Talk:Titanic/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

copyvio detect

Not knowing the condition and history of the current article text it would be a good idea to check for copyright violations before adding higher quality sources. Backing up existing text with references can be hazardous if you're not aware of the source of the text. I did this once and later found copy and paste text in the article body and had to rewrite large areas wasting about a month of my time. There is a toolserver program that helps to spot violations; I ran Titanic (it loads slow) through the tool and it did pick up some potential violations. What the tool can't determine is if the text on a website was copied from this article to begin with. That simply means more scrutiny is in order. Brad (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we edit the potential violations and recite?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Essentially yes or quoting the copyrighted passage. You might start with looking at the existing citations and then follow them to the source and check for violations. Let me see if I can find someone with more experience on copyright to come and comment. Brad (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see possible violations? Nearly most (if not all) of the sites listed at Titanic copied from WP, not the other way around. --DFoerster (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said there were any violations; just check for violations before expending a lot of work on citations. Brad (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits on the compartment flooding material

I think the new edits / corrections by DFoerster are on some material that I brought over from the time line article. Possibly should be made over there as well? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Martinevans questioned the edit on the number of flooded compartments. Just to sort this out a bit, it appears that 5 compartments were opened by the iceberg, and a 6th started to flood via other means? North8000 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he did. That's what I too thought probably happened. But it looks a bit of a non sequitur at the moment. All we have, by way of explanation, is the "water-tight doors". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I will cite some details to clear the facts: (Bedford & Hacket, p 181) “No. 5 Boiler Room was damaged at the ship's side in the starboard forward bunker at a distance of 2 feet from the watertight bulkhead between Nos. 5 and 6 boiler rooms. Water poured in that place as it would from an ordinary fire hose. ... Thus all six compartments forward of No. 4 Boiler Room were open to the sea by damage which existed about 10 feet above the keel. At 10 minutes after the collision, the water seems to have risen to about 14 feet above the keel in all these compartments except No. 5 boiler room. ... In No. 5 Boiler Room there was no water above the stokehold plates until a rush of water drove the stokers out. The water was entering the starboard bunker and it was assumed that it rose in the bunker until it was high enough to burst the bunker door, which happened after an hour” --DFoerster (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That would make it all a lot clearer. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - when citing print sources, it's good practice (though not required) to include only the author's name and page numbers for each cite instead of simply pasting the more generic full source template, see WP:CITESHORT. It looks better, and makes it easier for readers to look up the info. For example, citing like this - <ref>Bedford & Hacket, p 181</ref> in "Collision", instead of what appears there now lends what WP:INCITE refers to as "text-source integrity" . Shirtwaist chat 21:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bottom damage.

According to the "History Channel" there is impressive evidence that although the ship scraped the iceberg the real damage was caused by the ship hitting an ice ledge which tore off some bottom plates and these plates have now been located.

Although the ship sank by the bow it did stay essentially upright as it sank which seems to support the bottom damage explanation. AT Kunene (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And, what is the point? It is a commonly agreed fact that the sinking of the ship, like it occured, required more than four of the forward compartments to be open to the sea. If there was really an ice ledge tearing off some bottom plates (AFAIK this is hardly possible), this must have occured near the forward end of the bow. Thus, even if this happened it does not explain the sinking, and calling it the “real damage” is therefore inappropriate. However, if there are substantial facts, WP requires a citable source to incorporate them. --DFoerster (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.rmwexplorations.com/theories.htm. but i don't think that this qualifies as RS, seems a personal opinion piece by random self-identifying expert. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

AT Kunene - Are you talking about the two pieces of the bottom of the double hull that were found and featured in the History Channel doc "Titanic's Missing Pieces"? If so, those pieces were found to have come from the area of the ship that broke apart, nowhere near the bow. Shirtwaist chat 10:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Which way did Hichens turn the wheel?

I've gone through the testimony of several bridge crew, including Hichens who was at the wheel when they hit the iceberg, and nowhere does anyone state definitively which way Hichens turned the wheel after Murdoch yelled "Hard a-starboard!" -- to the right or left. It's possible that Titanic's steering mechanism could've been set up either way, isn't it? Is there a technical manual somewhere online that spells out how Titanic's wheel worked? Shirtwaist chat 12:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hichens testified that he felt the impact of the collision at the moment when he had the wheel 'hard-over'. If that was true, then it would've made little difference which way he had actually turned the wheel. With hydraulic telemotor steering, there's always a small time-lag between the wheel being put hard-over and the rudder mechanisms responding fully to the signal transmitted from the wheel. Once the rudder is hard-over there would have been a further time lag before the ship began to turn. Experts aren't in full agreement about the total number of seconds of delay that would've been involved with these time-lags but if Hichens felt the impact soon after he'd completed his helm order, it's unlikely that the rudder would have had time to turn the ship in any significant way. Norloch (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That is true. It is also true that whatever was done with the telegraphs made no difference either. But for the record, he turned the wheel in a clockwise direction. Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. I'm sorry if the discussion above became too dense or impenetrable, but the conclusion reached there was that the Captain must have known that the ship required tiller-orders and that this meant the wheel was turned clockwise. But the very limited time between Murdoch's order and the collission (37 seconds), and the fact that the rudder movement made so little difference to the outcome, are both sound reasons why any mistakes in turning the wheel seem very unlikely. There was simply not enough time. I am still surprised that such an impressive vessel should have been constructed with the "old design" of steering. But then the ship's design was old fashioned in many ways, wasn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the notional 37 second time period between sighting the iceberg and the impact isn't a real number. That time interval is a conjecture, based on another part of Hichens evidence ( where he stated that the compass heading had changed by about two points - approxximately 22 degrees - after the impact.) Following the demise of Titanic, some experiments were undertaken on RMS Olympic, in which they measured the time taken to turn the ship 22 degrees - with the rudder hard-over. The conclusion was that it took 37 seconds. However that doesn't take account of other factors which probably affected Titanic's compass such as the jarring and shaking of the impact and the force of the collision pushing the ship away from her original heading. The real time interval between sighting and impact was more probably the time it took to ring three bells and then make a phone call to the bridge. Norloch (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think my post may have been misconstrued - sorry if I stated the question too ambiguously.

This is all very interesting information, but my question is a very simple one - How do we know which way Hichens actually turned the wheel? Clockwise or counter-clockwise (assuming Hichens carried out the "hard a-starboard" order correctly)? Was the wheel "hard-over" to the left or "hard-over" to the right? One of the reasons it is worthwhile to know this simple fact is to determine whether or not British liners of the time were designed with wheels that were turned to correspond to the British maritime protocol of the time that still had "tiller" orders being given. That is, did they make it easier for helmsmen to follow tiller orders by making ships' wheels turn clockwise (to starboard) in order to make the ship turn to port, as was the desired result when a "hard a-starboard" order was given by Murdoch to Hichens? And if so, was this practice changed when tiller orders were superseded by rudder orders in the 30's? Or perhaps did different shipbuilders design their wheel mechanisms differently? For example, did Cunard have their wheels turn left to make the ship turn left, and White Star did the reverse?

There must be a definitive source that clears up this confusion, right? Olympic must've had the same wheel design as Titanic - so are there sources that tell us which way Olympic's wheel was turned in response to course change orders?

Another reason to clear this point up is to find out if Walter Lord was correct in saying "in 1912 a ship's wheel was rigged so that the helmsman turned it to starboard in order to go to port". How do we know he was wrong?Shirtwaist chat 20:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I have misconstrued. Up to now "tiller orders" on The Titanic has been presented as a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Tiller orders were a fact, but it seems that the wheel rigging was misunderstood due to false statements in Walter Lords books which were repeated in the books of Pellegrino and Butler. See Tiller#Tiller_orders and discussion there. To summerise the sources there: wheels were rigged to the tiller such, that they had to be moved clockwise for a starboard turn and anti-clockwise for a port turn of the vessel. This was so for ALL ships, and there is no reason to assume that it was different for Titanic. --DFoerster (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Tiller orders were not just a fact, not just "so for all ships," they were mandatory, made compulsory by the Rules of the Road, which were not changed until 1930. It could not have been different for Titanic, and when this point is grasped this whole silly discussion will go night-night as it should have done a couple of years ago. Rumiton (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

1930? 08:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no disputing tiller orders were used on Titanic. My question is how do we know which way Hichens turned the wheel in response to those orders, and by extension, how do we know Lord, Butler and Pellegrino were wrong? None of the sources say "All ships were built this way". Shirtwaist chat 08:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

All ships were built that way because the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea mandated that they be so built. The 1930 Rules changed the system. I am not sure what is your point. Are we trying to prove negligence or incompetence nearly 100 years after the fact? Rumiton (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure any one's trying to prove anything. But it might be quite useful to resolve apparent inconsistencies in the reports/ evidence. Isn't it surprising there are no official reports about this? Suddenly Louise Patten's secrets don't sound so ridiculous. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Suddenly nothing, as far as I can see. What are the inconsistencies? Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So Lord, Butler and Pellegrino are just "being silly", yes? Without a new novel to sell, what was their motivation? Why were no clear statements given in the official enquiries? It seems as if Patten has cleverly fallen on something which may never be proven either way? Unless she's telling truth, of course. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no motivation! Lord made a mistake and Butler and Pellegrino used his books as source, thereby repeating the mistake. AFAIK there are no claims of a steering error in any of these books. And there are no inconsistencies any more. The wheel was turned counter-clickwise after the ‘hard-a-starboard’ command, as it would have been on any other British vessel at that time and the centuries before. Thus, it is absurd to assume that experienced seaman got confused with helm orders. The only ones who got confused are today's people like us! --DFoerster (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Jolly good. Let's all say night night to Rumiton, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A source confirming how Titanic's wheel worked was brought up by DFoerster which reads: “Titanic's main steering wheel acted the same as did the wheel on all British vessels of the era in that it was turned in the opposite direction to the helm command. To ‘starboard the helm’, the top of the wheel was turned to port and the ship's head turned to port. To ‘port the helm’, the top of the wheel was turned to starboard. Relative to the sequence of events on the night of Titanic's sinking, this had, and even still has, caused endless confusion to modern mariners and historians alike. When Quartermatser Hichens received the order ‘har-a-starboard’, he was being given the command to turn the wheel counter-clockwise, thus turning the bow to port.” --Bruce Beveridge's 'Titanic - The Ship Magnificient, Vol.1', p523. This clears things up for me.

As for Patten's claims, it's clear to me, after reading the Inquiry transcripts, that there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. For example, why would Boxhall, who was standing directly behind Hichens when he turned the wheel "hard a-starboard", be a part of this supposed conspiracy by not testifying that Hichens turned the wheel the wrong way?? Makes absolutely no sense.Shirtwaist chat 21:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification - Boxhall wasn't standing behind Hichens. ( Boxhall said he was outside, proceeding towards the bridge, at that time.) It was the junior watch officer who was alleged to be standing adjacent to the wheel - but he didn't survive. As the old adage states - "where Titanic is concerned - there are no unsinkable theories". Norloch (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, Shirt, at 05:18, 21 May 2011, you said this: "The helmsman turned the wheel to starboard (clockwise) as far as it would go. The Titanic's steering gear then pushed the tiller toward the starboard side of the ship, swinging the rudder over to port and causing the vessel to turn to port"." And you said you "fixed" the tiller orders article description. But now you agree that: "When Quartermatser Hichens received the order ‘har-a-starboard’, he was being given the command to turn the wheel counter-clockwise, thus turning the bow to port." So which is correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is now a source, Bruce Beveridge's 'Titanic - The Ship Magnificient, Vol.1', p523, that states categorically how Titanic's wheel worked. This RS is supported by other sources that make more generic statements about the workings of ship's wheels. That satisfies my doubts about assertions made by Lord and subsequent authors on the subject, which now appear to be wrong. So until some other RS comes along to convincingly contradict this fact - like an old interview with Hichens wherein he says "I turned Titanic's wheel to the right in response to the order "Hard a-starboard" - we should accept as fact that Titanic's wheel operated the way Beveridge says it did. Shirtwaist chat 00:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Norloch - You're right, it was 6th officer Moody who was behind Hichens, and who got the call from the lookouts, and who told Murdoch "Iceberg right ahead", after which Murdoch gives the "Hard a-starboard" order to Hichens. Pity he didn't survive, but even in the unlikely event that Hichens did make a mistake, Moody never said anything about it to any other officers who did survive. It's also worth mentioning that the wheelhouse Hichens and Moody were standing in had it's blinds closed, meaning they could not see what was happening on the bridge directly in front of them.

So it appears Cameron really did get it right after all! Shirtwaist chat 00:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The navigating officer would have corrected the helmsman immediately if he had started to go the wrong way, not testified about it later. He would have been testifying against himself, for not acting. Does this clear up this silliness? OK, I know it doesn't, it will come back again in 3 or 6 months when someone else reads Patten's book, and we will have to deal with it all again. C'est la vie en Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Bound to happen so, against the day, I think I'll add just one more ref. Next: tidy the Hichens page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that fact. Regardless of any claims about "wrong way", I think it's useful to have agreed such a detail as far as possible. But it's surprising for me to see "until some other RS comes along to convincingly contradict this fact". I had imagined that such a matter the ship's design would not even be up for debate (until I stumbled upon Patten's claims). But now I have another question, as below, which I hope is easier to sort out. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What especially discredits Patten's claims are her arguments which are factually wrong. In the telegraph interview, she argued: “... Whereas with ‘Rudder Orders’ which is what steam ships used, it is like driving a car. You steer the way you want to go. It gets more confusing because, even though Titanic was a steam ship, at that time on the North Atlantic they were still using Tiller Orders. Therefore Murdoch gave the command in Tiller Orders but Hitchins, in a panic, reverted to the Rudder Orders he had been trained in.” So she claimed that steam ships generally used ‘Rudder Orders’, but not on the North Atlantic. As we have found out using reliable sources, this is definitively wrong. Using this as fundament, she alleged “Therefore Murdoch gave the command in Tiller Orders but Hitchins, in a panic, reverted to the Rudder Orders he had been trained in.” As one can read at Tiller#Tiller_orders, Hichens must have worked on a non-British ship to be trained in ‘Rudder Orders’. The Hichens article at ET says: “He had worked aboard mail boats and liners of the Union Castle and British India lines. Immediately prior to Titanic he worked on the troop ship Dongola sailing back and forth to Bombay, India.” The 'Dongola' was, as one can easily find out by a Google search, operated by P&O. Thus, Hichens worked on British vessels, i.e. on vessels with ‘Tiller Orders’ for several years, if not for his whole life. As Patten's arguments backing her steering blunder story are factually wrong, why should anyone believe the rest of the story? Just my last thoughts on this topic. --DFoerster (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. Her sailing on claim is also difficult to support. But I had not expected this Talk thread to be quite so taken over by Patten's Family Secrets. The two threads are, of course, closely connected. I am left wondering if these claims, and their factual rebuttal, should not appear somewhere, perhaps at Titanic alternative theories, in case anyone should mistakenly think them to be true? Not that anyone should necssarily accuse Ms Patten herself - since we have all agreed that these stories are, at best, "fifth hand". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's a good idea. Otherwise it could occur, as Rumiton fears, that we will have to deal with it again in a few month. Also it's not more absurd than the mummy curse or Gardiner's ship that never sank. --DFoerster (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A biography of the quartermaster comes out in the Autumn—good job we've got this covered already! ISBN 0752460714 if anybody's got USD 17 they don't have a better use for. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Collision diagram

I'm not sure why we have to wait until "Possible factors in the sinking" to see the collision diagram. But once we get to it, it seems to be oriented the wrong way. At first reading of the article I had assumed that it was a "North Up" plan view with the ship's bow at the top. But then I learned that the ship's course was generally west, so I then assumed that it was "West Up", showing damage to the port side of the shio. But then I checked the preceding article text and saw that the contact with the berg was on the starboard side of the ship. So the orientation of the diagram reflects neither a standard North Up plan, nor the direction in which the ship was sailing. Could it be re-orientated? Or if not, could the bow/stern port/starboard be labelled? If this is all too difficult perhaps a little addition to the caption might even help? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I read the illustration as showing a vertical section, looking toward the stern, showing that the damage was not just from the berg puncturing the hull, but displacing the metal plates, popping rivets, and opening a longitudinal seam IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. How stupid of me. It's not even a plan at all. Hope that other readers grasp that more quickly than I have. I still think a plan might be useful, showing initial point of contact? It was the front, wasn't it? Perhaps the existing diagram, if it is a vertical section, could show the waterline? Thanks.Martinevans123 (talk)

The origin and sequence of the collision damage are fairly speculative. Most opinions are based on the assumption that Titanic only collided with one large berg. This may well be true but the possibility that the ship rammed through a 'cluster' of ice and bergs shouldn't be discounted. If Captain Rostron's evidence is to be trusted, he observed an awful lot of ice, in that vicinity, at daylight on April 15th. Norloch (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well my particular concern at the moment is simply with that diagram. It certainly suggests to me that there was a single iceberg, and even that there was a single point of contact. But those concerns aside, I was suggesting that it might be helpful to label the diagram so that it's clear that it isn't a plan view. In view of your information, however, we might also need to add the words "possible" or "likely" in the caption? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see it as anything but an underwater transverse section, but I don't see a problem in labelling it that. Rumiton (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I can still see it as a plan diagram very easily, and I'm surpised that I appear to be the only one who does (even accounting for stupidity). So I think a revised caption would help. Are you happy that the diagram shows the hull plates laid horizontally over one another? I don't know how the hull was constructed. How far below the water line did that buckling occur? And do you think that a plan view, perhaps in the Collision section might be useful? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now adjusted the caption. But the other problem I have with the diagram, even when I correctly read it as a transverse section, is that it suggests that the collision was on the port side of the ship - the collision is on the port side of the diagram - when in fact it was, as the caption explains, on the starboard side. It seems unconventional, to me, to have a head-on view of the collision. But nobody else seems to have any problem with this diagram at all, so I guess I'll just forget it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the diagram has issues, limitations and shortcomings even beyond what you noted. It says/shows very little, and no basis is given for the little that it does say/show. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe i recall seeing a similar diagram in Dr Ballard's book, and this is a simplified version of that to avoid copywright, but have not been able to verify. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is short on specifics of the the collision itself, so whoever made that drawing was making an important effort. That said, IMHO my previous comment still applies. The all-important info of the direction-of-view is nether apparent nor stated. Originally I thought there was some information (and clue on orientaiton) contained in the fact that in the drawing the plates are "shingled", but as I look closer at the very bottom it has the overlapping in the opposite direction. Looks like we have some stuff top learn/work on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

They are normal riveted strakes, which were mostly, but not always, made with the overlap facing aft. I don't see a big problem, and the picture illustrates the way the denting caused by the berg popped the rivets and opened the gap. Rumiton (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I reworded the note to make it's orientation clearer. "Underwater transverse section" seemed overly complicated and somewhat confusing. Shirtwaist chat 06:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Visibility on the night of the collision

The article does not seem to currently say whether or not visibilty was good on the night of the collision. I suppose one might deduce that, because it was clear, visbility was good. But there was no moon. Would it be WP:OR to add that visibility was good? Or is there any reliable source which says this? I think that, if there is a source, this statement should be added. Is there any estimate of how far away the iceberg was when it was first spotted? Again, if there is any source, I think that this is a basic fact that should be added. Do we have eye-witness accounts of how big, or small, the iceberg was? Apologies once more for not thoroughly trawling the talk page archive for these things. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Many good questions. I think that it be beyond OR to say visibility was good without some indications of such. But, as you note, such is important information which we should try to learn, source and include. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is another area where there are more questions than answers. The majority of eyewitnesses claimed that it was a "clear,dark, night". It's certainly the case that there were at least three other ships, in the same region, at around the same time as Titanic. Those three ships were all able to see the ice in sufficient time to take avoiding action. Apparently that didn't happen on Titanic. The reasons for it have been a subject of debate for nearly a century and it will probably continue to be debated for evermore - or, at least, until such time as we have much more hard evidence than we do at present. Norloch (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the term "visibility" used at sea invariably applies to the visibility of lights, so the darker and gloomier the night, the better the maritime visibility. Moonlight, while making unlit objects like bergs more spottable, actually diminishes conventional visibility. Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you mean? Does the reflection of moonlight on the surface distract you when trying to see a ship's lights near the horizon? Wouldn't that only come into play if the ship you're looking for is "Up Moon", so to speak (between you and the Moon)? Shirtwaist chat 12:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. Bright moonlight can reduce the eye's ability to pick out a faint masthead or sidelight anywhere on the horizon, so it constitutes a condition of "reduced visibility." It is worse in the "glitter path" but it can affect visibility all round the horizon. It's kind of irrelevant to what happened that night, but it clarifies a little what witnesses meant when they reported "good visibility." Rumiton (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO visibility is probably not a good word to use here. From what I read it was a clear, calm, dark (no moon at the moment) night. The common meaning for visibility is clearness. But the darkness and the calmness both made it harder to see/sense icebergs, which is the core issue here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming the principle at work here is that the threshold of human visual accuity is greatest when the background field has a luminance of zero. There should be a long standing finding in the world of psycho-physics that could be cited? But I see no mention of the moon here? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The source that I read was about the Titanic collision night specifically. The gist of it was: Most of the time there is at least a partial moon which lights things like icebergs up and makes them more more visible. With no moon present at that moment, it was unusually dark. And that "calm" is bad because there were no waves. Waves would hit the icebergs making splashes. Splashes (with their motion etc) are more visible. Also they can be heard. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, not so simple then. But that all sounds very plausible. If you could use that source, I think this information could be usefully added to the article. At the moment the description of simply "clear with no moon" leaves the reader wondering as to the singificance of those two factors. Perhaps a footnote would be best? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi North8000 - The info in the source, which you describe, isn't wrong, but there is an element of misdirection in it. Titanic's navigators would have been well aware, before the event, that there would be no moonlight. Would it not have amounted to negligence if they failed to take due account of that on the night? Irrespective of that, on a freezing night, twenty knots of windchill blowing directly in the faces of the lookouts would seem to be a more significant factor where their visual acuity was concerned. Norloch (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No argument there. I was just talking on the narrower topic of "visibility" conditions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeated reference

The "Hackett" reference is listed three times. (at the moment, #'s 19, 31, 169.) #19 & #31 are to the work as a whole, #169 is to specific pages. #19 and #169 are lacking info. I plan to reroute cites from #19 to #31, and copy the info from #31 to #169. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to regain the FA, we might need to consider Template:Citation#Anchors for Harvard referencing templates for multiple use of the same reference—in fact all of the references—but it's very hard work. Needs an editor with time and patience, and I'm ruling myself out on both of those grounds, sorry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just accidentally got into this area when starting to incorporate 2 references into the article and found that one of them was already in there in triplicate. I think that WPwatchdog and Imzadi (and whoever else wants in on the party :-) ) are going to work on the formatting. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Imzadi agreed to start his scrubbing magic on the references very soon with FA as the goal. I've been working on strengthening the sources and will defer most of the clean up to Imzadi.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't see the other "Hackett" refs when I fixed (with refnames) the four duplicated ones in "Lifboats" and "Collision" sections. Sorry about that. I found a tool that helps a lot with formatting book refs that are also listed in Google Books that simplifies the process greatly - including adding refnames automatically. You might try using it to clean up the refs here. Shirtwaist chat 10:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

New Titanic template

I've been working on a revised template for Titanic at User:Brad101/Titanictemplate. First of all, I noticed there were three templates about Titanic: {{Titanic officers}}, {{Titanic on film and TV}} and {{Titanic memorials}}. I also noticed there hadn't been any good way to collect all of the articles associated with Titanic. So the template under construction in my user space is attempting to roll all of the topics into one template rather than have 3-4 separate ones. I'm not going to cram this new template down any throats but I believe that a single template is in order for all of the topics. Suggestions of course are welcome. Brad (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't fully understand, but that's fine and sounds good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What a nice improvement!--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems very logical and tidier. Good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

North8000: Instead of the three templates that are currently on this article it would make more sense to have one template which means less crowding in the template area at the bottom of the page. The bonus is that the new template would also incorporate the Titanic articles like the timeline and etc. I think the new template still needs some cosmetic work too; I'll work on that. Brad (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Now, a purely cosmetic idea I just had: is there a specific color scheme connected to the ship or the White Star Line? The reason I ask is that we could use that color scheme in place of the default blue. I see that the White Star Line navbox has a different color. Maybe use that? Just an idea. Imzadi 1979 → 23:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Coal fire

I think that the "coal fire" mention is misplaced here, being listed as an alternative theory. They did have a coal fire earlier in the trip, but it looks like the theories are only that it made them sail faster or that it weakened a bulkhead, speeding up the sinking. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've run across it in my recent reading. I think it has been an alternative theory in more recent years but it has been largely debunked.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been entirely debunked. Most coal fired steamships have smouldering coal fires most of the time, but not enough air can get to them to make them ignite. The engineers open up a shute under the hot spot and feed the hot coal into the furnace first, and that's the end of it. No voyage urgency, no bulkhead weakening, no significance at all. Rumiton (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The "possible weakening" was from a good source, but it was a sidebar saying the effect was (only) a plausible possibility, but of somewhere between zero and minor importance/impact. Either way, it looks like we should take it out of the section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So has the mummy's curse been debunked as an alternative theory? I think the coal fire theory should get mention if the mummy curse gets mention but ce to show that neither theory is considered credible.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Could be. But the initial problem that I raised that it appears that there is no theory (debunked or otherwise) that the coal fire caused the sinking. The article didn't say anything, and I didn't have access to the source it gave. So I looked in the alternative theories article. It said that a theory said that they might have been steaming faster/too fast due to trying to get rid of the coal due to a coal fire, but gave no cite for that. And it mentioned that the existence itself of the coal fire was a theory, which is sort of wrong because such appears to be an accepted fact. I took it out, but anyone who feels otherwise please don't hesitate to revert me or change it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are just a few links to books discussing the coal fire theory: [1], [2],and [3], [4], [5]. The first link is the one I used as a citation in the article. Beveridge rates the coal fire theory in the conspiracy class but he doesn't discuss the mummy's curse. Maybe they should both go in the legends and myths section?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to revert myself / my deletion while this gets sorted out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it / myself North8000 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just giving information about the coal fire. If another editor wants to move it to another section or entirely delete it, that's fine by me. Maybe someone else will weigh in on the topic. As always, North8000 it is a pleasure working with you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with North's initial assessment: not relevant, a red herring. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's take it out then. How about the mummy curse too?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comedic value aside, the mummy curse has got to go. Shirtwaist ^chat 06:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No strong opinion, but I think that both should go. Eventually mention of the actual coal fire and it's possible minor effects might get worked back in somewhere else. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Notes on citation information

I'm going to put some random notes here, some for my personal use in scrubbing the citation formats, and some for others to act on. Please reply to any comments at the end, referencing the note's number. Imzadi 1979 → 23:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Someone was being helpful by listing both the ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers for books... that breaks the templates because it tries to use both numbers and the comma as a single input value. Where this has happened, I'm dropping the older ISBN-10 in favor of the current ISBN-13 format.
2. The Ballard citation in the Bibliography comes from a PBS web page that states: "Text excerpted from Lost Liners, courtesy of Madison Press Books." We probably should get the book and cite it directly as it probably has more information upon which to draw for the article.
3. I wonder if the Beasely citation is really to this book, or some previous printing of that book by another publisher. We should investigate that at some point, but I haven't touched the format for now.
4. I skipped the Premier Exhibitions annual report for now. Corporate annual reports are about as "reliable" as press releases. That's not to say they're unreliable, but in Wikipedia parlance, there are better secondary sources to use in general.
5. The Kentley book is aimed at elementary school students. Maybe it should be replaced?

Article section "Insufficient lifeboats" - additional details required ?

Although broadly correct, this section doesn't highlight the principal limiting factor with regard to the number of lifeboats. The problem was not really connected with reluctance on the part of shipowners to increase the number of boats. The problem was associated more with the costs and complexities of providing sufficient crew, who were adequately trained, for the launching and manning all of the boats in a reasonable time scale. In the case of Titanic there were insufficient trained men aboard to launch and crew the boats which they had. ( The arithmetic in the second last paragraph is somewhat disingenuous. It notes 'average' times for launching based on the concept that it would be acceptable for the boats to be launched consecutively. More often than not, time is the critical factor in these situations. (For example, the 'theory' of shuttling lifeboats back and fore to a rescue vessel wouldn't be a realistic option if the ship was on fire.) Rather than launching lifeboats consecutively - the optimum arrangement was to have sufficient trained men to launch all the lifeboats concurrently. That was the difficulty which shipowners and the British Board of Trade were unable/unwilling to address. Norloch (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm slowly learning what is in the more technical reports and could probably help on that later on but right now don't yet have the knowledge to work on it. North8000 (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the "Lifeboats" section near the top of the article covers this particular aspect in some detail, i.e. - quotes from the head of the Board of Trade, etc. Do you propose that that info would be better used in the "Insufficient lifeboats" section? Or possibly a brief mention in "Lifeboats", and a more detailed text in "Insufficient lifeboats"? BTW, the Board of Trade Comm. ref goes into more detail about Chalmers' reasons for not adjusting the scale upward for Titanic and other large ships . Another possibility would be to combine the two sections, if feasible. Shirtwaist ^chat 11:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree that combining, or cross referencing, the two sections might offer a clearer picture of the circumstances. Not sure that Chalmers represents an entirely 'reliable' source. He accepted blame, in an honourable kind of way, for the Board of Trade's lethargy, but the difficulties he cited were by no means insurmountable. The real answer was to establish legal standards for the training of anyone employed on ships which would allow them to be qualified and certificated as a competent lifeboatman. That was done, eventually, - but much too late for Titanic. Norloch (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the average launch times included in this section was derived from the table in the British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry Report. Also, Lowe testified, "We got the whole boat out and in the water in less than ten minutes. It was getting the people together that took the time." (15931) [6] I recall reading testimony that one officer gave an estimate of 20 minutes to launch the boats but I haven't relocated that text.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To Wpwatchdog; Yes, agree that the timings given are broadly correct but there is a degree of misdirection implicit in the statements. It's misleading because it gives an impression that the existing emergency procedures were sufficient to permit boats to be launched in a reasonable time-scale. Ten, or twenty minutes for launching a boat does seem okay, but that was with the boats being launched in sequence - rather than concurrently. If the ship in distress was gradually heeling over - or the decks underneath were ablaze - you wouldn't want to be assigned to the lifeboats that were last in line for launching. Norloch (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it needs clarified. Author Senan Molony (Titanic: Victims and Villians) goes so far as to say the testimony of the British inquiry is misleading because they only called certain witnesses after reviewing the deposition statements and the depositions are missing from those witnesses they never called. Since I only recently started reading about the Titanic, I can't say whether Molony's postion is credible. Except where a fact is clearly in error, I will leave it to another editor to clarify misleading information in the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Molony does make a point for consideration regarding the selectivity of witnesses called to give evidence at the Public Inquiry. Whether that was due to political pressures for a speedy inquiry - or for other reasons - remains to be seen. From a present day viewpoint, it does seem strange that Captain Haddock ( Commander on RMS Olympic ), never gave evidence in public. He was, after all, the only man alive who had the experience of being Captain on Titanic (for a brief period) - as well as serving on Olympic. His evidence on lifeboats, procedures, etc. would have been relevant. Norloch (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.29.129.44, 19 June 2011

Section 3.3.1 Collision, paragraph 2 : "Despite assurances that they were on their way, none of the vessels were close enough to reach the liner before she sunk.[60]"

Should read "before she sank."

"Sunk" is the past participle, whereas simple past "sank" is required here.

Thanks! I changed it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

188.29.129.44 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Survivors, victims and statistics

I was reading the 'Survivors, victims and statistics' part when I saw something that bothered me. It's written that 100% of the First Class Children were rescued and survived the sinking... But if I remember correctly didn't First Class passenger Helen Loraine Allison aged 3 from Montreal died with both her parents, Hudson Joshua Creighton Allison and Bessie Waldo (nee Daniels) Allison? --JaterGirl 00:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

These are figures from the British Inquiry [7]. Do you have citations regarding Helen Loraine Allison?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-victim/loraine-allison.html WhaleyTim (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the claim that she turned up years later was validated? (http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/child-feared-lost-titanic-reported-living-michigan.html)--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.29.36.122, 28 June 2011

re. Section 3, Collision, second paragraph, immediately after note[61]:

Phillips, on the advice of Bride, also used the new "SOS" distress call, in addition to the traditional CQD, as SOS had successfully been used to summon help for the White Star Liner SS Republic which sunk in 1909

To improve upon the style:

 Following Bride's advice, Phillips also used the new "SOS" distress call...

Also, the simple past form of the verb (sank) should be used, not the past participle (unless used in the past perfect tense):

Either:

 White Star Liner SS Republic which sank in 1909

Or:

 White Star Liner SS Republic which had sunk in 1909

Thank you.

188.29.206.209 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: Past tense fixed. May I put the first one on hold? Having just got rid of one participle... --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Done I reworked and moved the "CQD-SOS" sentence to a more appropriate place in the para. Shirtwaist ☎ 01:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review for Passengers of the RMS Titanic

I'm going through the process of getting the Passengers of the RMS Titanic article promoted to a good/featured article. I've opened a peer review for some concrit on what changes or fixes should be made to help it through the process and I figured this talk page would be as good as any to get informed posters on the subject to look over it and review it, and make some changes themselves where they see fit.

Peer review is here. Thanks much! Morhange (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Titanic's Band

Regarding this sentence:

"Two of the members of the Titanic's band were devout Methodist Christians."

I am confused as to why this is mentioned. If it's to imply that their belief in an afterlife drove them to continue playing (as is suggested in the referrenced link), maybe it should be mentioned in the article. 62North (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what to say. 90% of that section is imagination built upon conjecture. North8000 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is definitely conjecture. I deleted it from the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Total passengers and crew?

This article lists three different conflicting numbers for the total number people on board the ship: 2,224, 2,223 and 2,240 in various sections of the article. The most common number I've seen is 2,207, but regardless, a common consensus should be reached. Perhaps an approximate number could be used, like "over 2,200 people" or something, unless a good source can be found? Morhange (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Good question. The British Inquiry says there were 2201 people on board, 711 survivors and 1490 victims. The U.S. Inquiry says there were 2223 on board, 706 survivors and 1517 victims. Encyclopedia Titanica says 2240 on board, but doesn't break down survivors/victims. So which one do we use? Or do we quote all three? Me? I'd list both the U.S. and Brit Inquiries, since both are sourced and seem more authoritative than ET. (Also, it's good practice to sign your posts in Talk)Shirtwaist ☎ 11:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it should be revised as Shirtwaist suggested.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the British inquiry takes into account William Hoyt, who died in the lifeboat, and the five other people who died on the Carpathia, and the American Inquiry just counts Hoyt. I'm also confused about the American Inquiry's count for first class women & children who died--I thought only five female passengers died in first class? (Ida Straus, Edith Corse Evans, Ann Isham and Bess and Loraine Allison) so I have no idea where the number 11 came from. The British inquiry actually counts Loraine Alison as having survived, includes Jack Ryerson as a child but not Lucile Carter (they were both 13 at the time of the sinking) which is confusing in itself. The numbers are just all over the place. Morhange (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

All over the place is right! I've gone through both inquiries and almost none of the totals, such as passengers per class, male/female breakdown, and total crew match between U.S. and Brit Inquiries. Is there a RS that has investigated this in depth to come up with the actual figures? Shirtwaist ☎ 22:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Is there a RS that has investigated this in depth to come up with the actual figures" - Simple answer, No, the actual numbers for POB (persons on board) is unknown and almost certainly unknowable. The article should reflect this uncertainty.WhaleyTim (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That itself is useful information. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, all entries regarding number of passengers on board, total deaths/survivors, etc. should reflect the discrepancies between the U.S. and British Inquiries, as they are both sourced. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The easiest solution would be to use approximate numbers wherever possible (e.g. over 2200 people on board, about 1500 victims) and mention the discrepancies where precise numbers have to be given (e.g. for the table in Survivors, victims and statistics). --DFoerster (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism Issue?

Please note under the section "Discovery of the wreck," the following paragraph contains verbatim language from its source (National Geographic), and thus is a WP:Copy-paste consensus issue, and may also be a WP:Copyright violation, as far as I can tell from NG's terms of use. That paragraph also represents a significant departure in the tone of the article, which is consistent up until that paragraph (which reads like an advertisement). I could not come up with a satisfactory replacement, but also did not want to remove it, as it seems relevant and noteworthy to this section of the article.

"A new expedition using sonar technology and high-resolution optical video and imaging has been started by RMS Titanic Inc. to document the wreck site. The new effort, Expedition Titanic, will deploy the most advanced 3DHD film and acoustic modelling to bring Titanic to life. The high-resolution photos and video are expected to reveal never-before-seen parts of Titanic (Scotland Road, the ship's pool, etc). The 20-day expedition will use remotely operated submersibles to complete an unprecedented archaeological analysis of the two- by three-mile (three- by five-kilometre) debris field, including Titanic's two halves. Expedition Titanic will gather hard data too, for example by measuring the thickness of the ship’s hull and by hauling up and examining experimental steel platforms placed at the site."

Zach99998 (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep; I removed the entire paragraph. The reference was here: [8]. It's also a good time to toot my own horn and point out the topic I started about looking out for copyvios. Brad (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Article section 5.1 - SS Californian - questionable claim?

As far as I can tell from the transcripts, neither the United States Inquiry, nor the British Inquiry, does actually state specifically, that Captain Stanley Lord " failed to give proper assistance to Titanic." as is claimed, in the first sentence of section 5.1 of the article. While both Inquiries may have appeared to insinuate that Captain Lord was culpable, neither actually said so. In fact, neither Inquiry offered any definite conclusions regarding the nature or the extent of the Captain's culpability. It's true that the ship, was specifically censured ( meaningless, in any legal sense, since a ship is just an artefact.) - and it's true that the United States Inquiry did conclude that the "officers and crew" of S.S. Californian failed to respond appropriately ( Also a meaningless generality, since the whole crew could not reasonably be censured for the actions or inactions of some.) Norloch (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Should the wording just be tweaked? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be revised to reflect the Inquiry conclusions. Walter North had quite a lot to say about the Californian: [9].--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi - Always provided that there's general agreement that I haven't misread or misunderstood the Inquiry transcripts - I'd suggest deleting the phrase which mentions Stanley Lord in that first sentence of section 5.1 Norloch (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How about revising the first sentence to say, "Both inquiries into the disaster examined the SS Californian's assistance to Titanic?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I revised the image caption parrot-fashion to match the text. Would it now be more appropraute to put, e.g. "SS Californian which was the first ship to arrive at the scene"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, WPwatchdog and Martinevans - the circumstances surrounding the S.S. Californian have always been a contentious subject, so it's an area which maybe needs extra care with the neutral perspective. The Inquiries did examine the circumstances - though it's unclear why they accepted some parts of the evidence and ignored other parts. (e.g. The doubts raised, at the time, concerning the accuracy of Titanic's S.O.S. position - or the two unidentified ships which Captain Rostron of the Carpathia said he had observed a few miles north of the rescue area, about 3 hours after Titanic went down.) ( n.b. The Carpathia was the first ship that is known to have arrived at the scene.) Norloch (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I revised the first sentence for NPOV as discussed above. Please revise it further as needed.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the revision. Please refer to page 958 of the British Inquiry ('That this vessel, the “Californian,” could have got to the “Titanic” and might have got to the “Titanic” in time to save the passengers is, I am afraid, the irresistible conclusion from this evidence.'). Please also refer to the Report of the Wreck commissioner, Findings of the Court, Question 24.b (available at http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepFindings.php#24). :'What vessels had the opportunity of rendering assistance to the "Titanic" and, if any, how was it that assistance did not reach the "Titanic" before the ss. "Carpathia" arrived?' Answer: '(b.)The "Californian." She could have reached the "Titanic" if she had made the attempt when she saw the first rocket. She made no attempt.'). I think the quoted sections are as condemning as they can get, at least concerning the non-action of the Californian (arguably, this implies the Captain's accountability but Norloch is right that Captain Lord is not mentioned explicitly). For the sake of presenting a NPOV, in addition to restoring the sentence, but replacing Captain Lord with 'the Californian', the fact that the findings of the Wreck Commissioner's report was questioned later by various persons and investigations should also be included, possibly with proper references. For further information about the origins of the debate concerning the guilt of Captain Lord, you can visit George Behe's site (former vice-president of the Titanic Historical Society and author of several books on the subject matter), in particular, the section dealing with the Californian controversy: http://home.comcast.net/~georgebehe/titanic/page5.htm. A2120 Roman (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For folks not deep in on this, you have given substantial info but it is not clear what you are proposing. Could you clarify in that area? North8000 (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read through everything here, but from an outsider's opinion, the reports and such may not have singled out the captain of the SS Californian because he wasn't on the bridge at the time. Based on my layman's knowledge of ship operations, there would have been some other officer in command on the bridge at that hour of the night who would have borne immediate responsibility to make a decision to either: a) change course, b) ignore the rockets or c) summon the captain to decide a course of action. Since the report didn't single out this command officer, we can't either. It would be best to restore the previous wording, but reword it to follow the sources Roman gave, in other words, blaming the ship as a whole and not one person. Imzadi 1979 → 11:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm proposing. A sentence could be added that says "After the conclusion of the British Inquiry, the findings of the Wreck Commissioner's report condemned the Californian for not making an attempt to steam to the Titanic, indirectly laying the blame on her captain. As a result, a few months after the disaster, the Leyland Line asked Captain Lord to resign." (See: Daniel Allen Butler: Unsinkable - The Full Story.) In response to Imzadi1979: ship operations at the time were different from current procedures. The most important decisions were made by the ship master. This is why Captain Smith told Lightoller on the night of the collission, before returning to his cabin: "If it becomes at all doubtful, let me know at once." (That is, Lightoller was supposed to wake up the captain). A2120 Roman (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As noted, this is a contentious subject. Captain Lord may or may not have had culpability for something, but the fact is that the circumstances were never properly investigated ( or at least, not in any public forum ) and Lord was never formally accused of any misdemeanour. A curious feature of the longstanding debate is that it has been almost entirely focused on the premise that 'Californian' was unwilling to render assistance. Little consideration has been given to the possibility that the ship might have been unable to assist, at the time ( with the reasons for that being concealed, subsequently. ) Personally, I don't consider that the circumstances were ever properly investigated. Norloch (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in info box

The section 'capacity' lists the following:

• First Class: 416
• Second Class: 162
• Third Class: 262
• Plus 40 open berthing areas

Only Olympic had open berthing areas for third class. On Titanic these areas (on G-deck) were converted to cabins. ZVdP (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll have to fix it carefully so that we don't create an error. I tagged it in the meantime. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have done some counting in the meantime.

And the counting can be done in several ways, since there are staterooms which can be switched between classes (The current counting inconsistent in this matter).

Let's take a look at what I counted:

1st class: 323

1st class alternative 2nd class: 41

2nd class: 122

2nd class alternative 1st class: 46

3rd class: 257 (of which 36 in previously open berth area)

3rd alternative 2nd:40

The current 1st class number is found by adding (1st)+(1st alt 2nd)+(2nd alt 1st)=415 (<->416)

So all staterooms that hypothetically could be 1st class are counted. Even all 2nd alt 1st. (Ok, a part of this 2nd alt 1st seems to have been 1st class on the maiden voyage. Up to E68 at WTB K, but after this bulhead it was 2nd class)

The current 2nd class number is found by adding (2nd)+(3rd alt 2nd)=162

None of the 2nd alt 1st is counted. But 3rd alt 2nd is included, which are known to have been 3rd class on the maiden voyage.

The current 3rd class number is found by adding (3rd)+(3rd alt 2nd)-(previously open berth)=261 (<->262)

The 3rd alt 2nd is counted again in this number.

So, how should we list count the number of staterooms for each class, considering the alternative staterooms? As listed on the deckplans, or as they were allocated on the maiden voyage, or as maximum numbers (counting all alternatives twice)?

Note: I used the general arrangement plans of Bruce Beveridge on http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/titanic/explorer/explorer.html

This is not the final version of these plans. I don't know if any updates have been made to the cabin layout in newer versions.

ZVdP (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate?

"Adding to the ironic nature of the tragedy is the fact that the liner sank on her maiden voyage."

Does anyone else think that "ironic" is an inappropriate word here? 86.176.212.196 (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the "words to watch" style suggestion makes two and I'm a third. Fixed, and thanks for noticing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "The liner sank on her maiden voyage" from the body

Folks have been persistently taking out "The liner sank on her maiden voyage" saying with that it was in the lead or is obvious. Me and WPWatchdog each put it back in once, saying that the lead is a summary of the body, so the body is supposed to cover everything that was covered in the lead. Currently it is out again. What say y'all? North8000 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Little revert war in the lede today

I didn't mean to start anything, but perhaps the confusion comes from the diffs not showing the entire lede which I copy below (wikimarkup removed, emphasis mine):

RMS Titanic was a passenger liner that struck an iceberg on her maiden voyage from Southampton, England, to New York City, and sank on 15 April 1912, resulting in the deaths of 1,517 people in one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in history.

The largest passenger steamship in the world, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line and constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Ireland. After setting sail for New York City on 10 April 1912 with 2,223 people on board, she hit the iceberg four days into the crossing, at 11:40 pm on 14 April 1912, and sank at 2:20 am the following morning. The high casualty rate resulting from the sinking was due in part to the fact that, although complying with the regulations of the time, the ship carried lifeboats for only 1,178 people. A disproportionate number of men died due to the "women and children first" protocol that was enforced by the ship's crew.

Titanic was designed by experienced engineers, using some of the most advanced technologies and extensive safety features of the time. The liner sank on her maiden voyage. The high loss of life, the media frenzy over Titanic's famous victims, the legends about the sinking, the resulting changes in maritime law, and the discovery of the wreck have all contributed to the enduring interest in Titanic.

Currently the bolded passage in the last 'graph has been removed from the lede, as was my intention, but I thought we should discuss the matter here as there seems to be some disagreement. The above wording, separated by only one paragraph, is redundant and detracts from the professional writing style I hope we are striving to achieve. If it is necessary to repeat this information in the lede (I understand that everything in the lede will be repeated later in the article), then it needs to be rewritten to avoid the redundancy. Perhaps the intention was to say something like "Because the liner sank on her maiden voyage, along with the resulting high loss of life...all contributed to the enduring interest in Titanic". I hope this explains. Valfontis (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that explains perfectly well for me. And yes, I think that probably was the intention - but it didn't quite work. Knucklehead-McSpazatron (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think rewording the sentence as Valfontis suggests will resolve the problem. Go for it, Valfontis.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was mixed up. When I saw "Line 79" and the comments, I mistakenly assumed that we were talking about something in the body of the article, not the later part of the lead. Sorry! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - The line used to read "Adding to the ironic nature of the tragedy, Titanic sank on its maiden voyage", which was changed by dropping the WP:OPEDish "Adding to the ironic nature of the tragedy", leaving "Titanic sank on its maiden voyage" intact. I think the "sinking on maiden voyage" aspect adds to the public fascination of Titanic and should be included in the last sentence of the lead. Shirtwaist ☎ 01:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

After setting sail for New York City...

Do steamships "set sail"? Rumiton (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

OED allows the transferred sense of "to start on a sea voyage". Doesn't mean it's that good just here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To me it grates, OED or no OED. But I have groaned under greater burdens and can probably live with it. Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the same is true of many nautical phrases - How many steamships had a Forecastle for the ship's archers (Fo'csle) or a steering oar on the right hand side (Starboard). As an aside, the OED records, not defines, how words are used in the English language. WhaleyTim (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case I think it's the commonly used term for "to start a sea voyage" plus I don't know of a good substitute term. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Current merchant navy usage is just "The ship sailed for New York at 2pm." Incidentally I don't believe the term starboard meant steering oar, but rather the board on which the steering chap sat, with his left hand on the tiller. Rumiton (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good too. But it also has "sail" in it which I think is what started the discussion. (?) North8000 (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really, it was the "set" that set me off. Sailing itself is OK usage; there are books called Sailing Directions and expressions like "plane sailing". Ships have Sailing Boards to advertise their intended departure time. "Set sail" just seems landlubberly. Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're a poet and don't know it.  :-) I don't think that there are strong feelings about this here. IMHO if you really want to change it, you should just change it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone. I try to avoid working on these Titanic articles as I feel a bit close to the subject. Rumiton (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

new sentence in section Lifeboats

On July 16, the sentence "16 being the minimum required by the Board of Trade, based on Titanic's projected tonnage and passenger manifests from Olympic's 1911 voyages which were usually no more than 1100 people per passage" was added (in parenthesis) to the lifeboat section. I do not fully get it. Firstly, 1100 people per passage does imply that there were on average less people on board than places in the lifeboats. As the vessel had a crew of 885, this would mean that there were on average only 215 passengers on board which appears rather unrealistic. Secondly, this sentence does imply that the Board of Trade requirements did depend on passenger manifests. All other sources I found up to now claim that the requirements were based on projected tonnage only. --DFoerster (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the first reference I've ever seen to Olympics manifests having something to do with the Titanics life boat complement. I've been into this since the 70's, and have a lot of books and articles. Still, I suppose it's possible, though that leaves me wondering what they used to calculate the same complement for Olympic. If this can be supported by reference, I'd like to see that reference included. Pending that, I'm going to cut the parenthetical after "projected tonnage". Wjl2 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, my apologies. There *IS* a reference (I missed it originally). From a book I don't have. So, I have NOT changed the parenthetical. I'll dig up a copy of that book and see just exactly what it says, and what their reference material is. Wjl2 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Female crew numbers in question

I was checking the female crew victim/survivor list here to see if the numbers matched up with the chart in the main article here, and they don't match, so I changed the chart to match the one in the "List of crew members on board RMS Titanic" page. But then I checked the actual source here, and I get a different result! Encyclopedia Titanica says there were 23 female crew members, and all of them survived, which is different from the first two pages, which said 2 women died. Also, the ET site lists 5 women's names that the "List of crew members on board RMS Titanic" page does not. Does anyone know where an accurate list of surviving/lost female crew members is so we can get this chart to come out right? Shirtwaist ☎ 05:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I also count 23 female crew on Titanica Encyclopedia, but lists 3 who did not survive: [10],[11],[12]

Titanic-Titanic also lists 23 women.

ZVdP (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right - the bodies of the three women crew who died were never recovered (or if recovered were not identified). That's why Encyclopedia Titanica doesn't list their "body number" on the crew list. That makes 20 female crew survived, and 3 died. It looks like the "List of crew members on board RMS Titanic" page is incorrect too and needs to be fixed. Thanks! Shirtwaist ☎ 20:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The section that says Captain Smith said "Be British" should say he reportedly said that rather than establishing it as fact. It is not known if that is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.30.31 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Legends and Myths spinoff

Someone moved that out to a new article. We should have a few sentences on them here, but that may be a fast way to handle the process. Move, and then bring back a few sentences. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Needed doing, but agree with North8000: retain a very brief mention of the most obvious or well-known. Suggestions? Something short on the band, perhaps? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Another section has gone. Again, this is a step in the right direction but the instruction that a summary should remain in the original section has once again been ignored. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's easily fixed. Rklawton (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that that second wave of removed stuff is stuff that needs to be covered substantially here. Folks, let's talk before making huge removals. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the one who created these new articles. I have now written a summary for Legends and myths, but as english is not my first language perhaps you can help - hope it is ok for now. Sorry for not doing the transfer correctly, I'm new to this! --Leoj83 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Discovery and condition sections

I feel that those need to be real sections here, although they could be shortened (like down to half, not down to 5% or 0%) I reverted the removals just to get it back to a good place to discuss this from. Also for one person to remove huge sections from this and start new Titanic articles with no discussion is not right, although I think that it was an "all's well that ends well" situation regarding myths and legends. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! As I explained above (under Myths and Legends discussion) I was the one who moved the two sections into new articles, and I suppose you were right to move this one back. (I'm sorry for not doing all this correctely, as I'm new to this!) But I still think the Titanic article is 1) to long, and 2) the wreck section is extensive enough to be its own article (and I'm sure it will grow as new expeditions have taken place). So maybe we should eventualy create a new article and have a summary of about 50% of the current text. What do you all think? --Leoj83 (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like the ideal course of action. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok I have now shortned the section and also extended the lead section in the daughter article. Do you think the summary is ok? --Leoj83 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

With so much happening it's hard to assess/ keep track. But my impression is that it looks good. I lost track of what happened with the "condition" section.....do you know where it is? North8000 (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes the "condition" section is in the daughter article with rest of the original material. Should we write something about the condition of the wreck in this article as well? --Leoj83 (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I thought I brought it back here but I guess not.North8000 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Done and done, took a few lines from the daughter article about the condintion of the wreck, so now all the vital information about the wreck is in this article. --Leoj83 (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Capt. Lord.

Capt. Lord was extensively interviewed by his employers, the British Leyland Line, after the sinking of the "Titanic". It was concluded that he had not been negligent in his duties and he was employed by the same company until he retired.

Following the discovery of the wreck a recent account suggests that the "Californian" was a greater distance from the "Titanic" and had Capt. Lord taken his ship on a charge through pack ice would still have arrived at about the same time as the "Carpathia" anyway.AT Kunene (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The officers on the Californian said they saw the ship's lights, and later saw the Titanic's rockets. If they were that close, they were not more than 20 to 25 miles away. If they were farther away than that, Titanic would've been beyond the horizon, and not directly visible to the Californian. This means if Californian had heard the first distress calls and immediately steamed toward Titanic at top speed, it could've reached Titanic in two hours or less at their top speed of 12 knots, and would have had time to rescue everyone. Shirtwaist ☎ 09:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a distress message, "We've hit an iceberg, please steam at top speed towards it" ? Caution on the part of other ships is not unreasonable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lord Mersey noted that there wasn't consistent evidence among witnesses, regarding what they observed ( or thought they observed.) There was evidence from survivors, that Titanic's Bridge watch didn't sight any ships lights in their vicinity, until some time after the collision. If you'd like to get a rough idea of what might have been observed, at the time, - draw a sketch of Titanic across your thumbnail, then stretch out your arm at eye-level. That's approximately what you'd have seen of the world's largest ship, in 1912, at a range of eight miles. Norloch (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the OP's assertion that "had Capt. Lord taken his ship on a charge through pack ice would still have arrived at about the same time as the "Carpathia" anyway" (four hours after the first distress call)? If there is evidence that Titanic's passengers had no chance of rescue before the sinking, even from Californian if it had heard the first distress call, that should be put into the article. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well... we're speculating on events where much of the evidence is uncertain and contradictory. If Californian had responded to the first radio distress call, would they then have proceeded towards the incorrect S.O.S. position (which was about 13 miles different from the actual distress position) - or would they have hung around for a while to see if Titanic was going to send up any rockets to give them an accurate compass bearing ? Given the ice conditions which Carpathia's Captain reported at dawn, would it have been credible for Californian to have attempted to proceed at full speed ? (n.b. Captain Rostron, on Carpathia, was wise enough to wait until daylight before he attempted any rescue.) Those are just a couple of the many questions that could be asked? Norloch (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

All we can do is present evidence, uncertain and contradictory as it may be, and leave the speculation to the reader. I'm not following your first point though. According to what's in the article now, an officer on Californian saw Titanic's lights at and after 23:50 - 10 minutes after it stopped - and told Captain Lord a ship's lights could be seen. It also says "The inquiries found that Californian was much closer to Titanic than the 19.5 miles (31.4 km) that Captain Lord had believed", implying that it was easier for Californian to see Titanic's lights than previously thought. If this information is, as you say, "uncertain and contradictory", that should be made clear to the reader along with refs that say so. As it stands, the reader will assume that if Californian was close enough to see the ship's lights on such a clear night, then rockets and compass bearings would've been unnecessary - all they had to do after getting Titanic's CQD and SOS was steam toward the lights.

As for Carpathia's captain's actions, this inquiry says "The Carpathia was immediately turned around (p. 19) and reported her latitude and longitude to the Titanic, together with the fact that she was steaming full speed toward the stricken ship (pp. 148 and 901)". Do you have evidence to the contrary? If not, isn't it reasonable to assume that Lord would have done exactly the same thing Rostron did - steam full speed toward the stricken ship? According to this timeline, Titanic's first distress call went out at 00:15, then at 00:25, a more urgent call "Come at once. We have struck a berg. It's a C.Q.D.", and at 00:27, the even more urgent "I require assistance immediately. Struck by iceberg" was sent. So, if we assume Californian started toward Titanic's lights at full speed at 00:15, at 12 knots or 14 mph (and 19 miles away), Californian could have reached Titanic in about 1 hour and 20 minutes - or at 01:35. Sooner if they were closer - and much sooner than Carpathia. Even if Californian had waited till the urgent "Come at once" call at 00:25 to start toward Titanic, it still would've been able to save everyone, no? Shirtwaist ☎ 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your making assumptions based on the assumptions of someone else. - 3rd.officer Groves on Californian said he observed a ship's lights and he concluded that it must have been Titanic. -2nd. officer Stone apparently saw something different - as did Captain Lord. From maindeck level 2nd. Donkeyman Gill gave yet another description. The problem is that none of the witnesses at the British Inquiry were questioned adequately about these observations. As far as I know, none of the other crew members were called to give evidence - apart from the apprentice. And so, we're left with contradictions and uncertainties. Norloch (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm making assumptions on the observations of others. These observations may vary from person to person of course, but I find it very hard to believe that an officer telling his captain about rockets going off above an unknown ship's lights is mistaking that for something else, or making it up entirely. In any case, my point about Californian's proximity to Titanic doesn't rely on who saw what, it assumes the hypothetical that Californian did receive the first distress call at 00:15 and the captain acted accordingly. For another hypothetical - let's say Second Officer Herbert Stone tells Lord about the first rockets at 00:45 (the time the first lifeboats were launched) and Lord immediately tells wireless operator Evans to turn his wireless set back on, Evans then hears Titanic's calls and Lord, putting two and two together, immediately orders his officers to steam toward the ship that set off the rockets. In that case, Californian would've had less time to evacuate the passengers from Titanic, but it at least would arrive hours before Carpathia. Again, the whole point of the OP's thread is that Californian couldn't arrive at Titanic any sooner than Carpathia did, even if Californian was aware of the emergency at the same moment as Carpathia. Shirtwaist ☎ 01:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, Shirtwaist, but you are speculating where evidence is uncertain and contradictory. You quote times of events, but fail to clarify that the ships involved weren't operating on a single co-ordinated time - they were actually keeping slightly different local times from each other.( Something else that the British Inquiry failed to establish clearly.) Your speculation regarding 2nd. officer Stone actions might have had some validity if he'd seen a clearly identifiable 'signal of distress'. He didn't - because Titanic never made the regulation signal. Aboard Titanic, for unkown reasons, they sent up a few rockets at intermittent intervals. That was a guaranteed recipe for confusion. It needs to be emphasised that rockets were, and still are, used at sea for other types of signal - apart from distress signals. Whether or not Californian could have effectively rescued everyone by making a bold dash in the dark, through quite difficult ice conditions, is certainly open to question. I'd be happier if those proposing this scenario had actual experience of such an operation. I know, from personal experience, that rescuing people from just one open boat - in twilight conditions - with no ice around, was a lengthy operation. Norloch (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Norloch - I'm sure you know that hypotheticals are a form of speculation. This thread was started on speculation, I see no need to complain about continued speculation in such a thread.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against, but it doesn't seem to be related to the point I'm trying to make.

First - If the inquiry didn't establish which ship was on what time, how do you know Titanic and Californian were on different times? Your point about relative ship times is irrelevant anyway because we're talking about physical contact between ships - rockets, lights, and wireless - the fact that Titanic sent up a rocket at 00:45, and it was seen by Californian at, say, 00:30 (according to Californian's clocks) is meaningless. Similarly, it doesn't make any difference who kept what time in my hypotheticals either - if Titanic sent the first CQD at 00:15 "Titanic time", and Californian (hypothetically) heard it at 00:30 "Californian time", it doesn't effect Lord's reaction to it, which presumably would be to head toward the ship whose lights were in the general area of the stricken ship (after getting confirmation of its location from Titanic - which would be helped by Titanic sending up a rocket so Californian could get a definite fix).

Second - Whether the rockets were seen as distress signals or not is also irrelevant. All Stone had to do (and in fact did) was report to Lord that "rockets" were seen. It was up to Lord to decide what they were for, and in my hypothetical, Lord makes the right decision that they were possibly distress signals, and tells the wireless operator to turn his set back on to make sure, instead of what he actually did, which was to use morse signal lights to contact the ship.

Third - If captain Rostron was willing to send Carpathia on a bold dash in the dark through quite difficult ice conditions, why wouldn't Lord do likewise? Are you saying Lord was that much more cautious in a situation like that than Rostron? Remember, Californian's top speed was only 12 knots - not the 17 knots Carpathia was doing. BTW, it helps to use indents properly in talk pages for clarity of who is responding to what post. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that you can hypothesise about pretty much everything. We could even consider a hypothetical situation in which Titanic proceeded with due caution appropriate to the prevailing circumstances.( and that would eliminate all the hypotheticals!)- However, your third point isn't quite correct. Rostron on Carpathia first encountered the ice shortly after 2.30 a.m. (Carpathia time) just after he sighted the first flare from one of the lifeboats. He very sensibly proceeded with due caution thereafter. It was more than an hour and a half later, before he closed with the first of the boats. Norloch (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(so much for proper indents, I guess)Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested to read it. I'd also be interested to hear your opinion on the hypothetical posed by the OP - that even if Californian had gotten the distress signal at the same time Carpathia did, the two ships would've arrived at Titanic at the same time. Shirtwaist ☎ 05:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shirtwaist; There are several sources for Carpathia and Rostron, but maybe it's best to read his own testimony to the U.S. and British Inquiries and then do the route/time/distance calcs. for the period. Regarding the hypothetical that Californian might have arrived at the same time as Carpathia - I couldn't offer an opinion because there is no precise data about the extent or disposition of the ice in the region, at the time. We know that it took Californian roughly two and a half hours to negotiate a particular route through the ice - during daylight. In darkness, finding a good route might have taken much longer. If the disposition of the ice happened to be in their favour the time involved would obviously be less. Norloch (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)