, a reference in a film is not. The idea that the ship was racing for a record was widespread before JC's film, so the fact that he followed popular opinion in including it is trivia IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Re a skeptical edit of 13 April 2012: the issue of optical technology of the era
User Textorus didn't like "considering the poor quality of optics at this time, it is doubtful that [binoculars] would have helped". In his/her edit summary, Textorus exclaimed, "surely they can't mean the binoculars?" because astronomers had discovered the rings of Saturn centuries earlier with worse lenses. Textorus jumped to the conclusion that sharp focusing binoculars available in 1912 would have been sufficient to discern icebergs on that night. That is NOT what the SOURCE said. At Google Books Preview as of this moment, the explanation is cut off, but they do display this leadup: "Glasses (as sailors call binoculars) of 1912 vintage would not have helped spot the berg sooner. While their optics were sharp and their magnification powerful,". Hurmata (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Although the poster introduced an even worse error ("poor visibility") which was reverted, I think that their complaint was valid, and that your post here agrees with them. The current text implies that the poorness of the optics made a difference. This is implausible, and also appears to not be in the source. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously the source author has given this point more investigation than either you or I, and the substance of your objection is something the author probably would have been well aware of. You're disregarding that a book from 2000 by an expert (see below) plainly says -- what I quoted above -- that something about the technology of 1912 binoculars makes it unlikely they would have aided the naked eye in spotting icebergs in the hours before the collision. Of course, other reliable sources may disagree, and of course I can't lay my hand on what that something is (I don't have the book and the Google Preview truncates), but we do have a "Reliable Source" for the assertion. Indeed, the person making the assertion is a career ferryboat captain who also was a "TV news producer and journalist" for 17 years (here -- by the way, this is a Podcast interview with him from FOUR DAYS AGO, about the sinking of the Titanic). Ergo, while curiosity as to why 1912 vintage binoculars probably wouldn't have helped is reasonable, your and Textorus's complaint is idle. Granted, one can reasonably wonder whether the editor who made this insertion truly read the entire passage (because it's a fact that people at Wikipedia do fail to really read their sources) and whether the editors who supposedly checked this FA candidate did a proper job (because it's a fact that sometimes they don't). But the portion of the passage I have available to me is categorical enough. Again, I am not the editor who made the insertion. If you could transcend "that doesn't seem right to me", if you could cite an optical expert or a mariner who has experience sailing polar latitudes during iceberg season, then your complaint would not be idle. Hurmata (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting confusing. To narrow my post even further, I'm saying that the text in the article asserts something that is not in the sources. And your response is basically to imply that I am asserting that the sources are wrong. ????? North8000 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could tell us what the source says that is different to what the article says? From what I recall of it - I can't access it right now - the author's point was that the optics of the time were comparatively poor and that it wasn't until the First World War that really high-grade optics became widely available for the first time, their development having been spurred by military necessity. Prioryman (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- You might find this helpful http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/we-have-no-look-out-glasses-in-the-crows-nest~chapter-0~part-1.html G-13114 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I read it. Interesting. The gist of it was that they were not using binoculars/glasses at all. There was some discussion as to whether or not having/using them would have helped. Soe discussion of the general types, no discussion of quality. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- You might find this helpful http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/we-have-no-look-out-glasses-in-the-crows-nest~chapter-0~part-1.html G-13114 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could tell us what the source says that is different to what the article says? From what I recall of it - I can't access it right now - the author's point was that the optics of the time were comparatively poor and that it wasn't until the First World War that really high-grade optics became widely available for the first time, their development having been spurred by military necessity. Prioryman (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting confusing. To narrow my post even further, I'm saying that the text in the article asserts something that is not in the sources. And your response is basically to imply that I am asserting that the sources are wrong. ????? North8000 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously the source author has given this point more investigation than either you or I, and the substance of your objection is something the author probably would have been well aware of. You're disregarding that a book from 2000 by an expert (see below) plainly says -- what I quoted above -- that something about the technology of 1912 binoculars makes it unlikely they would have aided the naked eye in spotting icebergs in the hours before the collision. Of course, other reliable sources may disagree, and of course I can't lay my hand on what that something is (I don't have the book and the Google Preview truncates), but we do have a "Reliable Source" for the assertion. Indeed, the person making the assertion is a career ferryboat captain who also was a "TV news producer and journalist" for 17 years (here -- by the way, this is a Podcast interview with him from FOUR DAYS AGO, about the sinking of the Titanic). Ergo, while curiosity as to why 1912 vintage binoculars probably wouldn't have helped is reasonable, your and Textorus's complaint is idle. Granted, one can reasonably wonder whether the editor who made this insertion truly read the entire passage (because it's a fact that people at Wikipedia do fail to really read their sources) and whether the editors who supposedly checked this FA candidate did a proper job (because it's a fact that sometimes they don't). But the portion of the passage I have available to me is categorical enough. Again, I am not the editor who made the insertion. If you could transcend "that doesn't seem right to me", if you could cite an optical expert or a mariner who has experience sailing polar latitudes during iceberg season, then your complaint would not be idle. Hurmata (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"Iceberg warnings" section
This section is currently looking very disjointed, including a single sentence standing alone unreferenced, and the title is far longer than necessary. There have been many edits the last couple of days so I can't work out exactly which caused it, but can we revert back to how it was in this version (for instance)? --Lobo (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- There especially is no reason why a heading should be short, and aside from that invalid objection and one other, you do not make a case for your dissatisfaction. Let's look at the actual edits I've made to this article in the last two days or so -- nearly 20, including one made in the last few minutes, since your complaint. We see that I caught a misattribution, a wrong casualty figure, and three nontrivial instances of broken English. We see that in this section especially, the result of my many edits has been to improve the cohesion and "engagingness" of the narrative, which included fixing multiple instances of bad setting of paragraph breaks. Any single sentence standing alone unreferenced was not added by me, it is just the result of fixing the paragraphing. The notion that every single assertion in a Wikipedia article has to be attested explicitly is naively excessive: look to the context. If you genuinely conclude that nearby sourced sentences are insufficient to source a particular sentence, then please tag the deficient sentence yourself, don't be content to say there exists a sentence in need of sourcing. The tag is {{fact|date=MMYY}}; this is a very common edit. Next let's consider how I have content edited articles in languages, history, science, biography, popular music, and how I whipped up a sophisticated biography of Gilberto_Bosques_Saldívar in about an hour (relying mostly on Spanish language sources, and to this day about 95 of the text is what I wrote). In view of these factors, the opinion -- again, unsupported with specifics -- that a long section of an article would come out "disjointed" after I spend two days and around a dozen edits on it has no credibility. Hurmata (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need to take it personally, you aren't the only person who's edited the page recently and I wasn't accusing anyone. Your snarky tone is entirely unnecessary (and the showing off is seriously petty). I just noticed that it looks rather unprofessional right now, with too many stubby paragraphs. This is going to be on the main page in a few hours and its presentation is important. We should have nice neat paragraphs, and the previous heading was succinct and in keeping with the other headings on the page. The one at the moment stands out drastically as very different from the others.
- The fact is that the article was closely scrutinised (by many pairs of eyes) when it went through FAC a couple of months ago, and was left in very good shape as a result. Certain editors put in a lot of work making sure the text was a specific way and of the highest standard. It's fine for people to make corrections and small copy edits, and we can keep these useful changes. But I strongly think the appearance, at least, should go back to the example I gave.--Lobo (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I do accept your criticism to an extent, that it's "stubby". I was uncomfortable with that all along. But I disagree with everything else you argue. Also, leaving aside any possible merits in your argument, your objection was hurried and vague. I took your "disjointed" to refer to the narrative structure (and maybe you do think that too, but in clarification you focused on the appearance of the layout). In fact, my version is better at bringing out the flow of information (e.g., which two out of six messages didn't get relayed to the ship's officers; making plain we're talking about radio transmissions), and made it easier to follow. Let's notice that the section were talking about is a litany of messages similar in form, each with a different clock time and sender, and many with captions. There's a confusing cast of characters in just this short span. Indeed, one of my edit summaries alludes (although this is not evident) to confusion as to the identity of who didn't receive a particular radio warning: the Titanic's officers', or the entire ship (i.e., the transmission was not received at all by the radio crew). Therefore, the last thing we should do is restore this section of the article to "pre Hurmata". All in all, we still have to fault you for throwing out a vague word like "disjointed" without explaining yourself. Now, anyone, be my guest if you can further improve the narrative flow and the organization into paragraphs.
- Your esteem for the quality of the scrutiny is unsound. Let me interject that I find the overall quality high, and the article is very impressive for its breadth and its sophistication. However, I have specific complaints with this article and general objections to the culture of article review at WP. About this article, I'll emphasise these gaffes. (1) The body of the text said 2224 passengers and the lead said 2223 -- obviously bad scrutiny. (2) A lengthy quotation about whether Nearer my God to Thee was play was attributed not to the bandmaster of the rescue ship who spoke with survivors hours after the disaster and was the actual speaker, but to another professional musician who interviewed him for a book. (3) In three places, editors failed to use the perfect, 'have', in a way suggestive of nonnative speakers. (4) A painting depicting the moment of sinking indicates it happened in daylight rather than 2:20 am, yet no admonitory caption was given. (5) The lead was missing the hugely notable information that our knowledge the number of passengers on board is only an estimate +/(-) 100 odd, at least according to the sources cited in the body. Hurmata (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about scrutinty of the content - unfortunately that is something that reviews can rarely do effectively, since it's unlikely reviewers will have expert knowledge. If you've found some errors, then I'm glad you have fixed them. But I don't think there were any issues over clarity or presentation of the material. To be honest I didn't even look at the changes that had been made, I just noticed that the section was looking a lot worse than the last time I visited the article (and yes, I do literally mean LOOKING worse; its visual appearance. I find this very important in an article). I'm just going to go ahead and attempt to improve this, I won't change anything content-wise. --Lobo (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. The reason I added "radio" to the section heading was precisely to dramatise for the reader. Not "melodramatise", but dramatise. I.e., to better hold the reader's attention, and avoid confusion, by making it more vivid that the litany about to be presented is a set of radio messages. This puts us in the radio room. Concrete detail, compelling images, are simply two of the rules of good prose style. Hurmata (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I really don't think this level of explanation and detail is needed purely in a subheading. It looks really over the top. You'd never get a chapter in a book with a name that long, would you? "Iceberg warnings" says it all. --Lobo (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. The reason I added "radio" to the section heading was precisely to dramatise for the reader. Not "melodramatise", but dramatise. I.e., to better hold the reader's attention, and avoid confusion, by making it more vivid that the litany about to be presented is a set of radio messages. This puts us in the radio room. Concrete detail, compelling images, are simply two of the rules of good prose style. Hurmata (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Error in citing of casualty figures
I have detected a discrepancy in the overall passenger figure repeated across at least two articles, this one and the article on passengers on the ship. Both leads said 2223 instead of 2224. I corrected the 2223 in this article yesterday, assuming the 2224 was the correct one. Seeing the other 2223 prompted me to check the entire table in this article, and I found internal discrepancies. If you accept the figures in the first two columns except for the subtotals, then calculate the column totals and calculate the numbers lost, then you come up 20 short in two column totals: the grand total and the number saved. I searched the Web for another display and found one that cites the same official British report as we are citing. It says 885 male crew members where we say 865. Therefore, I changed our 865. By the way, that display has one other discrepancy with ours: it somehow fails to include the one first class child who perished. In conclusion, I invite editors who have participated extensively in writing the casualty list section to recheck the figures. Hurmata (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- It definitely is supposed to be 885, not 865 (according to the official source, that is). I went ahead and made the check, using the online version of the official British report which is already included in the bibliography. "When the "Titanic" left Queenstown on 11th April the total number of persons employed on board in any capacity was 885." http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepCrewpax.php Contents > 1. Description of the Ship > link that reads "Crew and Passengers" Hurmata (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Light level in image in info box
There have been several rounds of changes essentially whether or not to insert a note in the image caption to say the image is wrong because it is light whereas it was actually really dark when it went down. I think that there should be no such note. Because:
- OK, since it was really dark when it went down an "accurate" image would be just a blank black rectangle. It is common practice and expected that an image will be lightened up to make it visible, such is not an "error" that has to be noted.
- A caption just says what the image is. There are hundreds of notes that could be added, but aren't, just for this reason. If one were to be added, it should be noting something really important.
- The whole article says that it went down in the middle of the night. It should not have to be noted again in the image caption that it was dark when it went down.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Any note looks quite clumsy there, doesn't it. But the image manages to impart a wholly inaccurate fiction in a single first glance. If you look hard enough, however, you may actually be able see Kate and Leo on those railings ... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- And Celine is probably there somewhere too... But I wonder if we're over-analysing it too much; after all, it's an imaginative work of art, not a literal depiction of reality. Prioryman (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that the image history indicates that the brightness of the currently used image had been increased. Frankly, the image was better before, and the current brightness probably misrepresents the artist's original intent. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- And Celine is probably there somewhere too... But I wonder if we're over-analysing it too much; after all, it's an imaginative work of art, not a literal depiction of reality. Prioryman (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Also on the picture that would be accurate would have smoke only coming out of 3 of the smoke stacks. Various theories for why. http://www.burger.com/titanfac.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.87.14 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's no "theory" about it -- the 4th (stern) funnel is often referred to as a "dummy" because its form and implementation was for aesthetics (would look odd without it). However, it did serve to vent the turbine room and galley. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It sunk on a moonless night, and the picture is late in the process. To be accurate, we should have an image that is just all pure black. :-) North8000 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"If it had been four compartments, maybe. But not five."
I added some details about the watertight bulkheads and doors -- for example, which ones could be controlled remotely, how long they took to close, the provision of escape routes, and so on. Also, a little more detail about how the watertight compartment system worked. I provided a link to a site that explains it much better than I can in External Links.
The article previously mentioned that the ship could have stayed afloat with four compartments flooded, but not five. This is true, but it could not be just any four compartments, and this was not part of the ship's specifications. It was only designed to withstand two flooded compartments when loaded to capacity. Most combinations of three flooded compartments were also survivable, and a few four-compartment scenarios were non-fatal, too -- see here for details. "If only it had been four," however, is just more appealing a story than "the ship was better built than the designers intended."
If you find watertight compartments interesting, check out An Unsinkable Titanic. The author does not have the benefit of hindsight when he writes about how the Lusitania or Mauretania would have easily survived what happened to the Titanic; he stops just short of "Kaiser Wilhelm himself could not sink this ship!"
Unfortunately I don't know how to properly reference the British inquiry -- I want to refer to the "Watertight Compartments" and "Damage to the Ship" sections of the final report, which are online at the Titanic Information Project. The links are added to the list of references but there is no in-line reference directly to the proper page. I also wanted to reference Samuel Halpern's "Practically Unsinkable" article rather than just putting it in External Links. The animations there are very informative but I think it is best left for the interested readers to follow the link rather than placing any images in the article.
Roches (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
No "In Popular Culture" section here. But, alas, also not even a mention of Thomas Hardy's epic poem: [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is mentioned in some detail in RMS Titanic in popular culture. But the reason I didn't mention it in this article is that there's simply so much pop culture out there that it's impractical to highlight particular items, with the one example of James Cameron's Titanic, because of its enormous impact. The Convergence of the Twain isn't quite in the same category. Prioryman (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're quite right. It's in a much smaller and better category. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- In artistic quality certainly, but perhaps not so much in terms of capturing the public imagination! Prioryman (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- or it's money. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, if I remember rightly, TCOTT was published to support the charitable relief effort for the dependents of the victims of the disaster, so money was a factor - though it presumably went to rather more worthy causes than Cameron's film receipts... Prioryman (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed - Hardy was asked to write a poem to be read at a charity concert to raise funds in aid of the disaster fund, and so it was first published as part of the souvenir programe for that event. But tastes change. I am amazed that Messrs Lloyd Webber or Mackintosh haven't yet given us Titanic - The Musical! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Titanic: The Musical does exist - it's timed to be exactly as long as the sinking and it was being performed here in Belfast at the Opera House last night at the exact centenary moment, from 11:40pm onwards. Sorry to disappoint you! Prioryman (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Shucks. I never even had a ticket. Or a place in a lifeboat. Should any of these related artistic endeavours be listed in a "See also" section? (possibly alongside this one for purposes of comparison) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Titanic: The Musical does exist - it's timed to be exactly as long as the sinking and it was being performed here in Belfast at the Opera House last night at the exact centenary moment, from 11:40pm onwards. Sorry to disappoint you! Prioryman (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed - Hardy was asked to write a poem to be read at a charity concert to raise funds in aid of the disaster fund, and so it was first published as part of the souvenir programe for that event. But tastes change. I am amazed that Messrs Lloyd Webber or Mackintosh haven't yet given us Titanic - The Musical! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, if I remember rightly, TCOTT was published to support the charitable relief effort for the dependents of the victims of the disaster, so money was a factor - though it presumably went to rather more worthy causes than Cameron's film receipts... Prioryman (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- or it's money. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- In artistic quality certainly, but perhaps not so much in terms of capturing the public imagination! Prioryman (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're quite right. It's in a much smaller and better category. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"controversy"
"Numerous expeditions have been launched to film the wreck and, controversially, to salvage objects from the debris field." Can someone please explain what exactly is controversial about this? Without the explanation it just feels like weaselly wording. 98.237.173.125 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- The controversy about salvaging the wreck stems from a number of things. Some people are angry about the wreck site even being disturbed in the first place (believing it should be treated as a grave and simply left alone entirely), some people are angry about how carelessly it's being approached (there's a great deal of damage that's been done to the bow's superstructure by submersibles scouring the wreck for artifacts, or carrying tourists), some people are angry about the artifacts themselves and how they're being treated (lots of personal stuff has been brought up and sold over the years to private collectors), the list goes on. As far as the people that are angry about this stuff are concerned, Bob Ballard himself always comes to my mind first and foremost. Edward Kamuda of the Titanic Historical Society is not far behind Ballard though. 65.255.147.8 (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Right, the point is, the claim of controversy is made in the article without qualifying it. without an explanation (and sources) to explain this stuff, the term "controversial" is just so much weasel wording. 98.237.173.125 (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Displacement Error
Perhaps I am wrong, but I am convinced that there is an error in this article. In the section "Effects of the collision", the third from the last paragraph says, "at least 35,000 long tons (36,000 t) of water flooded into Titanic, causing her displacement to nearly double from 43,300 long tons (44,000 t) to over 83,000 long tons (84,000 t)." But displacement is the water not inside the ship. All of the ship below the water line is taking up space that would be filled with water if the ship were removed. The mass of this water exactly matches the total mass of the ship and all of its contents. Any water at all taken on lowers the displacement. When the displacement reaches zero, the ship sinks. It does not matter how much of the ship is above water at that point. So I think that sentence should be "at least 35,000 long tons (36,000 t) of water flooded into Titanic, causing her displacement to fall to a mere 7,300 long tons (8,000 t) from 43,300 long tons (44,000 t)." I have not checked the reference but if this sentence come directly from the reference then the reference is wrong.Nick Beeson (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are wrong. If the weight inside the ship increases, whether it is fuel, passengers, cargo or sea water, the ship will sink deeper in the water displacing an increasing amount of water; the ship's displacement is increasing, not decreasing. Saying the ship sinks when the displacement reaches zero is definitely incorrect. Dolphin (t) 12:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- When the hull is intact it displaces (holds out) water. When the hull is breached it no longer displaces sufficient water to allow it to float. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think Dolphin has it right. Damaged stability is a tricky subject, but a ship that is sinking is still afloat -- ie she is still displacing enough water to support her total weight. If she is partly opened to the sea, the effect is the same as if she were loaded with water ballast of the same weight that had entered the ship at any instant, so as more water enters her draft increases until she again displaces her *total* weight, of original ship plus water ingress. Her displacement has therefore increased. She only sinks beneath the surface when her total weight can no longer be supported by the amount of water the hull can displace. But it is a good point, Nick. Maybe we should explain it better. Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Water mass in open contact with the sea still counts as displacement? Water in the bow thruster tunnel is displacement? Water inside a lifebuoy is displacement? Surely, the calculations keep up (while evening out), but are leaking ships really calculated this way? -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the article is technically right but that "displacement" may not be the best term to use here. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- To DePiep. Yes, in a damaged ship you have to use the stability data for the intact condition. As water slowly enters a hold, it becomes just another weight on board. The displacement increases as the total weight of the ship increases, and the ship settles lower in the water. If the ship does not sink, the water level in the hold comes to equal the surrounding sea level. The fact that the water is "in open contact with the sea" doesn't matter in this calculation, but it would if you were calculating the ship's reserve buoyancy (which is lessened.) If you could go down and underwater-weld up the hole without pumping out the water, it would make no difference to the ship's draft (or displacement) but you would then be able to count this space as contributing to the reserve bouyancy. This is why a holed ship is less seaworthy than an intact one with the same displacement. Water in a bow thruster tunnel is not counted as part of the ship's deadweight, but it could be, if it were capable of being pumped out.
- I think that the article is technically right but that "displacement" may not be the best term to use here. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Water mass in open contact with the sea still counts as displacement? Water in the bow thruster tunnel is displacement? Water inside a lifebuoy is displacement? Surely, the calculations keep up (while evening out), but are leaking ships really calculated this way? -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think Dolphin has it right. Damaged stability is a tricky subject, but a ship that is sinking is still afloat -- ie she is still displacing enough water to support her total weight. If she is partly opened to the sea, the effect is the same as if she were loaded with water ballast of the same weight that had entered the ship at any instant, so as more water enters her draft increases until she again displaces her *total* weight, of original ship plus water ingress. Her displacement has therefore increased. She only sinks beneath the surface when her total weight can no longer be supported by the amount of water the hull can displace. But it is a good point, Nick. Maybe we should explain it better. Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- When the hull is intact it displaces (holds out) water. When the hull is breached it no longer displaces sufficient water to allow it to float. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Does this help? Somehow I doubt it. Like I said, it's a difficult subject. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- mmm. but this totally disregards our Greek friend in the bath who showed that a given lump of metal when submerged displaces the same amount of water, whether it is shaped like a brick, a crown, or even a ship with a hole in it. and yes, of course your divers can go down and weld/rivet a patch over the hole, and as soon as they do the ship will regain its ability to float and its displacenment, but you can't say a body has a property just because as some time in the future it may have that property IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- "even a ship with a hole in it" is not an example of that if you are talking about a time frame where the hole has not yet completed its "job". North8000 (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Clearer to me. (Why does that rhyme with: Nearer to thee? ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- "even a ship with a hole in it" is not an example of that if you are talking about a time frame where the hole has not yet completed its "job". North8000 (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- mmm. but this totally disregards our Greek friend in the bath who showed that a given lump of metal when submerged displaces the same amount of water, whether it is shaped like a brick, a crown, or even a ship with a hole in it. and yes, of course your divers can go down and weld/rivet a patch over the hole, and as soon as they do the ship will regain its ability to float and its displacenment, but you can't say a body has a property just because as some time in the future it may have that property IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Does this help? Somehow I doubt it. Like I said, it's a difficult subject. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
When I was teaching stability to cadets I invented a concept called "the giant finger from the sky" (not beng rude.) Sometimes it seemed to help. Alongside a wharf, our holed ship with one watertight section flooded and with equalised water levels inside and out (but not sunk) will behave in every way as an unholed ship will. If you shift cargo around or pump ballast within the ship it will change trim and list the same way as a ship that just happens to have a few thousand tonnes of extra water in a hold, and you can predict this behavior by looking at the ship's Stability Book. Reading the Fore and Aft and Midship Drafts will give you the displacement (which has increased by the amount of water that flowed in), but only for static, wharfside purposes. The difference is when the GF comes down and pushes on the ship somewhere, ie an external weight is applied. Then the extra weight will be complimented by extra water coming into the ship, and your calculations get very hard. This is why a holed ship may have greatly reduced seaworthiness -- the upthrust on a hull section due to the increased pressure of water acting on the outside of the hull as it is pushed deeper will be cancelled by the increased pressure on the inside of the hull due to extra water coming on board. So I think some folk here are confusing displacement with reserve bouyancy.
Pedanticly yours, Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Except that entrained water is a (easily) shiftable load. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Entrained? Not quite sure what you mean. Rumiton (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was going off topic (sorry) ....I meant that, if you compared two ships, identical except Ship #1 had 1,000 tons of secured cargo in hold #3. and Ship #2 had instead 1,000 tons of water sloshing around in flooded hold #3, that ship #2 would be less stable. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- You would have to take into account free surface effect, but that isn't what we are confusing each other about here. Rumiton (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm coming at this from physics and engineering background, not as a seaman. I can't even sail a sunfish. So I had to look up "free surface effect" and saw that that is exactly what I was talking about.North8000 (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a fascinating phenomenon. Just thought of another way of illustrating the "displacement" conundrum. If you consider the hole to be fairly small, then imagine hoisting the whole flooded ship clear of the water by a giant crane. Now lower it down again before any significant water can drain out. The ship will push aside or "displace" an amount of seawater equal to its total weight, including the weight of water that leaked in. Rumiton (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, an exactly correct and very useful description, even though it is an unusual meaning of "displacement".North8000 (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm coming at this from physics and engineering background, not as a seaman. I can't even sail a sunfish. So I had to look up "free surface effect" and saw that that is exactly what I was talking about.North8000 (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- You would have to take into account free surface effect, but that isn't what we are confusing each other about here. Rumiton (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was going off topic (sorry) ....I meant that, if you compared two ships, identical except Ship #1 had 1,000 tons of secured cargo in hold #3. and Ship #2 had instead 1,000 tons of water sloshing around in flooded hold #3, that ship #2 would be less stable. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Entrained? Not quite sure what you mean. Rumiton (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Except that entrained water is a (easily) shiftable load. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am just thinking now that even though I believe the source [6] is correct, this could turn into an argument that has to be refought so often that everyone gets sick of it. Maybe we really need to reword this? Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just had a look for alternatives, but none came to mind. Displacement really is the thing that increased as the ship sank lower in the water, and no other term works. Maybe a caution to check the talk page before editing that word might be the best way to go? Rumiton (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Went ahead and did that. Rumiton (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just had a look for alternatives, but none came to mind. Displacement really is the thing that increased as the ship sank lower in the water, and no other term works. Maybe a caution to check the talk page before editing that word might be the best way to go? Rumiton (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)