Talk:Titan submersible implosion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Inventors killed by their own invention

IF they die/are already dead, could we hypothetically add the Inventors killed by their own invention category? Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we know if the CEO is actually the inventor of the Titan, or just the concept of a submersible company? If he didn't have significant hand in creating the Titan, like engineering or blueprinting at least, I personally would not call him the inventor. UnapolMaker (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Or is he just a person who was hired to be CEO of the company?.Tvx1 21:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It said that he was the founder of the company as well as the CEO. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

According to a profile in the Smithsonian, I think the Titan is Rush's brainchild, which I think would make him eligible for the category.Significa liberdade (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So it can be added if/when they die, got it. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably not here, but if someone writes the Stockton Rush article it may be includable there. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Now, it's my understanding that it does not require one to have a wikipedia article on their own, since both Michael Dacre and Henry Smolinski are listed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

In those cases the category went on the redirect page for the person's name, not the other article itself. So to be analogous to those case, you'd put the category on Stockton Rush and not here. It's pretty clear from the categories wording Inventors killed by their own invention. The category is for a subcategory of inventors specifically and should include people, not things or incidents. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah fair enough. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I still think it’s a big leap to say he invented a deep-diving submersible. In reality, he merely designed this particular type of that vessel. Tvx1 22:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Mike Hughes didn't invent the idea of Rockets but yet due to creating his OWN rockets he is classified under the category inventors killed by their own invention. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explicitly discusses the loss of Titan in this context (the inventor being killed by his own invention)? If so then you can include it in the list. If not then that would be user-generated content, which does not belong on Wikipedia. A source that merely states that it is their invention is not sufficient, unless it puts that into relation with the incident. --Renerpho (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably a better conversation for Talk:Stockton Rush and/or Talk:List of inventors killed by their own invention, though the category has been added to the Rush bio and he's been added to the list article already. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Coordinate precision

Why are the coordinates at the top so precise? It gives a false sense of precision. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the location of the dive site, and the wreck of the Titanic. (ie. the mission goal for the expedition) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Does that correspond to "approximately 900 mi (1,450 km) east and 400 mi (643.7 km) (643km) south of St. Johns, Newfoundland", as BBC have said (except it looks like they have used miles instead of nautical miles)? Should this be added somewhere? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This information from the BBC is obviously incorrect. 900 miles east of Newfoundland is halfway across the Atlantic to Ireland. The wreck is more like 9 or 90 miles east of Newfoundland (and around 400 miles south). 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:D8B6:15A7:35D9:3D73 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, 90 nmi might be more plausible. Wreck of the Titanic says "... 370 nmi (690 km) south-southeast of Newfoundland". So that might be better and simpler. If that's where the dive site is or was. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the BBC saw reports that the USCG was conducting operations 900 nmi from Cape Cod, and confused that with the reporting around the expedition leaving from Newfoundland. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I've since seen on Reuters website (from where BBC lifted the story) they've given the position of the Titanic wreck as around 900 miles east of Cape Cod, and 400 miles south of St Johns.

The BBC have edited it (for clarity no doubt) and removed the reference to Cape Cod: putting both measurements relative to St Johns (and putting the wreck equidistant between Newfoundland and Ireland).

I flagged it up with BBC three hours ago but the story is unaltered. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1C76:BBE4:82F1:A241 (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:COORDINATES for additional details on how we display them. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: That guideline says "Avoid excessive precision (0.0001° is <11 m, 1″ is <31 m)." Currently it's specified to the arc second, which is pretty exact. My point is that we could just specify it to within the arc minute, or whatever level of significant figures we think is accurate enough.

I'm not sure what that precise point is supposed to be (it's not discussed in the infobox or elsewhere in the article). Is it the last point of contact before it disappeared, or something like that? Where did the arc seconds come from, anyway? Did someone make them up or were they actually mentioned in a report? I notice that the longitude exactly matches what is given in the Titanic article, which makes me think someone might have just taken that and offset the latitude by an estimate of how far they were from their goal. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would the dive site not be directly over the position of the wreck? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea. The difference between the currently provided latitudes is about half a (statute) mile by my estimates. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Even assuming it was indeed directly over the position of the wreck, the Titanic isn't just any old fishing boat. It's a cruise liner, it was a lot longer and wider than 31m even when it wasn't in bits. Plokmijnuhby (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I noticed, but I am currently unsure if it needs modification to reduce the precision at this time. But sure, we can choose to modify it if it is too much. In any case, I think that the coordinated were copied over from the Titanic article exactly given that was their intended destination. I did fix the latitude issue as there were two competing templates for some reason wit different numbers, so I synchronized them. (It seems that someone determined which one wasn't needed and removed it.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

They've found debris 500 metres (1,600 ft) off the bow of the Titanic, so we have a location now, just a little off the Titanic. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate statement

I'm having trouble finding the original statement, but according to CNN (https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/index.html), OceanGate has made a statement indicating they believe the crew members aboard the Titan have "sadly been lost." It seems we're reaching the time of making updates to the page to reflect these statements, as well as those I'm sure are coming soon. Significa liberdade (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

i found the same thing, seems that their website is down, so i guess we will have to use the CNN link for now Tantomile (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I would probably add this statement to thee article somewhere. This will be covered by the media. The article should then be updated to reflect what is then said. Gust Justice (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

quick update, https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/h_4600cd3013726aee0de8a25c03fd5647. Debris was "consistent with catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber," Tantomile (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC is also doing live coverage, taking quotes from the press conference:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464

EddieColdrick (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

When was the statement issued? There's some lack of clarity in the article at the moment over whether they issued the statement based on their assumptions from the amount of oxygen available to the sub, vs. after the Coast Guard discovered the debris suggesting the vessel had imploded. Not the most important thing, but we should avoid implying one way or the other if the timing isn't clear. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC first received the statement at 22 Jun 19:46 (British time)

EddieColdrick (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly issued after USCG had informed them of their findings - IIRC the Admiral said that that had been a priority. I would be amazed if USCG and OceanGate had not been painfully co-ordinating their statements for a day or two, at least. Davidships (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a statement on Oceangate Expeditions twitter, here [1]. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Assets Status

Do y'all think we still need to have the status of if assets have arrived on site or are en route still on the page? After today, it's kinda pointless for someone to know, and per CNN (https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/h_37ae012fe3ebf25ccd705808e2772ca4), the assets are demobilizing. Tantomile (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The assets are to start demobilizing in 24 hours. In any case, if someone wants to turn the table into prose, then I would be okay with that. But removing the information without keeping any mention in text would be disappointing. I believe that readers would want to know what ships responded when an incident occurs. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to phrase it, but it may be worthwhile for people to know not just the sheer number of assets deployed but also when they arrived on the scene (or didn't arrive). As the person who moved everything to the table, I'd be fine with it being rewritten as prose; I just find tables easier to understand at times to clearly showcase information. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SGV that it should not be removed until prosified. Some of the detail will no doubt get dropped in that process, but additional material, particularly about what those assets brought or were bringing to bear would be welcome. Worth noting something of what the Admiral said about the extraordinary international response. Although he mentioned 24 hours, I thank that he also said that some things would stop sooner, instancing those specialist medical facilities already there. Davidships (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I moved it from prose to a list in this edit, if the previous prose would be useful. However, I think that it would probably be better be presented as prose in its own section rather than scattered throughout the timeline when it was announced that various assets would be joining the search. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Serendipity

Submersible Pilot’s Spouse Is Descended From a Famous Titanic Couple.

Wendy Rush is a great-great-granddaughter of the retailing magnate Isidor Straus and his wife, Ida, two of the wealthiest people to die aboard the ocean liner.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/21/us/wendy-stockton-rush-titanic-missing-submersible.html?smid=nytcore-android-share 2600:8800:386:F000:DD26:8799:9B62:A40 (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

tyat doesbt natter Yusuf Michael (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is currently mentioned at Stockton Rush. I'm not going to comment if it belongs there but I see no reason why it should be mentioned here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Mysteriously dissapeared

I added that it "mysteriously dissapeared" don't delete that. Yusuf Michael (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but as another editor said, that's just non encyclopaedic writing in the first place. But particularly in this case where the disappearing is not considered particularly "mysterious". Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Who said that? Yusuf Michael (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Asperthrow said that in one of their reversions of your edit [2] Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Editors may WP:BOLD delete whatever they wish or they may delete edits which were non-constructive and sensationalised, as yours was.

Your contribs suggest you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia’s customs and guidelines, so I recommend acquainting yourself with them before continuing to edit articles. Asperthrow (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

How am I unfamiliar Yusuf Michael (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Because your contribs show that you have repeatedly deleted factual and long-standing information, accused one article of being written “on a liberal basis”, and demonstrated a lack of understanding for MOS:PRON. Asperthrow (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

nope, that was only one time. Yusuf Michael (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You have under 100 edits so your bad edits are likely to stand out a lot. But let's put that aside, and concentrate on this article. You need to stop trying to add word which you've been repeatedly told is unsuitable and which clearly lacks WP:Consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove table Arrival information

This page is starting to read like unhinged paranoia the whole arrival of ships table is totally unnecessary. canolanext (talk) 23 June 2023 — Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It definitely is not necessary, it should have only stated where the ships were coming from and whom operated them not the arrival times. Teebatso (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Titanic background information

@Canolanext — I fail to understand the reasoning behind deleting three sentences of background information, which explains exactly what the submersible was travelling to view.

It’s also best not to assume that everyone knows the same as you. Not all readers will be familiar with the Titanic or its sinking; however famed it may be. Asperthrow (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There is an entire article on the titanic, it mentions in infobox about the titanic with a link to it. It is so unnecessary to start unpacking titanic on this page. It is nearly repeating verbatim what wreck of titanic page says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canolanext (talk • contribs) 09:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Categories - Canada

The incident occurred in international waters, not in Newfoundland and Labrador or Canada. I propose that that "in Newfoundland and Labrador" and "in Canada" categories should be removed. Thoughts? Mitch Ames (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

They've been removed, apparently. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Likewise "in North America". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

In the 'Expeditions to the Titanic' paragraph in the 'Background' section, change "eight-day expedition" to "eight-hour expedition." Trillvirgo (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's an eight day trip, according to the sources. You're thinking of the time for each individual dive. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done:The price includes the ride to the site, the dive and the ride home, which all takes eight days. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (2)

Suleman Dawood should be listed explicitly as a reported death in the info box. He may not have a Wikipedia page, but he deserves to be mentioned in the same manner as all the victims of this incident. Troulson (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Nobody is listed - FlightTime (open channel) 19:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (4)

Can we have some mention of how OceanGate attempted to close down criticisms of the safety of Titan with the threat of legal action? See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914 80.47.58.68 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems a bit WP:COATRACK for the article about this incident. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it should get a mention in the section Safety and concerns. If the reaction to expression of criticism of fears from the submersible community is not mentioned now I suspect it wil be during the enquiery announced by the Canadian Coastguard. 80.47.58.68 (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this is already mentioned in the article (here). Maybe it wasn't when you posted the request. Is there more you think should be added? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Duplicate RM, all discussion should take place on the existing #Requested move 20 June 2023 (non-admin closure) Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Titan submersible incident → Titan submersible implosion – reason:Almost all WP:Reliable Sources have reported that the submarine has imploded, the crew has died, and debris has been found. Therefore, the term "incident" in the title is obsolete and misleading, as it does not accurately describe what happened. 67.87.26.220 (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title request change:

Change title to: 2023 Titan Submersible Disaster 2607:FB91:8E14:42D4:2449:7B49:3E84:563A (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

See discussion taking place at the top of this page. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Flashing images

There are some flashing images in the Ocean Gate promotional video, could a warning please be added for these for photosensitive viewers please? Thank you in advance. Such an awful tragedy, rest in peace to all those who died. 2A02:C7E:3962:DD00:6421:D548:24E0:3ED5 (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Better still - I have removed the video, because it's promotional, and not even about Titan. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

minor copy edit request

second paragraph of “Investigations”: that latter of which -> the latter of which 2601:CB:2:E180:BDAC:A92E:7AD2:9C5C (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Outdated reaction

The last paragraph of the reactions section contains statements made before the wreck of Titan was found. I am not sure whether the best course is to remove the comments or clarify when they were made, so noting the issue here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I would be inclined to remove it. I'm not really sure what it adds to the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps 2 subsections, one for before and one for after the debris was found? OneRandomBrit (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of social media effect in Reactions section

Hi all, at one point there was a blurb about the social media impact/effect that the incident had (with sources): "The submersible's disappearance, build and the search and rescue efforts were widely discussed on social media and the internet. While some of the comments and critiques were viewed as in bad taste, it also brought a renewed interest into the Titanic with the subreddit for the Titanic seeing about a 9.5% increase in activity in the first 48 hours of the submersible's disappearance." it was then parsed down before eventually being fully removed. I have seen multiple articles about the disaster and social media, as well as its contrasting coverage/discussion to recent other disasters. Should it be re-added in any capacity or left out? Leaky.Solar (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A 9.5% increase in the activity of a single subreddit would be quite trivial to mention. Perhaps once edited it could be re-added. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

As we create Wikipedia articles for events, it's important to think about the encyclopedic value the information is bringing. For instance, we might imagine what someone looking at this page in 10 years might find relevant to understand what happened or what might be included in a printed encyclopedia. I'm not saying the social media aspect isn't noteworthy, just that we need to think about how important each bit of information is as Wikipedia isn't a repository of all available information. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Very occasionally, some aspect of social (or indeed, any kind of) media activity is a significant part of the events/story in itself (eg built groundswell for social or political change, or provoked racist attacks, for example). Or I suppose if Facebook went down due to bandwidth restriction. Nothing of substance here that I can see. Davidships (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it relevant to point out the modification to the controller is 3d printed joystick extenders?

Hello,

As someone that owns and operates 3d printers for work and pleasure, I noticed that the Logitech controller seen in the videos has 3d printed joystick extenders added to the joystick. This increase in height allows for more precise control and are commonly used in certain video games for a competitive advantage.

The controller is repeatedly being reported as a "modified controller" as well as a "PlayStation controller" while the only discernable modification is the addition of two 3d printed joystick extenders. Should this be included in the article? It could have been a unique design but I am checking all known .STL repositories for a match. ZANZIBARLAND (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Only if you find a reliable source which can be cited to back up your information. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Carbonfibrecomposite

James Cameron has compared the Titan design to the DeepFlight Challenger, and how it is prone to delamination and crush implosion failure. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Shahzada Dawood "billionaire"

According to the Financial Express source linked in the article his networth is 136.73 millions USD. How is he a billionaire? KomradeRice (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources seem to be accurate at all and financial express doesn't say how they got the figure. Krynh (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that there are other currencies besides the US dollar...$136 million USD is about 40 billion Pakistani rupees, so that would more than qualify him as a billionaire in Pakistan. It's sometimes assumed that "billionaire" means either US dollars or Euros, but it's not a term that's used exclusively for those currencies. FearlessLingonberry (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Horizon

Horizon Maritime Services (Horizon Maritime), the owner of Polar Prince and Horizon Arctic, might be good for an article? Apparently it is a Aboriginal Business [3][4]. There seems to be some business and First Nations news about it -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

June 18 or June 18-22?

It is confirmed that the 18th of June is the date of the implosion of Titan, but should the rescue mission be included in the date on the infobox as well? Popeetoes (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it might be too hard to pin down an end date of the rescue->recovery->investigation sequence which is likely to be ongoing for some time. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC: Sufficient checks following each dive?

Quote from https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464

"Another focus of the investigation will be whether there were sufficient checks following each dive. Each time the Titan went down on a deep dive, its hull would have been compressed by the immense water pressure - it would have become smaller and then returned to its normal size on its return to the surface. This regular stress would have led to fatigue of the material, weakening it. It is so far unclear whether there were checks for cracks after each dive and if so how extensive they were." Uwappa (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Kudos!

I'd like to complement every editor who put this article together. Some of you may have done current event articles many times, but when the pressure is on, the job is that much harder. Well done! ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to extend my kudos to the many good-faith contributors who continue to manage such a tragic and dramatic situation using good sense, fine writing, and a fierce reliance on reliable sourcing. The Wikipedia model of page creation and social norms tends towards really excellent coverage of some forms of recent events. Thanks, folks. You make the rest of us look good. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I also echo the comments from my fellow editors above. The article is detailed and very well resourced and referenced. The fact that it has been created to this level in such a short period of time and under such tragic and difficult circumstances warrants praise to all those who have worked on the article! JLo-Watson (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate "partnerships" with NASA, Boeing, & Washinghton University

On its website, the company boasted its “state-of-the-art vessel” was “designed and engineered by OceanGate Inc. in collaboration with NASA, Boeing and the University of Washington”. However, some the alleged "partners" denied any association with OceanGate Inc. whatsoever. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the article (here). Is there something you think should be added to that? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are there two maps?

We don't need two separate maps for this one incident. Pick one. -- Veggies (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the first map, and I think a zoomed-in version could alleviate the problems of too much information and too small text DecafPotato (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

500km
300miles

  

See discussion at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Mapframe and Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Reworked SVG map. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Two maps, two discussions. We need to stop talking past each other and pick which one of these maps should remain. -- Veggies (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the OSM Location Map (with a descriptor for the two markers), because the text on the SVG is far too small to read at infobox size. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - the OSM is superior. The isobath lines/shading on the SVG is an unnecessary distraction and the text, as GuerillaWelfare says, is too small to be useful. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The OSM presentation much preferred as uncluttered by irrelevant info. It might on that basis prove possible to shift coverage towards the west, and reduce the scale a bit, to include Boston, the location of the Search & Rescue/Recovery management. It would be interesting to see whether that is feasible or not. Davidships (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Eminently diplomatic. I too am intrigued to see if someone with advanced IT/cartographic skills and a restricted social-life can reduce the scale and move the map's focus somewhat westward in a Bostonly direction. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Done, and also ouch. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's a digital band-aid :) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

?? - Davidships (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It is off-topic so to be brief to get back on track, the words and a restricted social-life was what GorillaWarfare was saying ouch to and why the IP user gave a digital band-aid. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that OSM map is superior in anyway. On the contrary it’s utterly minimalistic. The perceived “too small” text on the other is something that can easily be fixed.Tvx1 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What information is missing from the OSM map that you think ought to be conveyed? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Just about everything. It's just a bland poor quality map frame with not geographic identifications, nor explanation about the incident. Tvx1 00:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

1000km
620miles

  

MV Polar Prince departed St. John's, Newfoundland (1) on 16 June, and arrived at the dive site (2) on 17 June, where the Titan was deployed and began its descent the day after.

Here is the map currently used in the infobox, which has more geographic context and a caption explanation: GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with minimalistic? IKEA have traded extremely successfully on that model for 40 years. You must have owned a LACK table or had a friend who did surely?

As to fixing the perceived "too small" text: perception is reality...dismissing another human being's perception is simply a ghastly thing to even contemplate in today's world. Rather than castigate your fellow man/woman who may be disabled by presbyopia, why not instead just quietly (and easily, to use your very own words) fix that "too small" text for the greater good?

I hardly need remind you that today, mankind is reeling from the news that 5 extremely brave explorers lost their lives in the cruelest possible way, roughly 3 miles underwater in the chilling North Atlantic (about 370 nautical miles south-south-east of Newfoundland). Nobody, least of all the visually-challenged, needs more shite on their plate today of all days. Please try to assume good faith at all times and be a better WP:Editor. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

For crying out loud, there is nothing bad faith in my post, I merely stated a map could be fixed. I can't do it myself because I don't have the tools. Get your ego out of this. And what is wrong with minimalistic is that it is uninformative to our readers.Tvx1 00:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• We have a need for two maps. The map in the infobox should be zoomed out to give the overall geographical context. The more detailed topographic map would then be appropriate for the body of the article, showing the detail of the voyage, site, search area and so forth. The infobox is supposed to be a summary, like the lead and so should not be overloaded with too much detail. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  It should summarise however, which the minimalistic mapframe doesn’t do.Tvx1 07:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  There's a reason that Template:Maplink has a zoom-switch feature. (See right) If your argument is that the reason for having two maps is the requisite zoom to give a clearer picture, there's already a singular feature for this. -- Veggies (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Now there are two maps within one infobox, showing largely the same thing, which seems like a step in the wrong direction... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We need to get rid of the SVG one - for a start it claims the route the boat took was a straight line which is unlikely. An interactive map is significantly better here 92.22.127.50 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

(That was me, logged out) - I've done that. If someone finds a source that the route taken is accurately depicted by the SVG map feel free to add it back in Timtjtim (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

DSV or just submersible

DSV chart reviewed by PH Nargeolet in 2019

Should we change the initial description to deep submergence vehicle instead of just submersible ?

-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No. The fact that it imploded strongly implies that it was not a deep submergence vehicle. It was merely a poorly-constructed and non-approved tube that sank like a stone and was crushed like a Coke can. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Damn. Just.... damn. Brusque, but accurate. -- Veggies (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that it made successful dives to the site before suggest it was a DSV. Tvx1 00:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Having made several earlier successful dives, would indicate that it was a DSV. Just as the Hawaiian Airlines flight that had its roof ripped off, doesn't mean the plane involved wasn't a high altitude jetliner. Or a top-fuel dragster that explodes at the christmas tree isn't a drag racer. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with above - Boeing 737 MAX aircraft were still aircraft, Hotpoint tumble driers are still driers, etc. Faulty design / manufacture doesn't mean it's not a DSV Timtjtim (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Reworked SVG map

I wanted to improve the original SVG map a bit, since – like the discussion remarked – it was lacking in displaying the scale of the operation. But the work took so long I apparently came a bit late to the party, and the infobox map has now been replaced with an interactive map, which is arguably more useful. But I'll link the map in case someone wants to use it, or rework it or offer feedback.

It's not really infobox-legible at this stage, but I'm trying to strike a balance between informativity and legibility. —Nelg (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this is much better than the current mapframe. Interactivity is good, but it should never trump legibility and informativity. The priority should be a summary of the article.Tvx1 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

File:2023 Titan submersible incident map.svg has more useful information that the zoomable map, even at the highest levels of zoom. I just swapped them; let's see if it sticks. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Could the text size in the red label be increased? It's minuscule in the infobox. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Great stuff. This page is enormously better than when I went to sleep. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source (AIS) that the straight line is actually the route they took? It's a good map, but it's potentially misleading 92.22.127.50 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen nothing in the reporting to suggest anything other than a direct transit from St John's to the Titanic site, nor can I see why any likely variation on that (wind & tide?) would be of any significance in the story of the incident. Davidships (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

U.S. Government knew of certain death but tried to hide it, failed to do so anyhow

"The [appropriate agency] of the U.S. government were aware the sub imploded at [date time] but chose not share this information with the public over fears of leaking their submarine detection capabilities. This cover-up came to light on [date time], after search and rescue had failed and the projected maximum survival of the sub was exceeded"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-navy-detected-titan-sub-implosion-days-ago-6844cb12 85.147.66.47 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That is an extremely skewed interpretation of that WSJ article, but the source is useful anyhow. Looks like it's already been incorporated in an appropriately neutral fashion at 2023 Titan submersible incident#Timeline of events. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The info is also in the lead where it says it came from a declassified sonar detection. Yet neither the WSJ article nor the BBC live seems to mention the declassified part. I can't read the NYT source. They do mention how this information was earlier passed to the Coast Guard but wasn't made public until now but don't offer direct commentary on the possibility it was classified until now. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's an additional source to add to the article: https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-navy-detected-titan-sub-implosion-top-secret-acoustic-system-day-vessel-went-missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably won't happen - see WP:FOXNEWS. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is how CBS News puts it: A U.S. Navy official said the military detected "an acoustic anomaly consistent with an implosion" on Sunday — shortly after the sub, called the Titan, lost contact with the surface, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported. But search and rescue teams did not want to give up hope, and used the information to help narrow down the search area.

Here is how the BBC puts it: The official told CBS News their information about the "acoustic anomaly" had been used by the US Coast Guard to narrow the search area. According to CNN, it was deemed to be "not definitive" and therefore the search and rescue mission continued.

And here is how CNN puts it: A senior Navy official told CNN the Navy detected an acoustic signature consistent with an implosion on Sunday in the general area where the vessel was diving and lost communication with its mother ship. The Navy immediately relayed that information to on-scene commanders leading the search effort, and it was used to narrow down the area of the search, the official said Thursday. But the sound of the implosion was determined to be “not definitive,” the official said, and the multinational efforts to find the submersible continued as a search and rescue effort.

None of that suggests that this was a cover-up. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Patent US-11119071-B1

It would be helpful to many readers to cite the actual patent pertaining to the Titan's Acoustic Hull Monitoring system (US-11119071-B1). It is illuminating that such flimsy patent claims (IMO) can be granted. It's a very broad claim with little more than rephrasing a vague claim - that using acoustics sensors and a computer to imply the condition of a composite material- with no specifics - restated 50x over and little more. The basic idea is obvious and unoriginal. The information in the patent is not the product of a large R&D investment. I recommend people actually go read the patent and see what kinds of fluff apparently passes muster for granting a patent. What is the purpose of the patent system if such flim-flam is sufficient?

And very pertinent to this story, did granting of this patent give customers a false sense of security? Would the sub's passengers have booked without the reassurance they were protected by this system? Were customers deceived into believing the system surely must work because the US granted it a patent?

The full patent can be found here:

https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/11119071 58.152.226.191 (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The merits or otherwise of the patent are not for us to debate, but I agree that it does not hurt to [cite the patent, and I have done so. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Before

Does anyone else think removing nearly 25K bytes is right? Knocksocksoff (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Timtjtim (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

No, but you have engaged in an edit war, therefore I warned you and the other editor, discuss after you revert, not after it progresses to an edit war. I disagree with the other user taking your tenure into account, you are both in the wrong. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link (first of several in an edit war): [5]. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the information could be hived off to a potential Titan (submersible) article, but the discussion on whether to create that article is still ongoing. This is Paul (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Fatalities

Why are the five passengers listed in their current (seemingly random) order, and not alphabetically by surname? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

IMO it makes sense to list Rush first as whatever his role was, he was effectively crew rather than a passenger. I think Paul-Henri Nargeolet was also crew although this seems unclear. (Some sources say he was the pilot, other say Rush was. Most sources seem to agree there's normally only 3 passengers, along with a pilot and guide but not what was the case for this.) The rest I don't know, they seem to be currently sorted by age (including Nargeolet but not Rush) whether that's intentional or not. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Debris field discovery

Last sentence of the second paragraph is long. It also is a bit confusing in that it states that the findings of the ROV were based on the Navy’s discovery of an acoustic event. 24.178.187.217 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I've made this same point above (edit request 5). Simple fix in my opinion is to edit "The findings were based on..." to "This discovery [Titan wreckage] was consistent with..." (omitting the part in square brackets). 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Safety section

Just added to Rush's quote here. Apologies for failing to include an edit summary. It makes more sense now. For reference, Rush's words are at 24'16" in the referenced video. Davidships (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no experience of citing video or sound recordings. I there a method to include the time point (equivalent to a page number)? Davidships (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Davidships, {{Cite AV media}} supports the |time= parameter, which has the function you're seeking. I've added it here. Folly Mox (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Cause ?

Delaminated carbon fibre due to repeated pressure cycles? Thereallanger (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

No one has issued a report on the cause yet. We probably won't get one for months, up to years - if we ever know for sure. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (5)

Change this text ++After a search lasting nearly 80 hours, a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) discovered a debris field containing parts of the Titan, approximately 1,600 feet (about 500 metres) from the bow of the Titanic. The findings were based on the U.S. Navy's declassified sonar detection of an implosion in the area on the day of the voyage, which suggested that the pressure vessel had imploded while Titan was descending, resulting in the instant death of all five occupants that were riding the submersible.++

to this

++After a search lasting approximately 80 hours, a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) discovered a debris field containing parts of the Titan, approximately 1,600 feet (approximately 500 metres) from the bow of the Titanic. U.S. Navy sonar data (which was declassified following the discovery of the Titan's wreckage) revealed that a significant acoustic event had been detected in the same area and at the same time that communication with the Titan submersible was lost. This acoustic event is now assumed to be the moment when Titan catastrophically imploded, instantaneously killing the five people aboard.++

Rationale:

The current phrase "The findings were based on..." simply makes no sense. They were looking for Titan in that area because that is the area it was headed for (i.e. adjacent to the Titanic wreckage). After the event (the discovery of the wreckage) the U.S. Navy revealed that they had detected an acoustic event in that area, the time of which was consistent with Titan imploding during its descent.

2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

and at the same time that communication with the Titan submersible was lost. CBS News says the following: A U.S. Navy official said the military detected "an acoustic anomaly consistent with an implosion" on Sunday — shortly after the sub, called the Titan, lost contact with the surface, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported. (Emphasis mine) Is there a source that you have that says both occurred at the same time or would you be okay with amending your suggested text? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm very happy with your suggestion. The part that reads, "The findings were based on..." is for me the most problematic. I can see what it is driving at, however there are two issues. One is that (as I understand it) the ROV found the Titan wreckage before the Navy revealed their sonar data - but I might be wrong here. Notwithstanding this, it doesn't seem sensible to suggest that the ROV was looking in that particular spot based on the sonar data. Common sense dictates that the ROV would be looking in the vicinity of Titanic, which indeed is where the Titan wreckage was discovered. The underwater search would (surely) always have been initiated in the vicinity of Titanic, with or without any specific prior information (i.e. sonar data). Had Titan been quickly found a considerable distance from Titanic (based on sonar data), then it would be apparent that the sonar data had definitively informed the search location.

I'd be interested to hear any feedback whether for or against this point of view.

Addendum - a very simple fix that I would be happy with is to change "The findings were based on..." to "This discovery was consistent with...", while keeping the rest of the paragraph as it is now.

2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, the sources I've seen indicate that the US Navy passed their information to the US Coast Guard – evidently not one of their branches, but a separate agency – once they learned of the missing vessel and search operation (i.e. same day). It can be assumed that the ROV operators had this information when selecting their initial search zone, before the information was presented to the media. Folly Mox (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox Perhaps you could read my latest comments again. I've acknowledged that the timing of when the sonar data was made available is a moot point. My issue is the phrase "The findings were based on...". At best it reads very badly, at worst it is nonsense. Changing it to "This discovery was consistent with..." is a simple, non-controversial fix.

In the present text, "findings" means "parts of the Titan". If you substitute that into the present sentence you get:

"The parts of the Titan were based on the U.S. Navy's sonar detection of an implosion in the area on the day of the voyage, which suggested that the pressure vessel had imploded while Titan was descending, resulting in the instantaneous death of all five occupants inside the submersible."

It does not make sense. The intention surely is to communicate the idea that "This specific search area was informed by...". That's awkward phraseology however. Again, "This discovery was consistent with..." communicates the information intended in a clear manner.

The talk commentary on this article has slowed down very considerably in the last 24 hours. However, another individual has raised this same issue a little further down the page from here. While two individuals saying the same thing is not a consensus, I think if this talk page was attracting the same attention of a few days ago that few people would disagree with this suggestion.

I'm commenting under my IP address (as you noted) because I've never felt the urge to set up a WP account or to be regularly involved in editing: the principal reason being I see this intractability frequently here on WP and the reluctance to accept certain suggestions is frustrating. There is a tendency among some frequent editors (appointed authorities) to resist changes to the status quo regardless of quality. I can understand the reluctance to adopt pedantic suggestions, or suggestions rooted in a personal point of view. But in this case the status quo is grammatically poor, low in readability, and fails to convey the intended message.

2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies if addressing you as "IP editor" was understood as judgemental. I don't mean to question your choices or set you aside as a member of a lower class. It's just hard to use a different term, although I've occasionally used "unregistered editor". If you provide a name or handle when signing, most editors will refer to you by whatever you choose to put there.

I do like your suggestion of the target search area was informed by as most precise. I'm tempted to read the current text as the discoveries were based on, but I agree that the wording could be read otherwise, and can be improved. Folly Mox (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't implement your exact wording, but I think I increased the clarity of the sentence in this edit. Folly Mox (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox The amendment is perfect, thank you! 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that this has been further amended to remove any claim for the accoustic data informing the location of the ROV deployment. As yet no reliable sources on such a link have appeared - I think that nothing has yet been revealed about the accoustic recording regarding distance, range, multiple receptors, accuracy etc. Meanwhile the ROV was deployed in exactly the sort of location that might have been chosen anyway, informed by data on the descent of Titan from Polar Prince. Davidships (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I thought that was sourced. Folly Mox (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

CEO said he didn't want to hire "50-year-old white guys"

"When I started the business, one of the things you'll find, there are other sub operators out there but they typically have gentleman who are ex-military submariners and you'll see a whole bunch of 50-year-old white guys. I wanted our team to be younger, to be inspirational and I'm not going to inspire a 16-year-old to go pursue marine technology but a 25-year-old you know who's a sub pilot or a platform operator or one of our techs can be inspirational. So we've really tried to to get very intelligent, motivated, younger individuals involved because we're doing things that are completely new."

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dka29FSZac

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63826

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/oceangate-ceo-hiring-crew-didnt-want-hire-50-year-old-white-guys-theyre-not-inspirational

These might not be the most reliable sources, but I wanted to raise the issue of this quote, and hope that better, more reliable sources become available.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This isn't relevant to the rescue. Like at all. Gots2bkidding (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This, like the bulk of your other contributions and "just asking questions" talk page posts, sure strikes me as WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3D3A:A733:2B6A:33A3 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. SquirrelHill1971's contributions seem to include a lot of right-wing talking points, making me wonder if they are actually here to improve the encyclopedia, or just here to make WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. — The Anome (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Guys, if there is an issue, WP:ANI is available to use. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This could be relevant to the article if discriminatory hiring practices limited the talent pool of the company, and that had some effect in the decisions taken that could have led to this disaster. Personnel decisions can be as important as engineering decisions (and extensive coverage on the latter is being included in the article). Human errors are the causes or contributing factors to many disasters. So it is potentially topically relevant. The threshhold for inclusion is having reliable sources, probably beyond what was listed above. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The only sources focusing on this are tabloids and right-wing websites. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Al83tito, thank you for saying that. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but its worse than that. It looks like Stockton became a BS artist selling expensive crappy trips. Investigation results will be scathing. He will be the correct fall guy and lucky for all they died instantly. Got young people to go along, woke too. Built even crappier then crappy new cars. Cylindrical design + 6 other junkyard innovations celebrated: for a deepwater tourist sub a spherical design with large transparent wedge plugs is the way. This sub often had trouble finding its target because it didn't even have cheap gyroscopic position instruments. It was a flimsy dangerous amusement park ride that avoided regulations by operating outside of US/Canadian waters. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:B54B:EDE1:AAD5:F94F (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Since people here have accused me of being right wing, I would like to point out that I think abortion, gay marriage, and all drugs should be legal. My own personal views are irrelevant to this article and this talk page, but I feel that I have a right to defend myself from false accusations. Anyway, going back to the actual topic, it is highly revlevant that the CEO chose to reject older, white males with military experience using submarines, in favor of younger people with no experience. My own personal views are not an issue, and I am disappointed and disgusted that people raised that issue. Like I already said, we would need better sources. But for now, this is all we have. The subject itself is extremely notable to the failing of this submarine and the deaths of the five people who were on it. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

More sources:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lost-titanic-sub-wokeness_n_64949559e4b0c0ed59b12b5c

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/titanic-submersible-woke-hiring/

https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/why-stockton-rush-didnt-hire-50-year-old-white-guys-for-titanic-sub-tours/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Those sources aren't really better. As it happens, they all have shortcuts at WP:RSP: WP:HUFFPOST, WP:DAILYDOT, WP:NYPOST. It's telling that no better news sources have decided to publish this information, which is looks to me like the CEO's spin on a cost-cutting measure (hiring new graduates instead of experienced professionals). In any case, if the information belongs anywhere, it would be at OceanGate, not this article. Folly Mox (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's also stupid because even having said that, which was clearly for spinning hiring inexperienced young people on cheap salaries for his cut price unsafe, he still went ahead and hired an old white ex-navy guy to be on the sub with him. "woke submarine" is just another piece of garbage culture war nonsense and Wikipedia shouldn't bother including it, as it's a soundbite with no relevance at all. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"Over cigars one night, Rush told Weissmann that he got the carbon fiber for the Titan’s hull at a big discount because it was past its shelf-life for use in airplanes, Weissmann said. But Rush reassured him it was safe." 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:E4A4:C288:97D:9EC4 (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This had been in the article, or maybe it still is and I can't find it. Boeing denies it. The information and denial are still in the live article at OceanGate. Folly Mox (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's still in there, right above the game controller image. I've added Boeing's counterclaim in this edit. Folly Mox (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Titanic exhibition company"

This source describes David Scott-Beddard of White Star Memories as CEO of a Titanic exhibition company. From what I can tell, dude's company sells antiques affiliated with Titanic's sister ships and parent company, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the salvage / scavenging / looting / conservation (you choose) of artefacts from the Titanic site. Wreck of the Titanic doesn't mention him or his company. But, it is in the ==Reactions== section, where we have even less affiliated stuff that made it to press, like GTA V mods? Scott-Beddard has an interesting take, but I'm not sure if we should leave it in or how to describe him if we do. Folly Mox (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh I guess White Star Memories does also sell scavenged Titanic bits. And exhibition cabinets. So maybe they're not not a Titanic / exhibition company? I've got feelings about the antiquities market so I'll leave this up to others. Folly Mox (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Technical question

May I ask why the passengers and the pilot are completely considered dead when they are technically missing? What rules govern this issue? Or should we pay attention to the fact that they objectively had no chance of being saved? Solaire the knight (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The article says this: "OceanGate issued a statement regarding the deaths of the people aboard." That source clearly says: "All five people aboard the submersible, known as the “Titan,” were killed, the US Coast Guard said in a Thursday news conference." So the US Coast Guard, who are best placed to make a judgement, has decided they are dead. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a fair question. It's known that the five people were 'locked' inside the pressure hull, which was bolted shut from the outside. And yesterday's discovery showed the pressure hull completely destroyed (both both titanium bell-ends separated). Whilst that means there was no Earthly chance of survival, it's fair to take the line that they're missing until confirmed otherwise.

However, the ROV that photographed the wreck has UHD cameras and strong lighting. So it would have viewed the debris field in great detail, one can assume. On that basis (and given the authorities are unequivocally saying the crew are dead) I suggest that the ROV detected the five bodies, but that information has not been divulged to the public for reasons of privacy/respect.

In terms of what happens to a body at extreme depth. Imagine a sealed, empty glass bottle dropped to 3,800m. That would implode because air is compressible. The same bottle (but filled entirely with water) would remain intact because water is almost completely incompressible. My understanding is that a body would be slightly compressed, but nothing dramatic (e.g. exploding or imploding) would occur. The air held in the victim's lungs/trachea/sinuses would be momentarily compressed to near-zero-volume, but after death/relaxation these spaces would fill with seawater. Compare this to the scenario where a scuba diver ascends rapidly while holding a breath - the decreasing water pressure causes the lungs to inflate like a balloon and burst. For this reason a basic scuba skill is knowing how to make an emergency ascent: where a trickle of air must be constantly allowed to leave the lungs. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

If I may add on to this excellent explanation, different portions of the human body are compressible at different pressures - see, for example, crush injuries. Also worth noting is that the sudden catastrophic failure of the vehicle would have resulted in a great deal of debris rushing inwards at the occupants in a manner akin to shrapnel. And finally, if we assume the implosion happened nearly two hours into the dive, keep in mind that the world record for holding one's breath, without exertion, is just over ten minutes. It would not be possible for the occupants to surface in time, even if they were able to survive the implosion of the vehicle, the incredible pressure at depth, and the immense cold (around 4°C (39°F)). Given the way that pressure works, my opinion on the most likely scenario is that they were gone before they even realized something was wrong; any hull buckling at that depth would likely have caused an instantaneous implosion, and the crush would've happened too fast for their senses to relay to their brains that something was happening.

For Wikipedia purposes, though, the most important thing is that the authorities are reporting their deaths. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

So, even without official statements, can it be objectively said that these people not only had no chance of surviving, but that they most likely did not even "understand" that they died? Sorry for the pun, I hope you get what I mean. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But of course we rely on official statements, not our own knowledge. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand and therefore do not edit the article. It's just that in my country if a person goes missing, then declaring him dead is basically perceived as a formal legal status. Although of course, it seems that here the question is unfortunately already obvious. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah. There are probably legalities which are in process at the moment, and they probably depend on official statements from some government source or other, but that's basically a sidebar to the incident itself. Credible sources are reporting their deaths because we know - possibly as surely as we will ever know - they're dead. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There are two facets, which should not be conflated. We know beyond doubt (and have sources saying as much) that the passengers cannot have survived the incident; and are therefore dead. Legally declaring them dead (and so allowing their heirs to access their assets, for instance) is a matter for legal bodies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the ROV that found the wreckage also spotted human remains. The remains will be there - it's a question of how intact (or otherwise they might be). There's every possibility they're largely intact and identifiable. I don't think the discovery of the bodies would have been made public at this stage out of respect/privacy. I fully realise that surviving this incident is one hundred percent impossible, but still there is something about the unwavering certainty with which we were told the five were dead that makes me think the bodies were photographed by the ROV. Otherwise the language at this stage might be expected to be couched in terms like "presumed dead", "no hope", "zero chance of survival". 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Depending on where the boat broke up, currents, etc., it might to be hard to figure out where they ended up. In any case, this is all speculation on our part, and not anything that can be used in improvement of the article. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There are no bodies. The implosion event is far too violent.

The water and hull fragments would collapse in on the occupants at velocities exceeding the speed of sound in water. The occupants are instantly obliterated and small body fragments dispersed by the rebounding debris, turbulent water and oscillating bubbles of compressed air.

The effects on the body would be similar to those seen in high velocity airplane crashes like that of Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771.

The fragmented remains would soon be eaten by fish and crustaceans that are known to live at this depth.

Teeth or small bone fragments may survive but would be very difficult to find and collect. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:D5D4:7056:301B:E091 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The US Navy will know the time the sound was detected. The dive team on Polar Prince will know when the dive started. So OceanGate will be able to compute when the implosion occurred, i.e. during the descent or on the sea floor. The loss of comms will also coincide with that. Even at relatively modest depths, rapid drowning will have been almost certain. And even if escape from the sub was possible, decompression sickness would have been very likely. 86.187.164.212 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Decompression sickness in fact was never a consideration at all in an event like this. The crew were breathing air at normal atmospheric pressure, by virtue of being in a pressure hull. This comment is entirely irrelevant to this article, but I feel compelled to correct what you just wrote.

Suppose the sub failed at 30m depth and suppose the occupants were able to evacuate. Had they taken a full gulp of air (at 1atm pressure) just before evacuating, upon evacuating that air in their lungs would have been compressed to 4atm (pressure increases by 1atm for every 10m of depth). While the mass of air in their lungs would not change, the volume of their inflated lungs would decrease significantly (but not in a harmful way). They would then have swum to the surface - as they ascended their lungs (assuming they still held their breath) would have increased in volume, and at the surface (where the pressure is 1atm) their lungs would have been the same fully inflated volume they were just before they evacuated the sub. They would have suffered no injury nor any decompression sickness.

However, had they been scuba diving at 30m for a period of an hour, let's say. Now there are two scenarios to consider. First: if they ascended rapidly while holding their breath, their lungs would have expanded considerably (probably to the point where they ruptured). That's because at 30m, not in a pressure hull, their air supply was being fed to them at 4atm pressure (not 1atm pressure). A basic skill in scuba diving is that, during an emergency ascent, you DO NOT hold your breath - instead you exhale slowly and constantly (to prevent your lungs being damaged or ruptured).

Second scenario: if they made an emergency ascent while breathing out slowly and constantly as per their training - while their lungs would not be damaged, gases (mostly nitrogen) that had dissolved in their blood stream (while they were at depth) would have rapidly come out of solution and formed bubbles in their blood stream. THAT is decompression sickness. To visualise what happens: consider opening a bottle of soda very slowly versus very rapidly. If you do it slowly, minimal bubbles form in the liquid. If you do it rapidly, the liquid bubbles a great deal.

Therefore, on a normal scuba ascent, the diver stops every ten metres for a number of minutes to allow gases dissolved in their bloodstream to come out of solution gradually (and be dispersed through lung diffusion).

The key difference is that scuba divers (and their lungs) are subject to the prevailing pressure at whatever depth they are diving: 2atm at 10m, 3atm at 20m, 4atm at 30m etc.

Divers within a properly built, rigid pressure vessel are subject to 1atm air regardless of their depth. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the detail about scuba diving, which is of course irrelevant to this incident. Can you tell us how deep the sub was when it imploded? Thanks. 86.187.228.193 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The BBC webpage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65934887 gives an explanation about what happens at this depth with lots of detail. 80.47.58.68 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

actually, I had read this article earlier today and it's poor. You say it covers the implications of depth in lots of detail: on the contrary it does not. It has nothing in it about physiology of the human body in relation to depth/pressure.

It mentions hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. That is complete rubbish. It would only apply to a submarine powered by diesel. Therefore the part about bodies being incinerated is absurd.

I've had BBC make several corrections to their articles on the last three days.

They've posted some total nonsense around this story. While they ought to be an authoratitve source, they sadly are not these days. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:5019:F810:88E8:1F6C (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you think this article should contain and detail about the physiology of the human body in relation to depth/pressure? If so, why? Thanks. 86.187.228.193 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not think this article should contain any information about human physiology in relation to depth/pressure. That ought to have been clear from the two times I acknowledged that my comments in this regard were irrelevant to this article. I posted them (and again, I feel sure I pointed this out explicitly) to correct some erroneous information already posted. I hope that clarifies. If not, please let me know why. Thanks. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The Titan was sealed in a way that it could only be open from the outside. The Titan attempted to dive down to a depth of 3,800 m. Contact with the Titan was lost around the time a US Navy detected the characteristics of either an implosion or explosion. The debris that was discovered recently came from the Titan. These combined lead to a Presumption of death. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

References

police investigation

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) announced it is investigating this. [6][7] -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no way they'll get those horses down there. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

LOL😂😂 Matthew Campbell (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

true Chicken4War (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Boooooo. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ROV Odysseus

Does the Odysseus 6K or however you spell it, have an article on Wikipedia? Or its operator Pelagic Research Services or however that's spelled? -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Date format

For an article relating to an American company and American-built submersible, shouldn't date format be MDY? See MOS:DATETIES. ɱ (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting there was also some discussion of this at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident/Archive 1#Date structure? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The incident happened in Canada. So no. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This article says international waters in the very first sentence. The Titanic wreck is outside of the 200 NM US EEZ and also Canada's EEZ. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to update my comment, and got edit conflicted. It was a Canadian chartered ship, and legal Canadian documents use dmy dates. It happened in international waters nearest to Canada, and so it cannot be argues that MOS:TIES applies for American dates. In case of ambiguity, MOS:PRESERVE applies, so we don't need to change the date format anyway. We shouldn't just blindly default to American dates. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

These ideas about Canada conveniently ignore the fact that it's an American company with an American CEO, American pilot, American craft, American mission, American-led rescue mission, etc. etc. "Departure area of the boat from Canada into international waters" is irrelevant to the actual submersible mission. ɱ (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Joseph, was the article not created with MDY? So we can preserve that, based on MOS:DATERET? ɱ (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, I support reverting to the original date format of MDY. Also worth noting that Canada also primarily uses MDY format in common usage, the DMY is only really used in governmental/formal contexts. Even government entities like Canadian Broadcasting Corporation use MDY primarily. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 18:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a consensus for dmy in the archive discussion linked. So don't see why we need to change that consensus based on flimsy evidence. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't a consensus, and it was without full consideration of the details, more aspects have been brought up here. ɱ (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Both are used in Canada, but MDY is far more common, including in formal and government contexts. It was also an American sub and company, which kind of supports MDY.

The reasons giving for preferring DMY are that it's the format that the Titanic article (which is about a British ship) uses (who cares) and that it is valid in Canadian English (even if uncommon in Canadian English, and even if this article isn't really about a clearly Canadian topic). 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, MOS:RETAIN would suggest that we would use MDY if discussion does not resolve the issue. However, I do believe that the prior discussion did lead to a consensus. There were enough aspects of the incident as being tied to Canada that using DMY is fine in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't a consensus, it wasn't closed or resolved or appears to have convinced anyone. And it was without full consideration of the details, more aspects have been brought up here. ɱ (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I definitely felt convinced to drop my objections and agree with the other users, but very well. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Cool, but consensuses can change and very often do. Here it makes the most sense to use MDY, and the guidelines support its use as the first iteration of date formatting here as well. ɱ (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The Canadian link to this topic is kind of tenuous, and while DMY is acceptable in Canadian English, it is uncommon. The Wikipedia article for "Canada" uses MDY dates. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

In the other thread, you referenced DATETIES, which says "Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. (see Retaining existing format)". I think policy clearly supports reverting to MDY. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And again, I don't think this has "strong" ties to Canada in the first place. It's an American company, an American ship, none of the passengers were Canadian, it happened in international waters, and they were visiting a British ship. That last one is the only reason anyone ever suggested switching to DMY, and then the Canadian link was just brought in as justification once the Titanic link was shot down. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The vessel that imploded was American, I mean. The *ship* ship was Canadian and it departed from Canada, but that's a weak link. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And even if it is a primarily Canadian topic, DATETIES is very clear that in that case, switching to DMY was not justified. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian and I have legal documents in MDY format. Check more of yours. Wikipedia policy is clear that DMY is not preferred for Canada. Even the Canada article uses MDY. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Categories - North America, Canada etc

I notice that the article is back in some "... in North America" categories. I previous removed it (several times), but other editor(s) put it back. Can have a discussion about this please. I think it should not be in "in North America" (or "in Canada" or "in Newfoundland and Labrador") categories because the incident happened in international waters, not North America. Previous talk page entry: Talk:2023_Titan_submersible_incident/Archive_2#Categories_-_Canada. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Pinging some editors who have previously added categories (not necessarily a complete list, only those who mentioned "category" in edit summary): @Howard61313 and Di (they-them):. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The event definitely took place off the coast of North America. It was in international waters, so categories like "Canada" don't apply because that implies it happening within the borders, but geographically "North America" does apply. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Of note, the article Sinking of the Titanic is in Category:1910s in Newfoundland (Newfoundland being the closest land to the wreck), Category:1912 disasters in Canada (as noted before, Newfoundland is the closest land to the wreck), Category:1912 disasters in the United Kingdom (the Titanic's origin), and Category:1912 disasters in the United States (the Titanic's final destination). In fact, going through categories like Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in international airspace and Category:Disasters by sea or ocean, it seems like a lot of these "disaster" add "place categories" (be it closest land site to incident, place or origin, or intended destination).Canuck^{89 (Speak with me) or visit my user page} 04:48, June 27, 2023 (UTC)

The event definitely took place off the coast of North America. — "Off the coast of" is not "in". Given that North America "is bordered .. by the Atlantic Ocean", then something in the ocean (400 nautical miles from the coast) is very definitely "out of" North America. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Mitch Ames here. Something that happens in the Atlantic Ocean is definitionally not in North America. Continents and oceans are different and have different categories.

The logic is a little different for countries since they have territorial waters, but since the incident happened in international waters we don't really need to get into that. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Mitch Ames. The incident took place in international waters, off the continental shelf. Technically still above the North American plate, but I hope that's not the scope of the relevant categories. Folly Mox (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

NASA relation

I included the fact that the NASA astronaut was a serving member of OceanGate's Board of Directors because the paragraph insinuates that there were no ties between NASA and OceanGate's Titan.

(Removed by admin who is unsure how it relates)

There's a lot of buzz about the claim that experts from NASA were involved with OceanGate, and NASA's denial of it. So I think clarity should be provided about the expert from NASA who was involved, and how (not involved in creation or repair but a member of the board of directors). Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230621000242/https://oceangate.com/news-and-media/press-releases.html Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It needs a secondary reliable source, not just an OceanGate press release. The sentence you added (Veteran NASA astronaut, Scott Parazynski was a member of OceanGate's Board of Directors, though his induction was announced long after the construction and repair of Titan, in May, 2022.) had far too much editorializing about its relevance to a supposed "NASA relation", which would need to come from a secondary RS to be included.

There is no mention of this buzz you refer to in the article, just of the claim by OceanGate and of NASA's clarification, so the mention of Parazynski seems bizarre without context. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay in addition to the Board Member list from OceanGate's site, I'll add this? I just archived it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230625011506/https://twitter.com/AstroDocScott/status/1526263024776003586?s=20

Original: https://twitter.com/AstroDocScott/status/1526263024776003586?s=20 Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The buzz is mentioned. In current state, it basically implies: Rush / OceanGate claimed experts from NASA were involved, but NASA denied it. Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, we would need secondary sourcing that explicitly describes this buzz, and brings up Parazynski as a relevant factor. Otherwise we're in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR territory. The issue is not about establishing whether Parazynski is on the board—that appears well established—but rather about whether it should be mentioned in this article and in what context. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This would leave someone walking away thinking, 'wow they're fraudsters / liars,' but the

OceanGate claim is they "collaborate with experts from NASA

NASA denies having anything to do with the creation of Titan

Both are true.

So the way it's presented would leave someone uninformed on one of the points being made. Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources about the statement that [Astronaut Scott Parazynski was a member on the OceanGate's Board of Directors] are: (1) OceanGate's Members List for their Board of Directors, via OceanGate website (2) Scott Parazynski via Scott Parazynski's Twitter (both archived). Those are not just a source, those are thee source. I'd have to scour for ones aside from the exact company and person the statement is about :( Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"This would leave someone walking away thinking"--no. That is how Facebook works. I don't see any reason why this connection--well, "connection" is unproven--this biographical factoid needs to be mentioned. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It's because the paragraph is demonstrating that OceanGate made false claims about ties to NASA unless it's included

That's why it gives this impression. I don't use Facebook, I imagine people on any Internet forum would put 2 and 2 together that what's being said is [OceanGate made false claims] unless it's mentioned.

Otherwise, why include that paragraph at all or mention the claim & NASA's denial of it? Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Because Business Insider mentioned it - possibly other news organizations too. That's the kind of secondary source coverage needed to make the connection. @Jelly Garcia, folks are being picky because this is a very highly-watched article at the moment. Sourcing needs to be impeccable. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't write the part with any news source. I'm clarifying a false impression it gives - that might be present bias against the subject by implying they lied.

I'd clarify by explaining that both the claim and denial are true and there's no lie contained in either party's statement by explaining that (OceanGate's statement is true) [Guy] was on board of [Company] but (NASA's statement is true) bc he indeed do take part in […]. How would a source other than the [Company] and [Guy] be needed for a statement about nothing other than the company and guy?

Problem: Paragraph citing secondary source logically leads to a falsehood

Solution: Clarify using first-hand sources so the information is presented fairly

But need second-hand source? Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed took no part in* [..claim..] Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources are always preferred, and we can only present information actually in the sources, not make a synthesis across them (that is WP:OR). If this is what a reliable source - Business Insider - says, this is what we say. If another article comes out making the clarifications and connections you want to make, we add them. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No. I don't see evidence of "buzz". You saying that someone on some forum is going to think this or that is just not relevant here, and the very first step is to provide reliable secondary sourcing (you did not) that makes that connection. As for "the paragraph is demonstrating..."--this is all so vague, so poorly written, that I don't know what paragraph you're talking about.

I edit-conflicted with your latest edits, which are just--well, I don't know. I don't know what falsehood you're talking about. "First-hand sources" are not necessarily fair or accurate, and more importantly they cannot establish whether something is worth including. "Second-hand sources" sounds like gossip, and it's a far cry from Secondary sources. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and we write up our articles using secondary sources. You can tell me and GorillaWarfare that Wikipedia is doing it wrong, but this is how we do it. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have 2 sources for [Guy] was on Board of [Company]! I've shared them!

1 - [Guy] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230625011506/https://twitter.com/AstroDocScott/status/1526263024776003586?s=20

2 - [Company] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230608090354/https://oceangate.com/news-and-media/press-releases.html Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It's worth including because the connection is made in the paragraph we're talking about. The one that starts with -

"OceanGate website claims they worked with experts NASA from NASA"

And goes on to state: NASA denies {strawman}.

The connection is made by: NASA denies OceanGate's claim

- within the paragraph in question

- not by any secondary sources, and yes I know what they are - I was making a point because, [problem: info from secondary source leads to misrepresentation of one side] and [first-hand source demonstrates both claims were right] and if you'd read the paragraph in question, well, we'd have probably have understood the point…

I'm open to critiques on my edits if you have something to say about them. They've been pretty minor, just some grammar/clarifications. Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia, the only thing that really matters here is whether the paragraph accurately reflects the reliable secondary source cited. Does it? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not. There is no source pertaining to the NASA claim. Only the claim pertaining to Boeing and UW has a source cited in the paragraph. Jelly Garcia (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What? The paragraph is cited to two sources - references 32 and 33 (currently). 33 backs up the one sentence, 32 the others. 32 is the source you'd need to check and verify against our article (Mayor, Grace; "Boeing and University of Washington deny OceanGate's claim that they helped design the lost Titan sub"; Business Insider). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's a link, it's easily accessible: [8]. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok I just included the confirmation that was previously omitted from the quote 'and consulted on materials and manufacturing processes for the submersible.' Jelly Garcia (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Jelly Garcia, PLEASE stop with the series of indents. It makes responding very difficult. Also, be precise: the paragraph started with "OceanGate claimed on its website", not "OceanGate website claims": it's hard to find something that's not there. By the same token, the paragraph does not say "NASA denies" (and I don't see the straw man), and that's not trivial. What I think you are saying is that there might be some who might say "well the one guy worked for NASA so the claim that they didn't test or manufacture for OceanGate" (because that is what it says) and that needs to be headed off at the pass? But really, as the IP said, as long as reliable sources don't comment on it (your tweet and press release just don't count), it's just really irrelevant. Sorry. Can we move on now? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Talk is optional you you could probably move on if you want, but IDK I'm brand new here. I was hoping to discuss.

I read this paragraph, after looking through the through the OceanGate site the other night.

It keeps saying they "claimed" (Marriam Webster: to assert in the face of possible contradiction; Oxford: state or assert something is true, typically without providing evidence or proof) … Claimed [X] they collaborated - i had just seen the astronaut on the site - It then provides NASA's response to that claim, NASA: "did not" (denies) [Y] and [Z]x

What about X?

Based on presentation, 'typically there would be no evidence or proof' of [X], and 'possible contradiction.' Contradiction is unclearly demonstrated with a denial, but, despite being a response to X, pertains to Y and Z.

I wondered — (what about X?) Was the guy on their website wearing gear from the Kennedy Space Center NASA merch shop? Lol

External sources outside of the Wiki article are needed to look up to determine whether X is true or not, so it seems unnecessary to mention the exchange at all in the wiki page to me.

Or what makes the mention of the claim + response worth including? Jelly Garcia (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia, that bit is worth including because a reliable secondary source reported on it. If there are other reports from other reliable secondary sources, we can include those too. If you have a problem with the wording, and the wording does not accurately reflect the source, it should be changed to be more accurate.

Twitter and press releases are scraping the bottom of the source barrel in Wikipedia terms; they aren't going to work for what you want here. I realize you're new - if you have questions about sources and WP:OR and the like, the WP:TEAHOUSE (my usual stomping grounds on weekdays) is a good place to get friendly explanations and advice. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you might be answering a question other than the one im asking.

I realize you view Business Insider's recount of what was said. Im wondering why what was said is included in the article about the submarine implosion.

Why is the content prevented by that source - written *after* the incident, relevant at all to the *background* of the company (aside from being partial, not representing the background of the company accurately, and being based off the same source I cited)? Jelly Garcia (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant to the construction of the Titan. It was reported in connection to the loss of that boat, which is what this article is about. I'm not sure if linking you to more reading will help, but you seem to making an argument that it isn't WP:DUE, while other folks are arguing that it is. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So the background information that they collaborated with an expert from NASA (but not on the creation of the Titan) is relevant to the Titan incident, but the name of the person in reference is not relevant? Jelly Garcia (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia, you are making the connection that when OceanGate said Titan was "designed and engineered by OceanGate Inc. in collaboration [with] experts from NASA", they meant "we have an astronaut on our board", and that this is important/relevant/what-have-you. Others disagree, especially since this person apparently did not - according to the very sentence you added - have anything to do with Titan's design or engineering, and wasn't even employed by OceanGate at the time. Which may be why no news organizations are bringing it up. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The source you're citing as the reliable one over the direct ones literally quotes NASA as saying they "consulted on materials and manufacturing processes for the submersible." Jelly Garcia (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to include that in the article, then (which I see you did). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

IDK how it was not apparent that the words that were up there for the past day were cherry-picked, partial, omitted key information, and cast a negative light on the subject without need.

It's fixed with the acceptable source, which cites another source, which leads back to the original source, the one I used - their website - deemed an unreliable source for information about what "their website claims" but w/e at least it's fixed Jelly Garcia (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

All this about Scott Parazynski is a red herring. It is clear that Insider's piece is a bit sloppy (or mischievous). Insider's quote from the OceanGate website is accurate, and clearly states that they were themselves responsible for the design and engineerng, then adding that they received input from experts at NASA, Boeing and UW. Leaving aside Boeing (on which there is little information from OceanGate or Boeing), both NASA and UW confirm that they collaborated with OceanGate, and then go on to deny that they did things that OceanGate didn't say they did anyway. To me it looks like a damage-limitation exercise and, at least for NASA and UW there is no actual discrepancy. I have re-edited that para to a more clearly neutral pov, and added two direct links to what OceanGate actualy said - these are consistent with WP:PRIMARY, WP:PRIMARYCARE, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:USESPS. Davidships (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ought the paragraph on OceanGate and NASA/UW/Boeing be removed entirely? It's based entirely on the one Insider piece (and there is no consensus on the reliability of Insider), and there doesn't seem to be much independent reporting on the connection (or lack thereof) besides some other articles sourcing Insider. It's perhaps undue weight to have a whole graf on it, at least with the currently available sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a wider range of sources on what may well have been triggered by the Insider's initial piece. I do not find anything particularly doubtful about Insider's piece - the latest assessment, in 2022 (triggered by the winning of a Pullitzer Prize), did indeed lack consensus, but there was a marked upward shift in assessments from 2020 - no longer any calls for deprecation and almost no support for "generally unreliable". That said, there are probably better sources now, but building from them would probably require more space, not less, and that might well be Undue. So I'll just park these here in case we come back to it.[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. - Davidships (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you both that mentioning the expert collaborator by name is unnecessary, as long as it's mentioned that there actually was collaboration with NASA, not just that they claimed there was.

In that case, it's not misleading and the name of the guy doesn't need to be mentioned.

However I also don't see the point of the paragraph bc I originally viewed it basically he-said, she-said until reading further in the cited source which goes even farther beyond OceanGate's claim and says they actually did consult on the design and materials of Titan.

Also, Insider is a subsidiary of Business Insider. They're essentially the same company. If one is unreliable, they both are.

The only other place I saw NASA acknowledge involvement is on the OceanGate site and directly from the astronaut, but I didn't look elsewhere until I read it from this sacred source in reference. I just really thought it was unfairly presenting OceanGate's claim as questionable Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Magellan ROV

no mention of the Magellan ROV and efforts from USAF to pick up from Jersey 81.20.188.36 (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact there’s very little mention of ANY other vehicles capable of ferrying humans two miles undersea. I’ve read there exist ten such in the world, but only Titan lacked certification. Is this true? The victims are described as having visited titanic or the deepest part of the ocean dozens of times. How did they do that? What vehicles did they use? Is there such a thing as this kind of certification? Can any country force certification regarding activities, conducted in international waters? I’ve read the American accompanied Titan on every dive to the titanic. Is this true? I’ve read Cameron’s sharp criticism. Will this be included? All of these issues should be covered here, or there should be links to other articles.Roricka (talk) Roricka (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Cameron's comments are already included. I'm not sure where you read all of the other things you mentioned - if it was here on Wikipedia, presumably they had a citation attached (and if not, there's no reason to believe the claim is true). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

R U kidding?? I’m not going to edit this article, so I’m not going to provide actual sources here. But one of the places I’ve read this is on the BBC website. (Cameron was quoted as saying he wouldn’t set foot in Titan. I don’t see that here.) The business about there being 10 submersibles, or, however, many there are, should be discussed here. People will come here wanting to know about this entire topic. When you read that an explorer has been to the titanic 23 times, the vehicle should be described. It’s the vehicles that are one primary focus here. When you read the communication to the submersible is done with text messages, it should mention how that’s done. There’s no Wi-Fi down there. Did they use acoustic modems? There are many many many technological issues that are of great interest, not to mention importance, which eventually are going to have to be in this article. It’s silly to say that I’ve read things that aren’t true. That’s not the point. Roricka (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What 10 submersibles? How are they relevant to this incident with this submersible? Which explorer? If you want to know more about the Titan, see OceanGate#Titan. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's a link describing the ten (now nine) submersibles: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/oceangate-warned-2018-david-lochridge-1.6883432 Roricka (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry -- I forgot to log in before I provided that link. Roricka (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed: BusterD (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

And here is Deep-submergence vehicle. A link to submersible is already in the article, along with the link to OceanGate. There are also links to articles on all of the people who died (except the student). This article is necessarily focused on the event itself - subsidiary topics are summarized, if relevant, and linked to. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Roricka: Whether you are going to edit the article or not, if you are asserting statements to be true, claiming to have read about them, and asking for them to be included in the article, it is incumbent upon you to provide sources; and not in the least unreasonable for other editors to ask you to furnish them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@AndyMabbett I don’t really disagree with you. Nevertheless, in the situation like this incident, where are tons of things, being written, and things that sound reasonable and interesting, I don’t think there’s any problem with the reader, suggesting edits on the talk page. That’s what the talk page is about. The reason I didn’t give specific links was because I didn’t have that. I simply assumed that more informed editors would be aware of the sources, and I was simply pointing out where they were gaps. I apologize if it was unhelpful. Roricka (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I read the Magellan ROV was en route, but the debris was discovered before it arrived. I'm not sure it's worth including that information, given it had no role in the search. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)