Talk:Titanic/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Collision section unclear / typo?

"The watertight doors had been immediately shut by Murdoch, and within ten minutes of the collision the five forward compartments were flooded to a depth of 14 feet (4.3 m). The fifth and sixth water-filled compartments weighed down the ship's bow enough to allow more water to flood the vessel, accelerated by secondary flooding as regular openings in the ship's hull became submerged.[20] Additionally, about 130 minutes after the collision, water started pouring from the sixth into the seventh compartment over the top of the bulkhead separating them.[20] Following an inspection by the senior officers, the ship's carpenter J. Hutchinson and Titanic's shipbuilder Thomas Andrews, which included a survey of the half-flooded two-deck postal room, it was apparent that Titanic would sink."

I have bolded the relevant parts in the above quote from the article. First is the mention that five compartments were flooded within 10 minutes, then it jumps to the sixth compartment being flooded as well. This is minor but if the sources provide more information on the transition from five to six, this can be a lot clearer. After this, it reads as if the senior officers waited 130 minutes for the seventh compartment to begin flooding before concluding that the ship would sink. But this is not the case as the order for life boats were given 30 minutes after the collision.--OCedHrt (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Features and Ship history section

Hi I'm not sure what people think but I think that the features and ship history sections needs to be made more incisive. As the article is currently over 100 kilobytes long (121, to be exact), our article size policy indicates that the article should "almost certainly" be condensed as per WP:SPLIT. Also I think that some sections of the article are too vague. Any thoughts about how we could make this article even better? --Thanks, Hadseys 14:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

While I wouldn't advocate changing just based on the numbers, I do think that that this should be shortened/tightened a bit. Since it already has several sub-articles, (and that IMHO there is no material here which shouldn't be kept somewhere amongst the Titanic articles) it's not a question of splitting but rather potentially condensing or moving out some material. I'd base it on importance (to a typical reader) and degree of direct relevance. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A few things that first-impression come to mind:

• "Notable passengers" is duplicate coverage of the topic (also covered under "Maiden Voyage"). Combine and condense, move any unused material to a sub-article
• Condense the "Olympic" section to 1-2 Titanic-relevant sentences and move the rest to a sub-article.
• Condense the "California" section to 1-2 Titanic-relevant sentences and move the rest to a sub-article.

North8000 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 30 October 2011

Please could you add a link for "RMS" in the first line to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail_Ship Otherwise, there is no easy way of working out what RMS stands for.

Jensenista (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Its already linked to in the second paragraph, we generally don't have links there--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There's only 1 sentence in the first paragraph of the Lead. Maybe move the RMS and possibly class parts up as a second sentence. Something like: Titanic was a Royal Mail Ship of the Olympic-class." Just a thought... -Fnlayson (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it could be beneficial to combine the lifeboat section with the insufficient lifeboats. They do not seem to be linked correctly. Overall this was an excellent article. Olivia_Baken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia baken (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations are due to Wikipedia

Well done, Wikipedia! The oft-repeated legend that this ship was said to be unsinkable is just a fiction, as a book review in the Time Higher Education Supplement pointed out many years ago (it was around about the year 2000 or 2001). Congratulation are due to Wikipedia because this article does not repeat this fiction - more proof on the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia!ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As the article states, sources only refer to the claim being made of Titanic's unsinkability after the sinking. So the ship was indeed "said to be unsinkable", which is what the article reports. Can you provide a link to the source you refer to? Shirtwaist ☎ 04:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a myth that this is a myth:

"...in the event of an accident, or at any time when it may be considered advisable, the captain can, by simply moving an electric switch, instantly close the doors throughout and make the vessel practically unsinkable." - The Shipbuilder trade journal, an article about the Olympic class.

"We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe that the boat is unsinkable." - Philip Franklin, vice-president of White Star Line.

"I will say that I cannot imagine any condition which should cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that." - Capt. Smith.

Of course, most people forget that the term "unsinkable" was used to describe other large liners with watertight subdivisions, including Cunard's Mauretania. » Cooper Kid (Blether · Contreebs) 23:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote above from Captain Smith was not about the Titanic but. He said it in an interview with a New York paper after the maiden voyage of the Adriatic in 1907. Wjl2 (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - it prooves that many liners were referred to as "unsinkable" back then. » Cooper Kid (Blether · Contreebs) 01:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Capt. Bartlett

Bartlett (who at the time was White Star's marine superintendent at Belfast) was not Titanic's commander during the Belfast to Southampton delivery trip. The ship's sign-in sheets, which appear in Stephen Cameron's Titanic: Belfast's Own, show that Herbert Haddock signed on as Titanic's master on 25 March 1912 and he supervised the crew assembling at Belfast. E. J. Smith then signed on on 30 March and was in command for both the sea trials and the delivery trip. Mab819c (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Found a ref for Haddock, inserted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Old Moonraker

User:Koplimek accuses me of vandalism for adding the "Haddock" reference. Of the two contradicting references, one fails verification because, according to Amazon Preview, it isn't mentioned in the book quoted—the page number isn't given for a closer check. (I don't own the work, although it's probably one of the more worthwhile of the many works available—and I have bought some duff ones recently!) The other ("Link my website and I link yours ! ! !") is a WP:SPS and not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. Material restored, with the specific quote added to the reference, to assist. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism reference was clearly out of order, but perhaps Koplimek was unaware of the discussion here, and that it had been changed by a user in good standing, and he assumed that a deliberate vandal had come by unnoticed? But I'm mildly confused, is the Herbert John Smith in the quote now actually Edward John Smith? If so is the mistake in the original quote or its transcription here? And how does this square with User:Mab819c's source above, if according to Cameron's Titanic: Belfast's Own, Haddock was Titanic's master from 25 March to 30 March 1912, and it was Smith in command for the trials and delivery trip? Could this actually serve to bridge the sources, that Haddock was connected to the commissioning of the ship, but may well have been on a different ship come the date of the trials/delivery? I will certainly agree that the site previously used ([1]) as a cite does not pass as a reliable source and should not be used here. Benea (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Herbert Smith": no, a mistake in my transcription. Apologies, and a fix to follow. The "three captains" version was actually what I had thought until I read Barratt. If we can bridge the sources, without WP:NOR (and avoiding further accusations of vandalism) that would be a good result.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks OldMoonraker for pointing that out, no I wasn't aware of this discussion, else I would have refrain from calling Mab819c a vandal. I do apologize for the vandal reference. But the Bartlett reference was source if I recall at the end of Dr. Ballard's "The Discovery of the Titanic" or the book that Ken Marschall illustrated named "Titanic: An Illustrated History". Despite my citing the Ballard book another author Stephen Cameron appears to differ, therefore there's an error with one of these writers. My reverting Mab819c was because his reference change was simply changing Bartlett's name to Haddock behind some cites I already had confirming Bartlett. Also Haddock was already in charge of Olympic because it took seven days to make the journey to New York. Olympic was in NY when Titanic set sail from Southampton. Olympic was enroute to Southampton when Titanic hit the iceberg.(So how could Haddock have brought Titanic from Belfast to Southampton when he was already in charge of Olympic in the Atlantic Ocean?) Despite the fact most Titanic researchers agree Haddock took over Olympic from Smith, it's simple logic(on mine's or anyone's part) that Haddock could not be in two places at one time. That was the crux of my reverting Mab819c's edit. From studying the disaster on my own as a hobby since the Titanic was discovered in 1985, I've learned never to trust or take for granted any information as fact. For instance the ship's manifest is not a bonafide document as to who was or wasn't on the ship in total as there were possibly stowaways and last minute admittances as well as last minute deletions of passengers. As much as I love Amazon.com reviews of books they cannot be counted as trustworthy and are driven by opinions, pro or con. Quoting the author itself is best we can go with a possible cite. "The Discovery of the Titanic" and "Titanic: An Illustrated History" are still two books that can be found in most libraries for easy reference, so I'll be doing a little remedial research as well as more credible online sources to back up Bartlet's presence on the ship during the Belfast to Southampton, that's all I can go by is what's written in several sources. If Stephen Cameron has discovered an error and corrected in his book, and EJ Smith, brought the ship down from Belfast, then 'I stand corrected'. Thanks. Koplimek (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The reliably sourced material deleted again, although this time the source was left in! Any more comments, before I take this to WP:EW? --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Further opinion as to the validity of Barratt's Lost Voices as a WP:RS has been requested here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RSN comment endorses the work as "reliable" from "a qualified historian with a background in researching documentaries". Looks good enough to me. Restoring, once again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Striking the iceberg head-on

Can we please get rid of the absurd speculation that the ship wouldn't have sank if it had struck the iceberg head on? Two references are cited, but one makes no mention of this theory. (I haven't checked the other one.) A ship the size of the Titanic wouldn't have stopped after striking an iceberg. Ships that large will coast for tens of miles after the engines are shut down. So the Titanic would certainly have kept moving, and the iceberg would have rolled off to one side and did just as much damage. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be absurd speculation, but, Wilding (one of the designers of the ship) did not think so. To quote the evidence he gave to the British Inquiry, as referenced in the article

20269. You mean it did not strike a fair blow?

- If she struck it a fair blow I think we should have heard a great deal more about the severity of it, and probably the ship would have come into harbour if she had ::struck it a fair blow, instead of going to the bottom.

20270. You think that?

- I am quite sure of it.

20271. (The Commissioner.) I am rather interested about that. Do you mean to say that if this ship had driven on to the iceberg stem on she would have been saved?

- I am quite sure she would, My Lord. I am afraid she would have killed every firemen down in the firemen's quarters, but I feel sure the ship would have come in.

20272. And the passengers would not have been lost?

- The passengers would have come in.

Now, of course he could well have been talking nonsense, but, the article is (correctly in my opionion) reporting the existence of such speculation with reliable references, however absurd it may seem. WhaleyTim (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that it might be informative to illustrate that relatively minor damage sank the ship due only to the number of compartments that were breached. The area of all of the openings in the hull added together added up to that of a 1 meter by 1 meter square. North8000 (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I should have checked the reference more carefully. (Sorry about that.) I still think it's absurd, but it may merit qualified mention in the article. The trouble with quoting speculation in an encyclopedia is that it may easily be mistaken for fact. I'm not sure under what conditions speculation is allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. If we include it, we should say whose speculation this was, and we should look for qualified opposing view points. Starting with "It has been speculated that..." doesn't cut it. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree - 'It has been speculated' seems like weasel wording, and there is scope for improvement in this section. WhaleyTim (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion, I was just yakking/ discussing. In that vein, I think that it is plausible rather than absurd. North8000 (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure of the value of this "speculation." If the Officer of the Watch had not taken every possible action to avoid the collision he would have been pilloried in the court. If he had claimed it was better to take no action and hit square on, they probably would have locked him up. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but behavior at the moment is a different question. At that moment, heading straight for the iceberg vs. trying to steer away from it would be choosing certainty of collision vs. trying to avoid the collision,, the expected decision at that moment would be obvious. We are talking about a illustrative comment made after-the-fact based on detailed knowledge of the actual collision, damage and sinking. Again I am neutral on the topic of inclusion/exclusion of the material, I am just yakking. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It was an absurd speculation in 1912 and has continued to be so throughout the decades. There is no precise information about the size or the underwater shape of the iceberg (or perhaps icebergs) involved in the Titanic collision. If the underwater contours of the berg in question were shelved in a particular way, it might have caused the ship to sink even faster.Rumiton makes the valid point that it was a "no win" situation. Probably, it's better to take as much positive action as possible, when you are in that situation. It's even better to avoid being in that kind of situation altogether! - regards Norloch (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"The superior seaman uses his superior judgement to keep out of situations requiring his superior skills." Unknown author. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well said, and I think that that applies for most of life.  :-) North8000 (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There is still the moot question of whether it should be included. There have been many wild and wacky theories relating to Titanic over the years: It would be wearysome to list them all, find sources for the speculation and reliable sources for refutation. However this particular speculation is well known and has a clear origin in (a) evidence given to the Board of Trade inquiry by someone who cannot be discounted as a complete flake, and (b) by the outcome of a previous collision by a different vessel. I do not know if there are any reliable sources that support or refute the theory. Does anyone know of any well-qualified group or individual that has published serious research on the subject? WhaleyTim (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any that have addressed that comment specifically. There are many that say it was designed to keep floating even with 4 compartments flooded. This may be useful to review plausibility in talk page regarding potentially leaving out the material. My gut feel is that it's plausible and possibly informative to say "what if", but ridiculous to imply that the captain trying to steer away from it (vs. deliberately ramming it) was mis-behavior. The latter should stay out, the former is borderline on being given space in the top level article. So, my suggestion, if inclusion of the former is is controversial, leave it out, if not put 2-3 sentences on it in just to illustrate the "Murphy's law" nature of the actual damage. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In May of 1912, The "English Review" published an essay by Joseph Conrad - "Some reflections on the Loss of the Titanic." - Conrad highlighted the flaws in the reasoning of those who considered that extremely large, fast, ships could be operated in the same way as conventional ships of the day. The practices that were acceptable for (say) a fifteen thousand ton ship, with a speed of fifteen knots, could not realistically be applied to ships like Titanic. If the flawed reasoning was obvious to Conrad, then it was also apparent to other experts of that time. Given that there were some awkward issues arising, with regard to the standards of construction for those very large ships, it's maybe not surprising that Wilding would seek to introduce an element of misdirection into the Inquiry proceedings. The fact that Lord Mersey didn't seek other independent expert opinion to corroborate Wilding's "theory" may be significant. From a Wiki perspective, it raises the question of whether Wilding should be considered as a "reliable source" on the subject. Norloch (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am still trying to fully absorb the two large technical reports on this. But I might prematurely propose the following (details to be checked/tweaked and sourced):

The total area of all of the breaches of the hull was only 12 square feet in a scraping type collision. The ship sank because the collision breached 6 compartments. On this point, at the British inquiry , xxxx Wilding, one of the designers of the ship speculated that the ship would not have sank if the collision would have instead been a direct head-on collision.

I think that this puts Wilding's comment in the context that he intended it, which was merely making/illustrating the point that the ship sank due to the number of compartments breached rather than intending to present as authoritative a complete alternate scenario which assumed knowledge (e.g. geometry of the iceberg) which did not exist. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with the proposed wording. It's a fair summary and it would be lengthy and complex to detail all the pros & cons. - Forensic witnesses never have an easy time of it. They need to be wary of lawyers who are inclined to lead them into speculations beyond their areas of expertise. It may have been a case of Lord Mersey indulging himself, (when he should have known better), by 'leading' Wilding into his speculation about ramming head on. - On the other hand, it's apparent that Wilding was willing go along with that and he did give a false precedent to support his assertion ( he used the example of a much smaller, slower, ship which had survived a head-on collision.) He also gave a rather misleading analogy when he spoke about deceleration effects (he made some comparison with a motor car.) - After the passage of a century, it's difficult to know how far Wilding intended to speculate on the subject. Certainly, at the time, Joseph Conrad, while 'naming no names' in his essay, was notably scathing about the concept of attempting to ram bergs 'head on'. ( It's also notable that Conrad considered one of the fallacies associated with the sub-division of those large ships. - i.e. It could only be of limited usefulness that a ship would remain afloat with up to four compartments flooded when the construction and operational practices permitted any of the compartments to be pierced and flooded relatively easily.)Norloch (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The proposed wording is certainly an improvement. But I'm inclined to say we should leave out the speculation entirely, as it's impossible to know for sure. We could quote Conrad (good find BTW) to refute the point, but since both were speculating, I'm not sure it's worth keeping the point at all. The important point, with which everyone seems to agree, is that the ship sank because six compartments were breached. We might want to relegate the entire question to the Legends and myths regarding RMS Titanic article, or maybe the RMS Titanic alternative theories article. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that something along the lines of my wording is the smallest/mildest version of including the "head on" speculation, thus the approach with the best chance of having support for "head on" inclusion, and thus a good judge/measure of what folks think. How 'bout folks weigh in on that for another week and then go by the input received? Again, I don't have a strong opinion, I was just trying to move the matter forward. So I'm going to weigh in as being "neutral" on my idea. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, if my idea doesn't fly, nothing regarding putting "head-on" in would. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it helps the article. It's one of those "what if" speculations, which have never impressed me much when raised by historians. They should know better; so should we. Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rumiton. I have no objections to putting into one of the other articles I mentioned, but I don't think it belongs in this article. Incidentally, the SS Arizona that Wilding referred to was a much smaller ship. The Titanic was 9 times as massive. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the consensus is against my idea, and that my idea was probably to most palatable way to put "head on" into the article, so I think that means that we have decided that "head-on' comes out / stays out of this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would feel better about this consensus if WhaleyTim had piped in, but that does seem to be the consensus. —216.103.134.250 (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

List of sub-articles

Here's a question I posted for guidance at the wp:disambiguation page talk page: == Are sub-articles inappropriate for a disambig page?==

I'm involved with a topic/article (RMS Titanic) where the main article is huge and the topic is huge (lots of sub-articles and related articles) with the sub articles mostly (or all) linked in-line or as "see also" in the individual sections. I think that it would be useful to communicate which sub-articles exist, I've been at the article for a half year and am still learning which exist; it's very hard to see this from in-line links and notes in the section headers. I first thought of listing them in "see also", but I think that the guidelines for that clearly exclude articles that are already linked in the article. So I though of using the disambig page to list them and then listing the dis-ambig page as a "see also" in the main article, there being no specific exclusion of this here. I was reverted at both, the person saying that dis-ambig pages are only for listing where there is true ambiguity and that the "see also" section should be used for this. I was thinking that folks here would have more of persepctive on this than I do on this. Is it a common or OK practice to list sub-articles on the dis-ambig page? If so, possibly a mention of that could be added. And if not, do any folks have experience on the best way to do this? North8000 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph on lights of nearby mystery ship is very confusing

The paragraph on lights of nearby mystery ship is very confusing. I read it several times and still need to read it more times to figure it out. It appears to say that the mystery ship is the California, but then that the California also saw the mystery ship. Right now I'm not knowledgeable enough on the material / what the sources say to fix it. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't an easy answer to that one, North8000. -Evidence from witnesses on all four of the identifiable ships that were in the area (i.e. Titanic, Carpathia, Mount Temple and Californian) confirmed that they had sighted the navigation lights of an unidentified ship in their vicinity - at some time during the hours of darkness - April 14th/15th. Since those identifiable ships were quite widely separated, it's improbable that they could all have seen lights of the same unidentified ship. For unknown reasons the conclusions of the British Inquiry appeared to discount these multiple sightings and made the assumption that the unidentified ship lights sighted by Californian must have been Titanic and the unidentified ship lights sighted by Titanic must have been Californian. Since then, the matter has been debated with much heat but with very little light. In some cases the evidence of witnesses was contradictory.Californian's Third officer considered that he'd seen a passenger ship with two masthead lights but Californian's 2nd. officer believed he'd seen the typical lights of a cargo ship, of similar size to his ship - but with only one masthead light.) So... it's over to you! Good luck Norloch (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. With that and another re-read, the wording makes sense as is. But even after the first re-reads, I was still thinking that the paragraph was saying that there was a single mystery ship. Possibly tweaking a few words might be good. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also in that same section, - the sentences describing exchanges between Californian's radio operator and Titanic's radio operator are part of the legend, but maybe the alleged irascibility of Titanic's radio operator - Jack Phillips - has been somewhat exaggerated in the article. According to the testimony of Californian's radio operator, Cyril Evans, (given to the British Inquiry) Titanic's operator did no more than use a standard code signal to indicate the he was working with another station and didn't want to be interrupted. From the transcripts, Evans seems to be stating that it was a normal procedure used by all radio operators and he noted specifically that he didn't consider that Phillips had intended it as an insult. (See British Inquiry question 8998.) Norloch (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2011

It was built in Belfast, Northern Ireland,UK.

Ireland is not on the UK

Velvet1346 (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Belfast in Northern Ireland is very much part of the UK--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As a starting point, what are you suggesting, and would your suggestion be correct at the time of the building? North8000 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed a small mistake in the second paragraph

Change "The largest passenger steamship in the world at the time, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line and constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Ireland, UK"

To "The largest passenger steamship in the world at the time, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line and constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK"

Why? Belfast is in Northern Ireland and also Ireland is not in the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvet1346 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As a starting point, what wording are you suggesting, and would your suggestion be correct at the time of the building? North8000 (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the links given above. Republic of Ireland is not in the UK, Northern Ireland is. They are two seperate countries --Jac16888 ^Talk 21:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

When the Titanic was built, Belfast was in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland did not exist as a separate entities, and it would be an anachronism to say Titanic was built in Northern Ireland. This is a perennial headache that continually comes up when someone says 'hey, Belfast is in Northern Ireland, I'll change that!' and wades in without thinking. Benea (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For the third time, Jac16888, if you are proposing a change, what is your proposed new wording? Then we'd have something to discuss. Right now you are only giving comments about the current wording without proposing anything. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"sigh". Please read this section properly--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that at the time Ireland was part of the UK, but it is still a bit misleading. A person who might not know much about this topic they could easily assume that Ireland is still in the UK. Today it is very common for people to refer to Ireland as the Republic of Ireland.

The following is only a suggestion;

"The largest passenger steamship in the world at the time, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line. It was constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard, which is located in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK"

I know that it wasn't built in Northern Ireland but the shipyard is still active and it is in Northern Ireland. Velvet1346 (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual Of Style states for Irish biographies

For people born before independence in 1922, describe their birthplace as simply Ireland (not [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]]). Similarly, for people born before 3 May 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland say Ireland, not Northern Ireland or [[Northern Ireland|Ireland]] Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Biographical articles.

I guess the same principle would probably apply here. WhaleyTim (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How about something like this: "It was constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, which at that time was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but is now the capital of Northern Ireland, UK" ? Shirtwaist ☎ 00:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks cumbersome and off topic. Support the suggestion from User:WhaleyTim to follow the principle in WP:IMOS#Biographical articles. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a cumbersome compromise, and if it were up to me it would read "It was constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Ireland." But how is it "off topic"? Shirtwaist ☎ 08:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The linked guideline is quite broadly drawn: material "only loosely relevant" to RMS Titanic has no place so "[p]lease be bold in deleting...". --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a huge eternal wiki-war on everything Ireland-naming and any thing about any relationship of any part of Ireland with Great Britain/British Isles/England etc. The combatants tend to carry it to other articles. I don't know if this is a case of that, but those battles are not welcome here. Lets just find some non-akward wording and move on. North8000 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Titanic on film and TV

Template:Titanic on film and TV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Titanic memorials

Template:Titanic memorials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite underway of Timeline of the sinking of RMS Titanic‎

I am currently rewriting Timeline of the sinking of RMS Titanic‎ with the intention of getting it onto the Main Page as a featured article on the centenary of the sinking. Please see Talk:Timeline of the sinking of RMS Titanic‎#New version of article on the way for details. Prioryman (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Barriers

I quote from the article: "large numbers of Third Class passengers were unable to reach the lifeboat deck through unfamiliar parts of the ship and past barriers". Contrary to popular belief, there were no barriers in the ship that could have prevented 3rd class passengers reaching the boat deck (in fact their escape route was via their own promenade deck). This is established by multiple contemporary accounts, including the evidence given by Edward Wilding at the British enquiry. (http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq18Wilding01.php) Is everyone happy for this statement to be removed? Fionnlaoch (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, this sentence is misleading. It was not possible to prevent 3rd class passengers from reaching the boat deck. However, as many of the 3rd classe passengers were not familiar with the ship the locked barriers stopped some of them. There exist also eyewitness accounts on that. --DFoerster (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So DFoester are you suggesting that the first and second class passengers WOULD be familiar with this entirely new and unknown ship? Frankly that seems ridiculous. I believe that in fact the lockable gates were there because the New York port and immigration authorities insisted that such gates be locked closed when liners were less than one day from NYC to ensure that third class passengers who were assumed to be immigrants would be taken off separately and processed through immigration at Ellis Island. Locking the gates prevented anyone escaping this procedure by sneaking into the other classes.The gates would certainly have been unloccked ..or not locked at the time of the sinking.Sadly the real problem was probably the idea among the third classes that getting them off the safe comfortable boat into cold lifeboats was somekind of trick ....that is how peoples minds worked in those days...the rich accompanied by their maids and servants might even have regarded it all as a bit of an adventure though the males would have stayed behind as it was their manly duty to be brave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.73.199 (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Collision" Section has Bogus Math

"The pumps could only cope with 1,700 tons of water per hour,[36] but 2,000 gallons were flooding into the liner every five minutes."

Comparing gallons with tons? Wow. A gallon of water weighs about 8 pounds (seawater may be very slightly more.) Thus 2000 gallons = 8 tons. So this would be 96 tons of water per hour. So at this rate it should have arrived in NY with no problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.59.137 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for noticing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ok so the question now is what happened? why did it sink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.91.47.219 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the 2,000 gallons every 5 minutes is implausibly low and almost certainly wrong. North8000 (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic rewritten

I've written a new version of Sinking of the RMS Titanic (formerly Timeline of the sinking of RMS Titanic‎), which I'm intending to nominate for Featured Article status with the aim of getting it onto the Main Page in time for the anniversary of the sinking. If you have any comments on the new version, please leave feedback at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic#New version posted - feedback requested.

In conjunction with this rewrite, I'll also do some work on the RMS Titanic article to reduce the amount of overlap. It will involve some significant reductions in the "Sinking" section (but don't worry, the content will still be represented in the Sinking of the RMS Titanic article). Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How about keeping the existing information about the sinking in this present article? Why should readers have to go to another article for basic -- or even substantial -- information about the sinking? How about leaving as much information about the sinking of the ship in this present article? How about nominating the newer article "Sinking of the RMS Titanic" for deletion and merging any unique information in it into this present in this article? --L.Smithfield (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The re-name apart, the other article is still very much a timeline of events. The two articles complement each other, and should stay much as they are. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are issues of which article covers what, since about 90% of this article is about the sinking and so going by titles the two articles are a 90% overlap. But there is a need for an article / sub-article with expanded coverage of the sinking process itself, including technical matters related to that. I've been discussing this more at the other article. My gut feel that an article that limits itself to sinking matters about the ship itself wouold be good. It could have items leadign to the collision, design matters that relate to the sinking, timeline at the core of it, items in technical inquirires about what happened to the ship itself. And leave out everything else e.g. passengers, lifeboats, all of the people stories. I think that Prioryman has 90% limited it to this so far, but the title is so broad broad that it could create an ongoing issue. Possibly a header that defines the scope would solve it. North8000 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am convinced that there should be two (or more) articles. I reacted (perhaps over reacted) to the idea of removing information about the sinking from this present article. But I do feel that additional or sub-articles should truly be of the sort where they go into extraordinary depth of the particular subject. They should not be simply overviews of material that readers will (and are entitled) to expect to be present in the main article. If a sub-article is truly an in-depth explanation of a particular or single aspect of the Titanic story, then it should not be (or feel) threatened that an overview -- and maybe even an extensive overview -- of the same subject is covered here in the main article. Material should never -- or at least very rarely -- have to be deleted from the main article in order to justify the existence of another sub-article. It seems in my experience with Wikipedia too often that an excellent article is dramatically reduced in size just so that sub-articles get the right to exist without being deleted themselves. Main articles should continue to provide very comprehensive coverage of a subject, and it is the duty of a sub-article to justify itself by covering something in particular to an extraordinary length. A primary part of the "story" about the RMS Titanic is its sinking. It should not be surprising that the main article covers that event in substantial depth and detail. Most readers in the world will come to this article expecting to read about the sinking of the RMS Titanic. I do not think that this expectation by the readers is misguided. Readers should not have to go to a sub-article just to read a reasonably substantial account of the sinking of the ship. After all, most readers did not come to this article to find out how many Watts of electric power served each particular section of the ship (as an example), but rather to read about its maiden voyage and its sinking. A sub-article on the subject of the sinking should be comprehensive enough to not feel threatened by this fact.

--L.Smithfield (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Except I don't think that the described motivations apply. So, I think we need a medium-length coverage in this article about the sinking. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Material should never -- or at least very rarely -- have to be deleted from the main article in order to justify the existence of another sub-article... Not sure if I agree with that. Articles tend to grow naturally until they just get too cumbersome. Then it's time to "hive off" some of the data to a secondary article or articles. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Molly Brown

Molly Brown was a first class passenger who had her own special personality. On the last hours of the titanic, she realized the crew members were running out , she and 6 or 7 others in the lifeboat took their life into their own hands and steered the life boats.Dabney holtLiunderman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.187.98 (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

-> Molly Brown » Cooper Kid (Blether · Contreebs) 04:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Further Reading

I recently read The Titanic Disaster by Dave Bryceson and found it extremely interesting. The Titanic Disasters was written based off newspaper articles and interviews that show a different view; the survivors point-of-view. I find it fascinating hearing how some people managed to get off the acclaimed 'unsinkable ship' and survived to tell their heroic story. From the first class passengers to the heroic crew, read the book to understand their shed of light of the horrific night. If you fellow wikipedians get a chance, check out this book; it is quite good and will not be a waste of your time. Bahnzaijr (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)bahnzaijr

Featured Article candidacy of Sinking of the RMS Titanic

Sinking of the RMS Titanic has recently been identified as a Good Article and is now a candidate for Featured Article status. If you have any comments on its nomination as a possible Featured Article, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic/archive1‎. Prioryman (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There may be a problem with ticket price

i noticed in the "interior" section that the conversion of the ticket price into present day pricing seems off. The US price is about half that of the British price in pounds. I don't know enough to fix this; could someone please verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.175.193 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Article title

Proposal: Per WP:COMMONNAME, this article should move renamed to simply "Titanic" instead of "RMS Titanic". Telco (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Afraid not. Ships' names on Wikipedia are governed by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), which mandates the use of the prefix. Prioryman (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Do y'all want to try for Featured Article by the 100th anniversary of the sinking in April 2012?

Do y'all want to make an effort towards getting this back to Featured Article status by the 100th anniversary of the sinking in April 2012? Could be a fun team effort. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a conversation on this at User_talk:North8000#RMS_Titanic, which is further to other conversations, basically various persons asking us (just after we and others got the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article to FA) about an effort to do that here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Count me in.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt I'll be able to contribute much, but I thought I'd mention that the discussion of notable passengers could use some work. There's a section called Notable Passengers, and another called Maiden Voyage, which is where most of the famous passengers are mentioned. (The Notable Passengers section seems to be a list of notable survivors, who weren't otherwise famous.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Some could be added to the Passengers of the RMS Titanic article as well. Morhange (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

sure that sounds cool. i have a website if yall get bord. its www.titanicbook.webs.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.91.47.219 (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How 'bout we inform the public of the truth before the centennial anniversary? WillardWorsley (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2012

There should be relevant information on why an all-turbine engine configuration was not chosen for RMS Titanic or any of the two other Olympic-Class Liners.

Sanjeet.jhala (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done:This is a info you are requesting to be added and not an edit request.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk|Contribs} 12:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No Conspiracy Mentioned In Article?

The public should have the chance to see the inconsistent photos of launch vs. maiden voyage, etc.WillardWorsley (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to Robin Gardiner's consipiricy theory. This is covered in RMS Titanic alternative theories, which is linked, although rather inconspicuously, from the main article WhaleyTim (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The biggest thing is not "Alternate Theories" but that the sinking of the Titanic was deliberate and also that it was the Olympic, not the Titanic that was sunk. WillardWorsley (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Gardiner's theory is a fringe theory and one that has been routinely ignored, or openly attacked, by nearly every reputable scholar of the Titanic. There is a detailed explanation of Gardiner's theory on the 'alternative theories' page. To deviate from the accepted history of Titanic in this article is to give this fringe theory undue prominence. Benea (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

All things considered, the mummy's curse looks to be a more credible theory than Gardiner's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with WhaleyTim, Benea, & Baseball_Bugs. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto North8000's comment.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the perfect tool for perpetrating media propaganda, for one has to have a consensus, of popular thought. It's a perfect tool too in that there is a closed loop of only looking to the media for truth which is known to be used for propaganda. Seen that this is run by individuals, I thought may be there would be some independent thought. Now, don't get me wrong I'm not saying to include far out theories. WillardWorsley (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Provided Wikipedia guidelines are followed rigorously, it shouldn't be a tool for perpetrating media propaganda. Wikipedia requires reliable sources and also states that "each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for the context." Most of the flaws in the Titanic articles tend to stem from sloppy compliance with those guidelines. regards Norloch (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Countdown timer

I'm not really a fan of this. This is the only article on wikipedia that uses this. It was once on Nintendo 3DS before it was removed as inappropriate as seen in the archived discussions here. Otherwise it only appears on userpages. I don't think this is really long-term encyclopaedic. Are we going to see 'there are 2 years, 5 months and 7 days left until the bicentenary of the death of Beethoven' perhaps on that article? Benea (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not good and I agree that it's inappropriate here too. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

3D Movie

Just real quick, the 3D remake of the 1997 film is released on April 4th, not April 6th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LChri (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Displacement

Recent additions to the text give a displacement of 60,000 tons. This is at odds with the Description of the Ship section of the British Wreck Commissioner's report and the testimony of a naval architect involved with the ship's design both giving displacement at 52,310 tons. (I believe the smaller figure is also consistent with a computation from the hull's dimensions and block coefficient, whereas the larger figure is not.) The article should stick with figure from the Wreck Commissioneer's Inquiry, which is from from the builder. See Talk:RMS_Titanic/Archive_7#We.27ll need to do some head scratching when we talk tonnages, and this piece which explains how the erroneous figures of 60,000t and 66,000t came about. Kablammo (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And Agree. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

SS Californian inquiry

Well, the article is looking in good shape - well done to those bold editors.

I am a little concerned about SS Californian inquiry subsection of the Investigations into the disaster section. Its length and detail compared with the rest of the section places, I think, too much emphasis on the (in)actions of the Californian and its master compared to all of the other issues covered in the original inquiries. The title of the subsection is misleading. There was no seperate SS Californian inquiry at the time. I also think that the re-opening of the British inquiry in 1992 and its conclusions deserves more than a footnote. WhaleyTim (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point, so thanks for that. I felt the same way when I was overhauling that section - I think it could do with being summarised, while the original content could serve as the starting point for a separate spin-off article. Prioryman (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

RMS Titanic GA review - request for assistance

I've been doing a lot of work lately on this article (which has had over 2.2 million page views in just the last 90 days!). I'm planning to put it up for GA in the next couple of days. I'd be very grateful if editors could take a look at sections 1 to 6 (the introduction through to "Aftermath of sinking") and let me know if they see any issues. I'll be working through the remainder of the article (Wreck and Legacy) before putting in a GA submission. Prioryman (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I made a few tweaks where it appeared clear what to do. A few other notes:

• "Third Class passengers were not treated as luxuriously as those in First Class" Skipped 2nd class passengers and then compared 3rd class to 1st class. Doesn't seem / "feel" right?
• saying "but was rebuked by Titanic's senior wireless operator, Jack Phillips. " with nothing following seems like something is missing. What did Jack Phillips say?
• Seems like a conflict. In "sinking" it gives a very detailed account (with the sequence, timing and specifics) of the breaking of the ship in 2 on the surface. Such level of detail seems to require observers etc. at the time. But the under the wreck section it says that a key discovery in 1985 was that the ship broke in 2, i.e. that such was not learned until 1985.
• Suggest linking or explaining what a well deck is. I thought of linking it to Well deck but that says that its just on amphibious ships.

Update. I noticed that someone recently added material to the well deck article to remedy this but was reverted. I just reverted the revert and will link it. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

DoneNorth8000 (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nice work! My main issue: Citations; are you sure they are OK? I know it is the first thing the GAR will look at. Soerfm (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My gut feel is that they are good for GA. FA is when the details there get really tough. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Other details

According to some marine engineering books the Titanic had quadruple expansion reciprocating engines with the 4th stage piston being divided into two. This allows the exhaust steam to be finally expanded to the low pressure turbine at between 4-8 PSI then condensed.

There are other details from the book "Log of the Titanic" which explain most other questions. Convincing evidence is produced to show that "All Stop" was ordered on the Titanic, not "reverse Engines".

It was the plates torn out of the bottom that eventually sank the ship and these have been located near the wreck and explains why the ship sank in the nearly upright position.

Captain Lord had ordered his radio operator to warn the "Titanic" of the ice, to be rebuffed by the "Titanic" radio operator.

At the official hearing, Captain Lord claimed that he was never woken to be told of the rockets until after dawn and the Titanic had already sunk. Nobody thought to waken the "Californian" radio operator either.

Captain Lords employers, British Leyland Line, accepted this explanation and he remained in their employ until he retired.

Now that the "Titanic" wreck has been located, the "Californian" was indeed some 20 miles from the "Titanic". Making an immediate start, even at full speed and charging through the same ice conditions that was already sinking the "Titanic", this ship would still have arrived in the area of the sinking at about the same time as the "Carpathia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Kunene (talk • contribs) 07:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 6.2.1 Role of SS Californian

There's a problem connected with times quoted in section 6.2 of the article. At present there isn't a way to relate all the SS Californian clock times to a standard reference time, such as GMT. - Consequently, times aboard Californian can't be related to times of events reported aboard Titanic. (As an analogy, - imagine a situation in which two observers see a car crash from widely separated viewpoints. Each observer carefully notes the time of the event. However, while the first observer's timepiece is set precisely to a standard time, the second observer's timepiece is running twenty minutes slow. Despite that, both observers have noted the same time for the crash. Does that mean that one of them has misread the time - or does it mean that they have observed different crash incidents ?) The question can only be resolved by a precise investigation of all the details. That's broadly similar to what happened with Titanic and Californian. As far as I know, there was no comprehensive investigation of the timekeeping on the ships, during the 1912 Inquiries. (Or if there was - it was never made public.) From a Wiki viewpoint, this means that there isn't a reliable reference source for the context. regards Norloch (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Agreement and Account of Voyages and Crew"

This document is the Ship's Articles of Agreement, an agreement between the master of the ship and the crew whom he signs on. It is not a declaration of seaworthiness. I am trying to think why a surveyor would sign this, rather than the ship's Seaworthiness Certificate. Rumiton (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton. It might be a slightly skewed reference to Francis Carruthers - the BOT surveyor at Belfast - who signed the "Declaration of Survey" after Titanic's sea trials on April 2nd. regards Norloch (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we change the words to "Declaration of Survey"? Rumiton (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. The statement could be cited to the British Inquiry transcripts, if required. It was mentioned in the preliminaries as Carruthers was being examined. (n.b. Carruthers was also aboard, on the run from Belfast to Southampton. I suspect he'd be signed-on with the 'supernumaries'. Maybe that's how the confusion arose ?) regards Norloch (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton - One more thought on the statement reference the use of the term ' seaworthy '. I guess it's probably okay as a general descriptive term but, in a strict legal sense, 'seaworthiness' was dependent on compliance with a number of regulations ( Loadline - safety equipment - safe manning - etc.) plus the obligation of the shipowner to ensure that the ship was prepared in all respects for conditions that could be reasonably expected during the voyage. regards Norloch (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right of course. We are really just talking about the ship satisfying the class requirements for building. Today it would be Lloyds A1- Maltese cross, but I don't know when that came in. Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 6.2.1 Californian - questionable aspects ?

There are several statements in the section which have questionable aspects, (mostly timings). The only sources referred to are the transcripts of the U.S. Inquiry and the British Inquiry. If the statements in the article are precise extracts from Inquiry sources, I haven't been able to locate them.

Examples... 1. "Testimony revealed that at 10.10pm Californian observed the lights of a ship... " ( n.b. - 3rd. Officer Groves said that he first saw the distant light of an unidentified ship at about 11.10pm)

2. "It was later agreed between Captain Lord and 3rd. Officer Groves that this was a passenger liner..." (n.b. - As far as I can tell from the transcripts - Lord never agreed that it was a passenger liner. Groves and donkeyman Gill said that they had observed many bright lights on the unidentified ship. They inferred, from the amount of light, that it must be a liner. - The other witnesses described the unidentified ship as appearing somewhat similar to their own ship. They said it had only one masthead navigation light and what appeared to be some decklights near it's aft end. - 3rd. officer Groves said the ship that he observed had two masthead navigation lights.)

3. Jack Phillips, Titanic's radio operator 'rebuked' Californian... (n.b. - Might be correct, - but Phillips didn't survive to confirm that. - Cyril Evans the Californian's radio operator described the event rather differently to the Br. Inquiry. In his descrption, he seemed to say that Phillips had simply transmitted the standard morse code signal that was used to tell other ships that the operator was already engaged in working with a particular station and therefore didn't want to be interrupted. - Evans also added that he didn't regard it as an insult, or anything like that. )

4. "At 11.50pm the officer had watched that ship's lights flash out, as if it had shut down or turned sharply.... " (n.b. 3rd. Officer Groves actually said that the ship's decklights appeared to be extinguished at 11.40pm. - not 11.50pm. - He said he was certain of that time because 'one-bell' had just been struck to alert the next watch to make ready to go on duty. - At a much later point in the examination, the examining counsel appeared to lead the witness towards a conclusion by asking Groves if he would agree that the lights might have appeared to have been extinguished because the ship had altered course. Groves agreed that was possible - though, earlier, he had stated that, in his experience, passenger ships usually extinguished their deck lights at about that time of night.) Apparently, the Inquiry never sought to clarify things by simply asking Titanic witnesses if they'd noticed whether Titanic's decklights were all on - or mostly extinguished at the time of the collision and thereafter. If those who were called-out to prepare and launch lifeboats were doing the work in near darkness they'd certainly have recalled the fact.

5. " It was stated that Californian's morse lamp had a range of about 4 miles, so could not have been seen from Titanic." (n.b. - don't know where that comes from. - The conclusion of the US Inquiry stated that Californian had a powerful morse lamp... which would be visible at a range of about 10 miles.)

6. " Second officer Stone, now on duty, notified Lord at 1.15am that the ship had fired a rocket followed by four more." (n.b. - Not wrong, but perhaps incomplete. Reference to British Inquiry transcripts, on day 7, in answers to question 6788 to 6791 - Stanley Lord said that Stone had called him at 1.15am and that Stone had told him the unidentified ship was altering it's bearing towards the south west - also that Stone said that he'd seen a white rocket above the ship. In subsequent, contrary evidence, given by Stone, during answers to questions 7829-7872, Stone said he'd called Captain Lord about 1.10am and told him he'd seen white lights in the sky, above the ship, which he took to be rockets. The Inquiry doesn't appear to have recalled either witness to clarify the point about how many rockets were actually reported to Lord, by Stone.

7. " At 2.15am Lord was notified that the ship could no longer be seen." (n.b. - According to Br. Inquiry conclusions - 2nd. Officer Stone called Captain Lord, via the bridge voice pipe, at about 2.40am - not 2.15am. - to inform Lord that the lights of the unidentified ship had disappeared. While answering questions during the Inquiry, Stone said that the gradual dimming of that ship's lights, plus alterations in the compass bearing of the ship, led him to conclude that the unidentified vessel was moving away - towards the south west. ) regards Norloch (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 March 2012

Please add the following to the Memorials section:

There is also a memorial to Wallace Hartley in his home town of Colne in Lancashire, next to the war memorial on Albert Road.

Verify here: http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_memorial-wallace_hartley.shtml

155.136.80.81 (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Coordinating the RMS Titanic articles

I've been working on Sinking of the RMS Titanic, which is currently being evaluated as a featured article candidate. The Titanic-related articles are certain to get a huge increase in usage as the anniversary approaches, so I think it's important that we should try to get the articles in as good shape as possible.

The parent article is, of course, RMS Titanic. I think it would be useful to work out the other Titanic-related articles relate to this parent article and to work out what changes are needed to the main article. I suggest the following structure for the main article, with the links out to spinoff articles as follows:

Background

Construction

Features

--> Grand Staircase of the RMS Titanic

Sea trials and maiden voyage

--> List of crew members on board RMS Titanic
--> Passengers of the RMS Titanic

Sinking

--> Sinking of the RMS Titanic
--> RMS Titanic alternative theories

Aftermath

--> Aftermath of the sinking of RMS Titanic (new article)
--> United States Senate inquiry into the RMS Titanic disaster (new article)
--> British Board of Trade inquiry into the RMS Titanic disaster (new article)

Wreck

--> The wreck of the RMS Titanic (rename to drop initial "the")

Legacy

Maritime safety

--> Changes in safety practices following the RMS Titanic disaster

Memorials and museums

--> Memorials and museums of RMS Titanic (new article)
--> Legends and myths regarding RMS Titanic

Popular culture

--> RMS Titanic in popular culture
--> List of films about the RMS Titanic

This is a little different from the current structure of the article, but my biggest concern is that there is too much overlap between the parent RMS Titanic article and subsidiary articles, especially Sinking of the RMS Titanic. There has also been inconsistent (and sometimes conflicting) information between the two articles, and there is too little information in some other areas (such as construction, maritime safety and background). The article will need to be rebalanced somewhat, which I propose to tackle in the coming days, and more information will need to be added to fill in missing areas. I'd be grateful for comments about these proposals. Prioryman (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just one question: What about Factors in sinking and loss of lives? I am a little confused that you seem to leave this section out but want to include Alternative theories. Hopefully, you mean the other way around!? Soerfm (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm only going to link to Alternative theories - I'm not planning to cover them (since they're basically fringe bunkum). The reason I've left out "Factors in sinking and loss of lives" is that I'm planning to merge this with the Sinking section, which will end up considerably smaller than it is now. The Sinking section was written before the current Sinking of the RMS Titanic article was written, so a lot of it is effectively duplicate content. It needs to be updated so that it's written in summary style, summarising the spinoff article rather than duplicating it. If there's any material that isn't in the spinoff article, I'll move it across. Prioryman (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is it possible that the deck description could be moved to the Olympic class ships-article and replaced by information about the location of the bridge, wireless room, different classes of passengers etc? I like to focus more on the sinking. Soerfm (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 3.5 lifebelts and other devices

Second last paragraph in the section. EVAN THOUGH NOBODY CARES "Lifebelts didn't help to save people... (even though nobody drowned)... people froze to death." Might be better to be less specific because we can't be certain that nobody drowned. With that design of lifejacket (buoyancy front and back) there was sometimes a tendency for semi-conscious or injured people to flop over sideways with their face in the water. At the US Inquiry, Rostron reported an example of that on page 22. He saw a body of a crewman in the water and was certain he was dead because " he was lying on his side with his head awash." - regards Norloch (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't necessarily due to drowning. The lifejackets had the unfortunate effect of acting like a noose and breaking a person's neck if they fell from a height into the water, as many people did in the final stages of the sinking. But you're right that that line needs to be changed, it's not accurate as it is. Prioryman (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(added) Turns out the whole lot was unsourced anyway, so I've taken it out. Prioryman (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Extreme tides

From this week's "Science in Action" (BBC), http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/scia/scia_20120308-2032a.mp3, 05 min 50 - 10 min 05 secs:

Extreme tides in January 1912 (most extreme tides in 1400 years) on the east coast of Canada might have caused a bad iceberg season and been the direct cause of the sinking. (The podcast is only available for a week or two.) --Mortense (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. But "direct cause" us usually reserved for the main things that went wrong, not a link in the chain of events that led to it. The latter includes thousands of things where, if they didn't happen, the sinking wouldn't have happened. North8000 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Design of the Titanic....

It should be noted that no one can be certain about the exact design of the ship because all the plans were destroyed when the H&W yard was bombed during the Belfast Blitz in April 1941.

The aforementioned File:Titanic side plan 1911.png is from and edition of Engineering Journal dated 1911. Many of the assumptions regarding the ship's design are in created from rationale composites based on the Olympic and Britannic. Arguably there are not going to be any huge differences, however, due to the loss of the original plans and, of course, the death of Andrews, there is nothing that can be stated for certain. This should be noted in the article.

The referencing of this article also leads a lot to be desired. It must be remembered that serious study of the Titanic only happened in the latter half of the 20th century. In fact, real interest only took off after A Night to Remember created a huge wave of interest in what happened in 1912. Yet the preceding 46 years had seen only four films attributed to the disaster; since 1958 there have been more than 25!

Therefore more contemporary material seems to be less desirable than more modern sources. Personally I question the certainty and accuracy of self referencing published third party works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.66.105 (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you meant by "self referencing published third party works". Thanks. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 6.2 Board of Trade Inquiry ?

Reference to the third paragraph of section 6.2 in the article ... " Lord Mersey was appointed to head the Board of Trade's Inquiry." That wording seems reasonably descriptive to me in a general way but, on re-reading the Marine Accident Investigation Department's 1992 report, it appears to be imprecise.

Quoted from the Deputy Chief Inspector's comments on page 5 of the M.A.I.B report.... " It should be stressed that although a Court of Formal Investigation is ordered by a Government Minister (in 1912 - the President of the Board of Trade) - once in being, it is entirely independent. It is both wrong and misleading to refer to the F.I. proceedings in the TITANIC ( or any other case) as a "Board of Trade Inquiry."

regards. Norloch (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

New daughter article: The construction of RMS Titanic?

In an effort to shorten this long article a bit, I think we can make a new article out of the info on her construction (and of course build on it), called simply The construction of RMS Titanic. What do you think? --Leoj83 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The construction section of the article isn't that long. I think it's OK as it is, to be honest. Prioryman (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes but with a new article we have the potential to go into a lot more detail and expand as seen with The Wreck of... (that just in a few weeks have grown more than 100%) - and the current section here have to many details for a mother article, I think. As technical sections like this tend to grow (especially with the coming anniversary) I think it would be a good plan for the future to move it to a new article and keep a short summary. The same could eventually be done with The Design section --Leoj83 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Prioryman, I don't think we need to break this down further, nor do we need to develop large articles to cover every aspect of a topic in minute detail. Articles should follow a summary style to be encyclopaedic. Let's keep excessive detail to published secondary sources. Benea (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Agree that some content could be moved (for instance to the Olympic class ships article) but suggest we leave it to the GAR (I think the accepted article size at GAR is around 150 KB). Soerfm (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

New article

I've written a new article for the forthcoming centenary: Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic. Comments would be welcomed. Prioryman (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Main Page appearance on 15 April

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

"controversy"

In the "Wreck" section, the second to last paragraph uses the phrase "most controversially" to refer to salvage operations, but never explains why this would be controversial? Can someone please either explain why these salvages would be controversial, or remove the wording? Murderbike (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Article section 6.2.1 - Controversial issue ?

"One of the most controversial issues examined by the Inquiries was the role played by the SS Californian..."

The controversial issues are well enough known among Titanic researchers but maybe not so apparent to the average reader. The article section doesn't offer any clear explanation about the nature of the controversy - it merely cites a particular point of view. Which issue was controversial? Was it related to the fact that Captain Lord was never charged with any offense despite his alleged failure to respond ? ( For example, he could have been charged with the felony offence of contravening the International Maritime Conventions Act. 1911. ) Or was the controversial issue related to other aspects that were addressed in the 1992 M.A.I.B. report  ?

There also appears to be a contradiction in relation to the wording of the first paragraph and the final sentences of the section. If details in the first paragraph are taken literally, they prove that the unidentified ship sighted by those aboard the SS. Californian could not have been Titanic. - That contrasts with the final sentences which suggests that the unidentified ship seen by those on the S.S. Californian, was, 'in fact', Titanic. regards Norloch (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 March 2012

Please Change: "The British Army's newspaper, The War Cry, ... "

To: "The Salvation Army newspaper, The War Cry, ... "

Location in Article: section 6.1 Homecoming of the Survivors - start of 3rd paragraph

Reason: The War Cry was the newspaper of The Salvation Army, not the British Army (see Wikipedia article on The War Cry newspaper) AJB179 (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

New article on Titanic in popular culture

Editors here might be interested to have a look at a new article that I've contributed, RMS Titanic in popular culture, which will be linked from the Main Page on the centenary day. Please leave any feedback at Talk:RMS Titanic in popular culture. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wreck now protected by UNESCO

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/the_wreck_of_the_titanic_now_protected_by_unesco/back/18256/ --Profiteur (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

100th Commemorative stamps

Perhaps an item for the 100th Commemoration section? -- 12:10pm Thursday 5th April 2012 in Titanic News: Titanic stamps mark a new departure
Also here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2125475/Titanic-100th-anniversary-marked-new-Royal-Mail-stamp-collection.html
Although there are other commemorative stamps, the 'Royal Mail' seems significant due to the "RMS" and postal workers connections. ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The side plan is not the titanic

Hi Please change "Side plan of RMS Titanic" to "Side plan of RMS Olympic" because the side plan shown in the second picture on the page is in fact the side plan of RMS Olympic. This can be seen on the porthols on the upper forword deck, there are only 12 when Titanic had 15. And deck A under the boat deck, is not built in like the deck A on Titanic. Proof of this is in the picture on top of the site, showing the real Titanic. 81.167.33.99 (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: That level of detail cannot be confirmed from the picture. The drawing was sourced from an engineering journal which evidently identlified it as being the Titanic. You would need to supply a reliable source which refutes the source of the picture, or investigate the source of the picture, to make the change you request. Sorry, Celestra (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have checked my paper copies and this appears to be a copy of the 1911 plans for the Titanic. B deck was altered during construction. The editor is correct that the plan clearly does not agree with the 12 porthole layout at the bow (Titainc had 16). The original plans do show her as matching with Olympic, however. Does this explain the noted concern? For accuracy it should probably be noted that the constructed ship did differ from the shown plans. DiverScout (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

technical facilities

hi can you please change the wording under the ship design for "the titanic's rudder was so huge" to something that doesnt sound like it came out of a pre teens mouth. the paragraph sounds like a success story if you read it with the proper tone. i dunno isnt there some other wording we could use for it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.124.88 (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a section about the norwegian whaling ship samson?

The samson has become the prime suspect of being the ship Titanic saw during her sinking. Should a section be created about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest you add a subsection to Legacy called "Second ship", "Mystery ship" or something like that. As far as I understand Butler, the theory about a second ship was created in the years after the sinking by people who were trying to defend Captain Lord. Soerfm (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Might be worthwhile scrolling through the archives on this page regarding 'Samson' and other unidentified vessels that were seen in the vicinity - early morning of April 15th. Also worth checking 1912 Inquiry transcripts. - Witnesses on Carpathia reported sighting the navigation lights of an unidentified steamship during their south-easterly approach to the rescue zone. Mount Temple reported seeing navigation lights which were believed to be a sailing vessel plus the navigation lights of another unidentified steamship - both of which were seen to the west of the ice field. regards Norloch (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I created the mystery ship section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I can't find this section. And related to a "mystery ship" is the idea pushed by a recent National Geographic documentary identifying the ship seen by the Californian as the Titanic transformed by a mirage into a smaller vessel.202.179.16.88 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

check under the myths and legends articleZyon788 (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Survivors and victims - numbers don't add up?

I notice that numbers for "Men, crew" don't seem to be correct - the numbers saved and lost don't tally with the total (there's a difference of 20). Similarly the Total number aboard isn't the sum of the figures in the column above. If the figure for "Men, crew" was 885 rather than 865, things would be consistent, but would they be correct? Lorcan (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to have an exact count for who was on Titanic. Generally it is thought that around 2,200 souls boarded her (give or take a few dozen people). Some cancelled thier trip, or could not make the trip due to other reasons.Zyon788 (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but shouldn't the figures in this article at least be self-consistent? Lorcan (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Must have been a typo. Looks like someone corrected it.Zyon788 (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Most expensive ticket

"The most expensive First Class suites cost up to £870 in high season (£72,932 today)." Was the maiden voyage considered high season? Should this read, e.g. ".. were to have cost up to £870 in high season"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point, she sailed in low season. I'll make the change. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that people didn't book summer vacations two months in advance in 1912? Possibly, but I find it highly unlikely that the First Class suites on such a high-profile ship would NOT have been sold out several months prior to departure. Modern cruise ships have much more competition with each other, and passengers still have to book the best cabins up to a year in advance.

Is it not possible that they sold tickets for the high season in advance? ::A recent newspaper article contained a price list with the 2012 equivalants for the actual voyage. Unfortunately it's in Australian dollars. You can possibly cross reference to £s. First Class Suite: $1340 (2012 $125,670), First Class Standard: $46 (2012 $4334), Second Class: $18:50 (2012 $1733) and Third Class: $4:60 - $12:35 (2012 $433 - $1154). Wayne (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

High season advance ticket sales would certainly make the original text valid. I'd be interested to see any supporting evidence. Also - were all or any prospective travellers refunded? In fact, how many of the actual passsengers had return tickets? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Victim deaths by hypothermia versus cold shock response drownings

The page mentions sinking victim deaths by hypothermia as happening in minutes - this is contradicted (and shown to be a myth) by Cold shock response - can somebody please update this section? Syntaera (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is most likely that the information in the article is an accurate summary of the sources used in preparing the article. At WP:Verifiability it states Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement.

If the cited sources say the victims of the Titanic sinking died of hypothermia then that is what the article must say. If you know of a reliable published source that says the victims of the Titanic sinking died of cold shock response or something else you are at liberty to add that information to the article, provided you cite your source(s).

If we were to examine the latest research about cold shock response, draw the conclusion that it is what caused the deaths of victims of the Titanic sinking, and publish that conclusion on Wikipedia that would be original research. Encyclopedias don't publish original research. Peer-reviewed journals are the proper place for original research. Dolphin (t) 23:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite versed in this (do training and have subjected myself during training). It also caught my eye, but I decided that there is not an actual conflict if one allows that "minutes" can mean 30 minutes. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The RMS Titanic page itself (in the Sinking section) states: "The remaining passengers and crew were plunged into lethally cold water with a temperature of only 28 °F (−2 °C). Almost all of those in the water died of hypothermia or cardiac arrest within minutes or drowned." - this explanation is very consistent with the sources linked in the Cold shock response page, however the summary at the top of the RMS Titanic page leaves out all reasons but the hypothermia - I feel that this summary is too terse and leads to ambiguity. Syntaera (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. At Sinking of the RMS Titanic#Passengers and crew in the water (02:20–04:10) it says: Some of those in the water would have died almost immediately from heart attacks caused by the sudden stress on their cardiovascular systems. Others progressed through the classic symptoms of hypothermia: extreme shivering at first, followed by a slowing and weakening pulse as body temperature dropped, before finally losing consciousness and dying citing Rebecca Aldridge (2008) "The Sinking of the Titanic". Dolphin (t) 01:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• The 30 minutes are backed up by Brewster and Coulter p. 59 who says, that the calls for help gradually died away after 20 minutes and that all was quiet after 40. Should we replace a "few minutes" with "30" and cite both sources? Soerfm (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That sentence could be rewritten to say "Those in the water that did not drown died almost instantly from cold shock response and within minutes by hypothermia caused by immersion in the freezing ocean." Does anybody know when cold shock response was discovered? If it's new in knowledge, then they could'nt diagnose it back then. Zyon788 (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We can only say what the source(s) say. Dolphin (t) 07:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure if this is a reasonable source but check this out: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=169325&sectioncode=26 Zyon788 (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course we don't put stuff in from an editor's knowledge, but to help sort this out......Well, to start with, in Wikipedia, the article "cold shock response" does not use the common meanings of the term (one of which is what happens in like the first minute, the other, a newer discovery, is, essentially (and overly briefly) a response that preserves life from drowning in very cold water where drowning victims can be seemingly brought back from the dead) and instead covers all of the effects of submersion in very cold water.

The article does deal with the common myth that hypothermia (in cold water) kills within a few minutes. Other than maybe a few folks there were due for a heart attack etc. anyway, folks basically don't die from that first one minute shock. (it IS a shock though, I can tell you from numerous deliberate and accidental personal experiences, takes a big effort to breath etc.) In real life probably the fastest people go from hypothermia would be to be worthless in 10 minutes and dead in 20. Many last much longer due to body fat, clothing etc.

In short, "cold shock response" is somewhat irrelevant here. Any statement that a whole lot of people died instantly from the cold water is wrong. (although a few probably did) The sources that got it right will be essentially saying that people died from hypothermia without talking about instant death. Sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a mandate for inclusion, and can be wrong. North8000 (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well i dont disagree with you and since we were not there when it happened we will never really know for sure. But heres my argument: If even one person died of cold shock response(and again we will never really know), then it should be added because it is one symptom of sudden immersion into cold water. Yes some people might have been due for a heart attack but it was because of the immersion into cold water that they were put into cardiac arrest. It is not about how healthy they were before the sinking it is about what caused them to die. Zyon788 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty clear that we should not say that some people died quickly from "cold shock response". First and foremost, I don't think that any of the sources said that. Second, nothing in current info indicates that such is directly a cause of death. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the source i provided. If you dont believe that i have several more to show you. Zyon788 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at it. It has a lot of good material in it, but also has a few summary type sentences which conflict with a wide range of material and knowledge that is out there. And the headline does not follow from the contents of the story. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think discussion has gone off track here. I never meant to imply that Cold shock response should be linked or mentioned in the Summary, only that it contradicts the text of the Summary - I understand this is not a problem in and of itself. My concern is that the detailed information in the RMS Titanic page about the drownings (which incidentally is consistent with the information in the Cold shock response page) is not faithfully summarised above in the Summary. I would suggest this change to the text of the Summary: "Those immersed in the water that did not die immediately, died within tens of minutes from hypothermia due to the freezing ocean temperatures." - this does not make any claims not already verifiable from linked sources, and is entirely consistent with the detailed information in the article. Syntaera (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Zyon788 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)