Talk:Titanic/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Why can't I edit some the RMS Titanic article?

It doesn't show the edit button. How come? I wanna add some infos. Even though I log in I can't edit the RMS Titanic article. here. --Japee (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply on user's talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I came to the conclusion the page is locked by the person who wrote it. Who is namely really bad at writing and is obstinate and doesn't want anyone to change anything. The article needs a lot of work as its present language is extraordinarily feeble and lame.

Due to excessive vandalism on this article it has been semi-protected until around the middle of december. The person who wrote it has nothing to do with it. In fact, most registered users can still edit the page. Semiprotection means that only unregistered, and newly registered users can't edit it. Anyone who is considered "established" based on their history of edits is able to edit this page. If you desire not to be blocked from editing when a page is semi-protected than create an account and start making all edits through that account. Typically within about a week you will be able to edit semi-protected pages like this one. JeremyWJ (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is now unprotected. If vandalism becomes excessive it will become protected again, and probably for a much longer period. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to edit this page where it said a citation was needed. I found the source and I can provide a link on the related topic.Quated below. The vessel began her maiden voyage from Southampton, England, bound for New York City, New York on 10 April 1912, with Captain Edward J. Smith in command. As the Titanic left her berth, her wake caused the liner SS New York, which was docked nearby, to break away from her moorings, whereupon she was drawn dangerously close (about four feet) to the Titanic before a tugboat towed the New York away.[28] The incident delayed departure for one hour[citation needed]. Here is the citation: Titanic Inquiry Project. http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/USReport/AmInqRep03.php Date Accessed 12 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.46.46 (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Page protection is in force at the moment, because of vandalism. I have added the information, with acknowledgement. The high-profile way of requesting changes like this is by adding a semiprotected template to this page. Thanks for the update!--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added an edit warning notice which is visible to anyone who edits the article. Per discussion at WT:SHIPS, I've unprotected the article. Let's see if this is effective in deterring vandalism while allowing IP editors to contribute constructively to the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Time of the Collision

The article states that the boat hit the iceberg at midnight on April 14th, and sank several hours later. Should this not read midnight the 15th? The time as stated would have the boat taking nearly thirty hours to sink. Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reads before midnight, not at midnight. Nonetheless word order tweaked to avoid possibility of ambiguity. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Every sentence needs to be sourced"

This edit added a few {{cn}} tags, with the commentary "Under most circumstances, every sentence needs to be sourced". I've no real argument with the tags, but may I just quote from Wikipedia:When to cite, so we aren't setting ourselves too high a standard for the future here? The advice reads: "not to mindlessly produce an official reference for each sentence." --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Was this ever uploaded?

Found an image of Olympic and Titanic being built at the LOC. I can't find it on Commons, but I've said that before just to find that it was in a rogue category, so I'll leave the link here for people who are involved with this article. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002721382 —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Available at File:Olympic Titanic Belfast.jpg. It's a significant and historical picture, but the article's a bit crowded to fit it in. Views?--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is space, at "Comparisons with the Olympic", so I'll get on with it, with acknowledgement to User:the_ed17. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, don't give me too much credit. I was hunting for images of ARA Moreno, and that photo, along with one of Olympic on her maiden voyage, were under a "neighboring call number." Pure luck. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.149.50.141, 27 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The picture said 10 of april but the writing said 14/15th april

86.149.50.141 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? The only photo caption that uses 10 April is the main infobox picture, and it appears to be correct. Benea (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. SpigotMap 15:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Life boats

It should be mentioned that ships travel in shipping lanes, much like cars on a highway. There was not a need to have lifeboats for all people, because they transported people to other ships when the ship was in trouble. The lifeboats would shuttle back and forth. In hindsight that was not a good thing. But it isn't like the James Cameron version of being cluttered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.201.47.132 (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was a specific case of aesthetic looks combined with the fact it was assumed a ship could reach a stricken liner in time. The new wellin davits could take 4 boats each, and originally at the very beginning the Olympic class ships were designed for 64 lifeboats, 16 on each side and another one inboard. Then that was dropped to 32 for one single row of boats of 16 on each side along the entire length of the boat deck. This is what both the davit company and many builders thought would be a good number since the board of trade was considering raising the limits at the time. This was eventually dropped to 16 all together, 4 on both the bow and stern of the boat deck, in the same set-up as the Lusitania and Mauritania. This way there'd be open promenade space on the boat deck with rail access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMadcapSyd (talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not just with hindsight that it wasn't a good thing! Shipping lanes, or not, there's nothing at sea which is immune to the weather. Maritime disasters don't always occur when the weather is fine. While skillfully handled lifeboats could maybe withstand gale force weather, for a while, it's an improbable idea that they could ever have been used to 'shuttle back and forth' to a rescue vessel in such conditions.Norloch (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ships do not really travel in lanes, except around headlands and obstacles where they have no choice. When charting a course from Britain to New York, the master will take into account the weather, the performance of his ship, the comfort of his passengers, his personal experience and the demands of his schedule when deciding how far north to go. Different ships and different masters will choose routes that might be several hundred miles apart. But it is true that it was considered unlikely that a ship like Titanic would sink before she was found and her passengers transferred. They were wrong. Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For the northern track to New York it was at that time common pratice between Januar 15th and August 14th to head for a point named The Corner at 42° 0′ N, 47° 0′ and then turn to a western course. Hence there was something like a "lane" in this case. --DFoerster (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Harold Sanderson, the former General Manager of the White Star, thought the same thing after the disaster. It is conjecture that other ships would be near to aid a distressed vessel in the middle of the ocean far from land. As the Titanic Disaster showed, there were no other ships near enough save the Californian which had switched off their radio and was essentially trapped on the opposite side of the ice flow. The radio, that new-fangled contraption, kept the Titanic in contact with the rest of world before and during the sinking. But only a few years before there wouldn't even have been a radio. As one might logically ask, 'why put lifeboats on the ships at all, if these grand new ships are unsinkable'? The fact that the White Star line had installed on the Olympic & Titanic davit arrangements that could accomodate over 60 lifeboats indicates that the company knew that )1. Board of Trade regulations were going to be upgraded and )2. a proper complement of lifeboats better ensured lives being saved even if a sinking occurred in a harbor near a shore with many ships around or in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The fact that a ship has a full compliment of lifeboats doesn't mean there aren't going to be any deaths. In the case of the Titanic, the mailroom was the first compartment to start flooding and the mail personnel allegedly drowned before the ship sank. In other sinkings like the Empress of Ireland and the Lusitania, both ships sank in 14 minutes and 18 minutes respectively. Though they both were carrying a full compliment of lifeboats for all the passengers on board there simply was no time, to organize and launch lifeboats packed with passengers, as there had been on the Titanic.Koplimek (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the manning for the lifeboats was a key factor. Extra lifeboats, in themselves, wouldn't have achieved much without adequate numbers of competent personnel to fill them, launch them and operate them. That was the significant dilemma which the various authorities and the large passenger companies were trying, gradually -(much too gradually), to resolve by 1912. Even today, it's a problem that hasn't been entirely resolved. With modern lifeboat equipment, it can be demonstrated, that it's possible to organize 500 passengers into their respective lifeboats and have the boats ready for launching in a time frame of fifteen minutes. However, that can only be achieved with weekly training exercises and fairly harsh discipline for defaulters! Norloch (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of the Wreck(section)

In this section there is no mention of Bob Ballard, of whom many think that he is historically and aesthetically deserving to be the owner of Titanic. Im one of them. Ballard however made the mistake(perhaps the biggest of his career) of not claiming the wreck as his own as he wanted it left undisturbed and to create an ongoing history lesson by making the wreck an underwater museum with an underwater video network. This left bidding for the next possible claimant RMS Titanic Inc.. Ballard may have had a reason for not making a salvage claim. The 1985 Knorr expedition and part of the 1986 Atlantis II expedition were sponsored by the US Navy which means Ballard(and Jean Louis) could not make a pure salvage claim without inclusion of the US Navy. (see article on Marine salvage). I thought I'd bring it up before trying to make a change in the text under the heading 'Ownership of the Wreck'. What do others have to say as far as input on this topic? Im not too privy on Marine Salvage Law though I've always thought like others that if you found it in the ocean it was yours. Koplimek (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Once an insurance claim has been settled the insurance company owns the wreck. This stuff would be a legal war zone. We would need extremely good sources to go anywhere near it. Let's not. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Info in article

It seems there is too much in the aftermath sections. This should be primarily about the Titianic's design and conception with a brief mention of personalities, and events surrounding the sinking, which should be dealt with in other articles specific to their subject. About two-thirds of this article has little to do with the ship itself. Dapi89 (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The process is described here. "Alternative theories", for example, is already dealt with in this way. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but it would pose a problem. If I wanted to go into detail, and rightly so, about the conception, design and construction, which would be of interest, the article would become too long. Then it violates another of wikipedia's regulations. I am guessing that would be a chief complaint should I press ahead. How much is too much? Are memorials on a page about Titanic relevant? Should they be better off in the sinking article aftermath section? Dapi89 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Add the detail - and the logic for breaking it up (the article that is!) will probably become even more obvious. Motmit (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There probably would be complaints if you just "pressed ahead" in the breakup: as it stands, the sinking is an integral part of the story and many editors would want to see the main article as a "one stop" piece on the whole topic. If size is a problem, why not consider the opposite? If you intend expanding the details of construction, these could form the subsidiary article, completely in the spirit of "giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of detail they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic", as WP:SS puts it. There probably wouldn't be opposition to this, provided too much material wasn't drawn off from here, but it couldn't it go forward without a detailed "blueprint"; it all would have to be done with care. For example, The first two paragraphs of the "Possible factors in the sinking" section deal with construction issues.

You mention "Memorials" and this could be a WP:SS candidate for a trial run, but as it stands it's a bit short. If, however, some of the individual "memorial" articles were folded into it it would be of a more respectable size; each of these mergers would need consultation as well, of course. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That could be done then (memorials). With regard to pressing ahead; I meant detail, not a split. There is a class article, as there should be. But I wanted to make the design and construction sections a bit more specific to Titanic, rather than its sister ship. I'm busy doing some other things at the moment. But in the next few weeks, I'll return and start. As the article expands it might need breaking up. Dapi89 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Current Condition Of Wreck?

I was just wondering does anyone know the current condition of the wreck as of 2010? Would be interesting to know since it's been almost 100 years since Titanic sank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.106.191 (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Noun-verb agreement "Crew"

To over-simplify a complex issue, this depends on whether the collective noun is an "organized" body or not, citing Peters, page 24. As the crew is obviously an organized entity, it should be used with the singular verb. Views, before I do a revert? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

New York Times, request for clarification

The newspaper article (actually a sort of book review) notes that "that six seams opened up in the ship’s bow plates...end[ing] close to where the rivets transit[ed] from iron to steel", but this is used as a reference (inter alia) for "the most extensive and finally fatal damage the Titanic sustained, at boiler rooms No. 5 and 6, was done in an area where steel rivets were used" in the article. Tagged as "not in reference given", pending clarification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The text in the NYT article is somewhat imprecise, but Fig. 3 shows clearly the boundaries between steel and iron riveted parts and the position of the sixth leak! Hence it is an online available reference for the second statement. --DFoerster (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

and besides, one can only say this was a region where steel rivets were indicated in the plans. As mentioned in the book, iron was found in more than one location where steel was indicated in the plans. I do not know whether they were steel or iron, and neither does anyone else now alive. DForester seems to lack impartiality. - Tim Foecke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.180.141 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If one of the cited authors doesn't know (and thanks for finding the time to keep an eye on developments here), perhaps the article is indeed being a bit too definite, further than the references warrant. I'll wait for the response from User:DFoerster requested in "Category:Engineering failures", above. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Engineering failures

The Category:Engineering failures has been removed from this article. I believe the loss was due to an engineering failure - the use of substandard wrought iron sheets and rivets in the construction of the ship, which ultimately led to the loss of Titanic. Should the removal be undone? Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The vessel was lost by an accident. It is true that the wrought iron rivets in the bow were not of highest quality, but the crucial damage at the boiler rooms was done in an area, where steel rivets were used. It is not obvious, how wrought iron rivets, even of better quality, could have withstood these stresses. Even Tim Foecke does not claim the vessel could have survived with better wrought iron rivets. Furthermore, the substandard rivets worked well in Olympic's bow for 24 years! My understanding of enineering failure is something else! --DFoerster (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DFoerster; you're right. Olympic did not collide with a huge iceberg Mr Foerster. Recent studies have attributed the breaking of the rivets, thus the splitting of the iron panels, to the sinking. It was the fact that too much slag had been mixed with the iron making it weak. The freezing waters would have encouraged the iron to become more brittle, expounding an already dangerous problem. Less an engineering failure, more of a construction failure. Dapi89 (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This view is somewhat too simple: the major part of the rivets of Titanic's shell plating were steel rivets, not wrought iron rivets. Only the wrought iron rivets in the bow and stern region had this slag problem. The biggest gash in Titanic's hull at the boiler rooms 5 & 6 was in an area, where steel rivets were used. Hence the forces involved in the collision were high enough to break even steel rivets. Have you really read the book McCarty, Jennifer Hooper; Foecke, Tim (2008). What Really Sank the Titanic: New Forensic Discoveries ? Finally, these authors do not claim Titanic would have survived with better rivets, just that she would have floated longer (without any numerical estimation or further explanation). However, what is most important: the vessel was not constructed to survive a high speed collison with an iceberg, hence it was no engineering failure that it did not. The vessel was constructed to float in any wheather and to survive a standard T-bone collision or grounding. Olympic proved that this was the case. --DFoerster (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the bow section contained slag/iron rivets, and it was the bow region that sustained contact damage. I have never claimed to have read such a book, so no, I havn't really read the book. I am pointing out what some studies have reported, not what all studies, including differences between those factions that except the slag explanation in part, have said. So steel rivets were used entirely? Below the waterline? Does the work comment on this? Please clarify. Ships at that time were not designed for impact with anything sizeable and Olympic's survival was luck. Nonetheless a conning tower did a lot of damage. Dapi89 (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not only the bow region sustained iceberg damage, the forward part of the midship section was also damaged. There were six major leaks in total. The first five were spread over the first four compartments (bow section), while the sixth leak affected compartment five and six (amidships), being the largest one with respect to length and area (for an overwiew you can look e.g. into the german article). Titanic was riveted with a hydraulic riveting machine wherever possible and hand-riveted in places where the use of the heavy riveting machine was not applicable. For hydraulic riveting steel rivets were used, while for hand-riveting wrought iron rivets gave better average quality of the joints. As result, the forward and aft fifth of Titanic's shell plating was held together by wrought iron rivets, while for the part in between it were steel rivets. Hence the wrought iron rivets were used only in the first and last four compartments. As mentioned before, the largest leak was in compartment five and six, i. e. where steel rivets were used. As also steel rivets gave way for a massive leak, it is not obvious that slightly better wrought iron rivets in the four forward compartments would have resulted in a considerably reduced leak area. The book I mentioned was written by the metallurgists who analysed the rivets (Foecke, McCarty). These are the authors who claim that Titanic sank because of the wrought iron rivets. But the book is much better than one would expect by the title and this unqualified statement. Olympic's survival was not luck (OK, maybe in the case of the torpedo which did not explode), she survived the collisions, and the many years in the harsh north atlantic because she was designed to do so. Of course she was not designed to survive a collision with an iceberg, but I would be very astonished if that would be the case for today's vessels. But back to the wrought iron rivets in the Olympic-class: In Simon Mills' RMS Olympic - The Old Reliable an image on page 46 shows the bent plates in Olympic's bow after the sinking of U103. There was no leak in the plating after the event; hence these bad rivets could be substantially loaded without giving way. The truth is not always that easy as it seems for authors needing a sensational headline. --DFoerster (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail. I think I'll hunt fot that book? Is it possible for you to cite some of this in the meantime? I'm assuming you have it to hand. Dapi89 (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that boiler rooms 5 and 6 were where steel rivets were SUPPOSED to be used. We found iron in where the plans said steel in 2 places on the ship, so there is no guarantee that they were in fact steel. To get the ship done, they had to increase the rate of riveting. To do that, with only two hydraulic riveters available, they had to add guys and hammers. For them, they needed iron rivets (they are soft enough to hand-hammer). As for the Olympic comparison - you can't compare two completely different collisions. Titanic had a long, scraping bumping impact. Olympic hit things at right angles (nearly). This very particular impact exploited this particular flaw. A million to one shot. As for staying afloat longer, it's in the book. If the rivets had been, on average, stronger, fewer seams would have opened upon impact, fewer compartments would have flooded (or would have flooded slower), and a few more hours would have meant rescue. Ours is only a theory, and we presented the evidence we developed, which is the best available to date. If you have another idea AND the evidence to back it up, and not pure speculation, go for it. - Tim Foecke

Hello Tim. Thank you for your imput. Some very interesting information about the rivets; the plans say steel, but the evidence (in part) says iron. Good information to mull over. I appreciate your honesty in that what you have is mostly theory. Nevertheless, any light that can be shed by informed research is welcome.

It'll be interesting to see see DFoerster's response. Dapi89 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see Tim Foecke replying here! Olympic's most interesting damage regarding the wrought iron rivets in the bow was the collision with U103. It was a quite glancing blow, buckling some plates without creating a leak, as mentioned in Mills' book. This fact, together with the good service of Olympic gives the impression, that, despite their quality problems, these rivets were sufficient for normal service conditions. Thus I refuse the statement that Titanic sank due to an engineering failure. Regarding the rivet material at boiler rooms 5 and 6, it is very speculative to assume that the actual material deviated from that in the plans. Omitting such speculations, we must conclude that the pressure applied to the hull during the iceberg collision was sufficient to open seams even where steel rivets were used. We could expect, of course, less damage in the forward four compartments when higher quality iron rivets would have been used as pointed out in Foecke's book. But to estimate the effect on the sinking time is not easy, one has to make assumptions. Let's assume six (nearly) separate contacts, creating six leaks, as proposed in the Garzke paper. In this case we could again expect six leaks, opening the first six compartments. But now with a decrased leak area for the first five leaks in the first four compartments. Now I have no resources or knowledge to give a reasonable estimate for the reduction of the leak area. Using the results of the Bedford&Hacket paper, there was an initial flow rate of 265 tons/min into the first four compartments. Let's just approximate the outcome for a leak area reduction in the four forward compartments by a factor of two: We would be left with 132 tons/min in the first four compartments and 267 tons/min total, still much more than the 28 tons/min maximum pumping power. Using the flooding diagram on page 193 in the Bedford&Hacket paper, we could estimate that Condition C4 would be reached not more than one hour later than it had been. So, easily spoken, a reduction of the leak area in the first four compartments by a factor of two would have given about one hour extra time only (using the above assumption that still all four compartments would have been opened). Not enough for the Carpathia to arrive. This is just approximation and assumption, but I can't find anything numerical in Foecke's book. Finally, I want to mention a remark of Bedford&Hacket on page 182: "This is not the place to debate the recent proposition that the damage was aggrevated by the vulnerability of the steel to brittle fracture because, even if the blows were glancing, the effect of 50,000 tons hitting at 20 knots would result in significant punturing when each contact was over a relatively small area." The paper is from 1996, hence the steel plates were the object of debates, not the rivets. But this statement of naval architects encourages my refusal to assume that the leak in compartments 5 and 6 originated from iron rivets being used contrary to the riveting plan. Regarding a theory, I don't need one, as it seems to be simple: Titanic collided with the iceberg at such a high speed that, even for a glancing blow, the pressure applied to the shell plating was sufficient to create fatal damage, even if she had been entirely made out of the best material available at that time. This does not mean that I want to forego such interesting things like the analysis of Titanic's rivets or steel. --DFoerster (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on this, but I'm confused by "We could expect, of course, less damage in the forward four compartments when higher quality iron rivets would have been used". The article makes specific comparison between the tensile strength of the steel (centre section) and the iron (bow and stern) rivets, and steel is the stronger. Am I missing something obvious here? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the main topic is the slag content in the iron rivets analysed. There were 48 rivets retrieved from the wreck site, mostly iron rivets. Analysis showed a too high slag content, making them brittle. And there was also archive research done by the authors, showing that there was a shortage of high quality iron during Titanic's construction. I'm at work now and have no sources ready, hence I can give no further details. I don't know where exactly these 48 rivets are from, but they can't be from the buried area where the leak is. There were 3 million rivets holding the hull together and some additional millions inside Titanic. As it would have been too difficault to remove rivets out of the hull, it is very likely that these rivets are failed ones out of the debris. And as a high slag content makes it probable for a rivet to fail under load, it becomes more probable to find a rivet with a high slag content when one analyses failed ones. Regarding the material shortage I could image, that an experienced shipbuilder (at least I would do so without being a shipbuilder) would use rivets of poorer quality, when obliged to, in less important areas than shell plating below the waterline. --DFoerster (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, still confused by the seeming contradiction, but I'm happy to wait until you can access your sources. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, another try: It would have been the optimum when steel rivets would have been used for the entire hull. But, for some reasons, H&W used iron rivets in bow and stern. There were 48 rivets from Titanic's wreck site recovered and analysed. Many of the iron rivets had a too high slag content, making them brittle. Hence McCarty and Foecke assumed, backed up by archive research, that many bad iron rivets should have been distributed over the iron riveted sections. These brittle iron rivets are assumed as starting points of seam separation during the collision. McCarty and Foecke therefore concluded, that the use of inferior iron by H&W had a significant contribution to the extend of Titanic's leaks. In my reply above I just followed this theory and estimated the change in sinking time for the case that better rivets (insert what you want: good iron vs. brittle iron or even iron vs. steel) in the bow would have reduced the leak area by a factor of two. This number is without any justification, its just to demonstrate that the leak area reduction needed to be much larger than factor 2 in order to save those onboard. I see no contradiction so far, maybe I don't explain it properly? --DFoerster (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it at last: thanks for your patience. Mentally, I'm substituting an "if" for a "when" in the sentence "less damage in the forward four compartments when higher quality iron rivets would have been used". Works for me, anyhow. Now, does anything still need to be done to fix the article? --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably the problem is that my english is not the best... What you have interpreted as vandalism seems to be a reply of Tim Foecke or at least of someone who claims to be him. It seems that he is not used to Wikipedia. I add the reply here, because I'm confused now, too: "We found iron rivets in place of the specified steel ones in 2 out of 2 identifiable riveted sections recovered, plus the board brought on line an additional *24* iron rivet suppliers when they fell behind in riveting, beyond the regular 2 suppliers. These two facts strongly suggest that a large proportion of the ship has substituted iron rivets, and are not "very speculative" and are not to be glibly dismissed." What me confuses now is that I can't find this claims in the book. Regarding the types of rivets in the hull, I found on page 148: "Steel rivets were found in the portholes, some bulkheads, and the hull. Of the six hull rivets that have been salvaged (identified by their size and location), five are steel and one is wrought iron. The five steel rivets are those retrieved intact from the Big Piece, while the wrought iron hull rivet is, in fact, only a head, breaking along the shaft before its recovery from the wreck site. The wrought iron hull rivet contained a whopping 9 percent slag." So here is at least one section where steel rivets should have been and steel rivets were found, a contradiction to the above statement. Also I can't find any remark to the rivet substitution in this book. Hence, to my opinion, the sentence Despite this, the most extensive and finally fatal damage the Titanic sustained, at boiler rooms No. 5 and 6, was done in an area where steel rivets were used. is substantially back up by the given sources. Despite the comments posted here by someone who claims to be Tim Foecke but can be anyone else, there are no sources available to back up the rivet substitution theory. Regarding the rivets I don't see the need to change the article, but to remove the "not in citation given" at the end, because the figure in this source unambiguously shows the statement. What should be added is the newer analysis of the steel plates done by Tim Foecke, also published in this book. As conclusion of this analysis is given: "These results seem to prove that the steel was not of inferior quality - it had sufficent fracture toughness, well within typical modern fracture values, even at ice-brine temperatures. This is tangrible confirmation that the fracture behaviour of Titanic steel was rate sensitive, possessing ductile qualities at slower rates and brittle qualities as fast loading rates." This contradicts the older results by H. P. Lighly that the steel was not suitable for low temperatures. I will try to read this chapter carefully and add the information to the article as soon as possible. --DFoerster (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Claims to be him": The ISP for Tim's signed edits checks out; not so the reshuffle (see below). --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mixed-up edits

To expand the page history summary in my last: the edit was to revert a re-shuffle of some paragraphs which seemed to have inserted comments from one editor into the contribution of another. As the editors concerned seemed to be advancing opposed views it seemed to be vandalism.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Scheduled Arrival

I didn't see the scheduled arrival time in New York anywhere on the article. From Googling, I was able to find that it was 17 April, but I don't have any kind of official source for that — it was just a discussion forum I found it in. If someone has a source for it, that should probably get a quick mention in the article somewhere. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is true, the Titanic was due to arrive in New York on Wednesday April 17th. Some speculate that in an effort to show the possible speed of the Olympic class that the Titanic was going to arrive on Tuesday night. However realistically if the Titanic was going to do any speed run it would've did a one day full speed run on Monday or Tuesday to see what the Olympic class was really capable of. Due to how ships were docked in New York at the time, had the Titanic arrived on Tuesday night, it would've had to anchor off quarantine for until the morning, and that most likely would've just angered passengers as they could see NYC in the distance but still be stuck on ship. The Titanic was then due to sail back to Southampton on the 20th.TheMadcapSyd (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Curse"

Propose a delete of this section. I don't think it adds anything. Baron Nicholas (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lifeboats

I've removed the following text...

"There was also a fifth lifeboat that was used in the evacuation process, Lifeboat E. Due to the location of the lifeboat on the port side of the first deck, away from the others, it was used for only a select member of upper class passengers and 4 crew members. [1]"

... from the bullet items "Lifeboats A, B, C and D:" in the section "Lifeboats". The reference does not mention a Lifeboat E. Nor have I encountered anywhere in my over 20 years of interest in the Titanic any reference to a 21st lifeboat.

From the authors description of the occupants of this phantom Lifeboat E, it appears the he or she may have confused Lifeboat #1, the starboard emergency cutter, with a 21st Lifeboat E. Although actually contained five passengers and seven crewmembers.

Also corrected "not connected to the falls" to "connected to the falls" in the first paragraph after the bullet list. This appears to have been a simple typo, as the author later notes, correctly, that collapsables A through D were NOT connected to the falls. Wjl2 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I've never heard anything about a 21st boat and all official documents (IIRC) White Star provided said there were only 20. --Shadow (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Lightoller's account

Not sure if this is already included but the daugher of the highest ranking surviving officer recently came out with his version of events: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100922/lf_nm_life/us_britain_titanic_book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.16.68 (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is discussed in the Good As Gold section just above this one. 199.86.19.223 (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpretation

According to this article http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/23/secret-blunder-sank-famous-titanic/?test=latestnews Titanic really sank becaust Robert Hichins turned the wrong way and Ismay ordered that the ship continue sailing, accelerating the ship's sinking. Shouldn't this bee mentioned? Emperor001 (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Check out the three sections immediately above this one. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of sinking

There have been many instances of changing the date from 15 April to 14 April and then the change being reverted. 15 April is given because (as far as I can tell) that was the date according to a) ship time, and b) the date in the UK at the time of the sinking. In the USA and Canada, the time was late in the evening of 14 April. I propose to expand the edit note to cover this issue, but welcome suggestions of suitable wording to include. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The explanation at "Note a" (at the time of posting) seems to cover the point, but it may be too detailed for an inline "note to editors". Would "more in Note a, below" be any better? --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The revised lede seems to cover the situation well. Hopefully this will end the arguments. Mjroots (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this was even an issue. It was April 15th in all relevant time zones at the time of the sinking. At 2:20 AM ship's time, it would have been 12:20 AM New York, & Washington D.C. time. And 4:20 AM London Time, all on April 15th, 1912.--Subman758 (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Alicia Doucet was the one who took all of the life jackets for herself and survived!!! She swam to shore and survived! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.32.120 (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC) As pending changes is not currently implemented pending further discussion of the trial, I've returned the article to Semi-protection for six months. It is too high a profile and is attracting too much vandalism, despite the edit notice. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with semi-protection (move protection is fine). Your definition of "too much vandalism" may vary from mine, but I simply don't believe that some 5 odd reverts in the last fifty contributions is "too much vandalism". I don't know if you have another agenda in respect of pending changes Mjroots, and frankly don't care, but I'd like you to clarify why you see disenfranchising IP editors from contributing to a popular article is a good idea. Pedro :  Chat  19:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a particular agenda re pending changes, although I think it is generally a good idea in that it allows IPs greater access to editing articles. In this particular case, we do have a high-profile article which has been subject to much vandalism in the past. As I noted in the edit summary, once it has been decided what to do with pending changes (hopefully it will be implemented), the I'm happy for the article to be put back under pending changes and to allow IP editors to edit the article. Not all IPs are vandals, although the greater majority of vandals are IPs. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, firstly I can't reconcile "I don't have a particular agenda re pending changes" with "I think it is generally a good idea". So, errrr... you do basically have an agenda.... Still, moving on yet again you come up with some personal defenition - this time "subject to much vandalism" - previously "too much vandalism". Call me a git, but exactly what metric are you using for this? I clearly didn't get the email telling me what was "too much" and what was acceptable. If you'd be kind enough to point me to the policy and/or guidleines on what level of vandalism is "too much" that would help a lot. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, I placed the article under semi-protection in good faith. I suggested that you raise the issue at WP level as I was about to go to bed. As you have not done so, I have raised the issue myself at WT:SHIPS#RMS Titanic. I'm happy to be guided by fellow editors over the issue, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedro... sit down and have a cup of tea. Mjroots doesn't have a secret agenda, and there's absolutely no need to bring him out to the woodshed. The protection looks fine to me – there were at least 15 reverts in four days! PC was really helpful in this case... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mjroots tried to unprotect the page last April, but it only lasted four days. Presumably his action on this occasion is guided by experience from that experiment. Suggestion that he is acting "with an agenda" seems unfair, in the circumstances. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This page should stay indefinitely protected, agree with Mjroots. Tommy! 12:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested heading changes

I believe it would aid set-out and editing if we changed Sinking to be a new section instead of a subsection under 'Ship's history'. Then we could treat crucial stages of the sinking as simple subsections, eg, 'Iceberg sighted', 'Bridge response', 'Damage', 'Distress signals', etc, and maybe include 'Engines stopped' to include the contrary allegation that the vessel proceeded at "Slow ahead' for ten minutes. Such a revised format would also enable us to handle a fuller exposition of the alleged steering error (and cover-up) without further complicating the present overburdened section. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In this article or to the article "Timeline of the sinking of RMS Titanic"? SlowJog (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right--I, er, hadn't looked there--no point in duplicating. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed new crackpot theory

Prior to the 1930 Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea, it was the normal procedure for steamship officers giving steering orders to follow sailing ship tiller practice. To turn to port (left) the tiller would be pushed to starboard (right.) An emergency maximum turn to port would be ordered as "helm hard a-starboard", which is what happened that night. There was no new mechanism, no new procedure and no confusion; all was the way it had always been, and would remain for another 18 years after this accident. Every few months some gold digger tries to make a fortune from some amazing new theory about this ship. Let's see some reputable maritime sources for this and any other wild-eyed new ideas. Novelists don't make it. Rumiton (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this new claim is bumpkin. The fact remains, that 2nd Officer Lightoller was not even on the bridge, but rather in his bunk when the ship hit the berg. Also the notion that there was confusion between operating a Helm, and a tiller is ridiculous. Helms on large ships had been around for at least 200 years prior to the Titanic's construction. I believe this was an attempt to smear Robert Hitchens good name. I personally don't understand why, her grandfather was already a hero that night. I feel the real Jack-Ass of that evening was J. Bruce Ismay, the fool had to order the captain to steam full speed ahead, and then like a coward runs from the sinking ship, to cower again another day.--Subman758 (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I wouldn't get into the problematic role of an onboard company director, but White Star passenger ship officers were the best they had, they all had master's certificates, and the helmsmen they picked were the best, too. And he would be double-checked by the officer of the watch for correct wheel response. It ticks me off to hear them accused of kindergarten mistakes like this. I have been contacted on my talk page by a user called Froid, who doesn't seem to have a talkpage to reply on. Froid is upset by my deletion and wants to discuss. He/she is welcome to drop by here. Rumiton (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I'm slightly confused. Wikipedia removes references from a woman who's a relative of a member of the Titanic's crew whose claim has been reported widely in news media (online, television, radio, etc.) And yet it includes a story about a mummy's curse. Could someone please explain this to me? Alden Loveshade (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just in case anyone wonders, yes I did read the discussions above. Alden Loveshade (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You do have a point. I can only remark that the mummy's curse seems self-evidently nutso, and is included to show the kind of popular hysteria this maritime accident still generates. The novelist is claiming insider (hearsay) information known only to her and her deceased grandmother, and making accusations of gross negligence or incompetence against highly qualified and professional seamen for the purpose of advertising her book. Her "evidence" makes the mummy's curse look good. Rumiton (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In agreement with the above. The tale sounds like hokum, - on somebody's part - though not necessarily Patten, herself. However, there are a couple of related questions. (1) Are there references which can verify which direction the rudder actually moved - when the Titanic's wheel was turned ? In other words, how was the telemotor gear set to operate ? - and (2) Are there any reliable references that White Star company's rules, or Captain's standing orders, for bridge management actually specified a procedure for helm orders, aboard Titanic ? (given the potential for confusion, it would seem negligent to have had none). Norloch (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no potential for confusion at the time. As I said above, the 1930 Rules were the first to change the steering orders to what we have today. The Titanic was steered by sailing ship orders, as were all steamships of her day, and for many years after. The movie Titanic got a lot of things right, and this was one of them. Watch it and see the helmsman spinning the wheel to the right to turn the ship's head to port. Weird and confusing to us, but normal Merchant Navy and Royal Navy procedure back then. I don't know where you would find sources for this, but I will have a look. Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a site that discusses the problem. http://www.amsea.org/pdf/v15n2p6.pdf Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And here is the wording of the 1930 Rule: Helm Orders

The Contracting Governments agree that after midnight on the 30th June, 1931, helm or steering orders, i.e., orders to the steersman, shall on all their ships be given in the direct sense, e.g., when the ship is going ahead an order containing the word “starboard” or “right” or any equivalent of “starboard” or “right” shall only be used when it is intended, on ships as at present generally constructed and arranged, that the wheel, the rudder-blade and the head of the ship, shall all move to the right. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged for the info, Rumiton. Still not sure that there wasn't some potential for confusion - unless it could be shown that the 'tiller helm order' was a universal convention of the time. (Although it may not have applied specifically on Titanic - there were, sometimes, significant numbers of foreign seamen employed on British ships). Indeed, the fact that the authorities did standardize the rules in 1931 suggests there had been a history of confusion associated with the practice.

That was my reason for posing the question about Titanic's telemotor set-up. If there was a stubborn insistence upon sticking to the old convention, it might have been more logical to arrange the telemotor pipework so that the wheel operated in the same way as a 'tiller'. That would have been 'fail safe' and eliminated any need for the helmsman to interpret the orders he was given.Norloch (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a logical practice, in 1912 it was already ancient and hidebound, like many other things British people of the day cherished, but it was not an "old convention." It was entirely current. And there is no evidence that Titanic was built to any other than a very conventional design, and this was the well-understood way a ship was steered in 1912 and for years afterwards. To this day when a deck officer gives a steering command he listens to the seaman repeat the order, then steps back and watches to see that he is turning the wheel the correct way, and then sees that the rudder indicator is showing that the mechanism is producing the right result. To do less is to be seriously negligent, then and now. This would have been even more the case in the unlikely event that Titanic had a peculiarity in her steering design. Rumiton (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Rumiton - but you're describing ideal circumstances, not actual circumstances. The reference, which you thoughtfully supplied, details something of the actual circumstances (it's headed - Navigational chaos due to helm orders). - Mind you, I still agree that Patten's assertion is hokum - at least, insofar as she has interpreted the tale. Her conclusions appear to be based solely on a second-hand version of something which Lightoller may have mentioned, years after the event - not what Lightoller actually said. -That's why it's worthwhile checking primary sources ( though, so far, I haven't been able to find much detailed info. about Titanic's steering systems.) Norloch (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Some iron

"Rivets of 'best best' iron had a tensile strength approximately 80% of that of steel, 'best' iron some 73%." The use of the word some here is not the best choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.7 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a clumsy sentence, possibly lifted verbatim from the source, thanks for picking it. "of that of" isn't too good either. I have tried to smooth it out a bit. Rumiton (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

New novel Good as Gold

This novel about "a fortune in [a] Titanic lifeboat" (thanks, Amazon) is being used as a source for extravagant claims about the already covered tiller orders issue. Fiction shouldn't be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles and I propose a revert to the previous version, cited from the BoT enquiry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, no objections: going for it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Althought Good as Gold is fiction, the author claims her grandfather was an officer aboard the Titanic. News organizations are picking up her claim that her grandfather kept secret the story that the ship was initially steered in the wrong direction. 206.53.193.125 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OM: You've no right to simply misrepresent and delete the new disclosures by Patten which clearly have a claim to validity beyond their being included in a work of fiction.

As a teenager in the 1960s, Patten was let in on a secret by her beloved grandmother, which, if revealed, she was warned, would result in two things. The first was awful – it would destroy the good name of her dead grandfather, Charles Lightoller, awarded the DSC with Bar in the First World War, and a hero again for his part in the evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940. But the second would change history, overturning the authorised version of one of the world’s greatest disasters, the sinking of the Titanic with the loss of 1517 lives in April 1912.

(This citation was provided and also deleted by you.) OK, it is hearsay, and there must be a question about why any honourable person would maintain such a public-interest secret for so long after the death of Lightoller (and the demise of the White Star Line). However, there are some material facts and reputable (newspaper) sources here for the report. So, imho, it's necessary for Patten's allegation of conspiratorial secrecy to be included in the article. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

References for consideration (added by Bjenks):

• The truth about the sinking of the Titanic. Peter Stanford, The Daily Telegraph, 22 Sep 2010

• “Titanic sunk by steering blunder, new book claims, Richard Alleyne, The Daily Telegraph, 21 Sep 2010

• Titanic ship was steered into iceberg claims book author at Mirror.co.uk

The reputable sources are reporting the issue of a new novel in an entirely reputable fashion. What they aren't doing is reporting reliable information about the sinking. What's the source? It's hearsay—a family story told by a then-teenager's grandmother. Why is the tale being revealed only now? To gain publicity for a new novel about banking written by a former banker. Neither hearsay nor works of fiction can be used as sources for Wikipedia.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started a thread on the WP:RSN for further views: see Reliable Sources Noticeboard: "RMS Titanic and 'Good as Gold' ". --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (as I already said above) it's hearsay. But so also is much of the source material for this article. If it is really fictitious, so also might be various lines manufactured and sustained to protect the vested interests of the ship's owners and other parties. Who really knows, now that all the witnesses are dead? But does that mean all third-party information has to be dismissed and suppressed? I think not. The article should record the very plausible 'secret' that was passed down and recalled by Lightoller's grand-daughter. Patten has presented a very plausible explanation for the family's long-term suppression of their 'secret'. WP should not appear to endorse the information, merely to record it. It is quite improper to dismiss the information as pure fiction simply because it was released in connection with the publication of a novel. Are we to similarly dismiss Dickens's accounts of workhouse abuses, debtors' prisons, etc, on the grounds that they appeared in novels? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing between noting that the information exists and endorsing it as true is an important point, agreed. This brings in another consideration: to condense the issue somewhat, and without intending any slight on Louise Patten or her publicists, can the release of the story be regarded as a notable event in Wikipedia terms, or should it be regarded as recentism—documenting controversy as it happens—and soon to be forgotten? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE and inappropriate for all of the reasons Old Moonraker has mentioned. Please lets not turn this into another conspiracy theory page. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 15:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dismissing the story of Louise Patten by calling her a gold digger or by saying this story is an attempt to get publicity for her book is an ad hominem response. This story might have really existed in her family, and she might really believe this it should be revealed at this time. However, the decision not to update the article with this is a good one. Hers is a story that is at best 4th hand. Human memory has flaws, and stories change over time or when passed from person to person. Did any of the survivors, shortly after the sinking, report that they felt the ship turn to the right, then the left? SlowJog (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no current or historical corroberation for any aspect of her story. See following sections. Rumiton (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dogs who made it alive off the Titanic

Moved to here from WT:Talk page guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Titanic museum (Branson, MO) stated three dogs survived. This article has that two survived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.10.102 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

British / American disparity of survivors

The article as it stands misses out on a potentially enriching statistic found in various sources. The much-discussed British / American disparity between survivors is wildly uneven in its distribution between women and men.

The article currently suggests that the British formed a queue while the Americans got on the lifeboats. It should instead suggest that the British followed the 'Women and Children First' policy much more than their US counterparts.

A rephrasing of the relevant section could be:

Another disparity is that a greater percentage of British passengers died than Americans; some sources suggest it was because Britons of the time were polite and followed the 'Women and Children First' policy more rigidly than their American counterparts, rather than forcing their way onto the lifeboats. The captain Edward John Smith was shouting: "Be British, boys, be British!" as the liner went down.[64][65]

It has the advantage of affording fuller meaning to the quote from captain Edward John Smith that follows. 78.129.250.29 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

mistake in quote

I see the article quotes the white star line vice president as saying I thought her unsinkable and I based by [sic] opinion on the best expert advice available. I do not understand it.[143]

Does anyone here seriously suggest the man actually said "by" rather than "my" when he spoke, rather than this being a typo from the newspaper which is being reproduced in our article? If it is a newspaper typo then it is not appropriate that we continue it since it is a mis-quote.Sandpiper (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Silly. Fixed. Rumiton (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Claim that ships should not have been made from steel

The article says:The recovered samples were found to be undergoing ductile-brittle transition in temperatures of 90 °F (32 °C) for longitudinal samples and 133 °F (56 °C) for transversal samples, compared with transition temperature of −17 °F (−27 °C) common for modern steels: modern steel would only become so brittle in between −76 °F and −94 °F (−60 °C and −70 °C). Titanic's steel, although "probably the best plain carbon ship plate available at the time", was thus unsuitable for use at low temperatures.[118]

Isnt this rather a perverse conclusion? How can you argue that the best available steel in the world was unsuitable for making ships? What exactly would have been used instead, or should no steel ships have ever been made until modern steel was available? Steel ships were enormously successful.Sandpiper (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a direct quote from the article cited. "The steel used in constructing the RMS Titanic was probably the best plain carbon ship plate available in the period of 1909 to 1911, but it would not be acceptable at the present time for any construction purposes and particularly not for ship construction. Whether a ship constructed of modern steel would have suffered as much damage as the Titanic in a similar accident seems problematic. Navigational aides exist now that did not exist in 1912; hence, icebergs would be sighted at a much greater distance, allowing more time for evasive action. If the Titanic had not collided with the iceberg, it could have had a career of more than 20 years as the Olympic had. It was built of similar steel, in the same shipyard, and from the same design. The only difference was a big iceberg." Shinerunner (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

which does not say that the steel used was unsuitable in 1910. It only says it would be considered unsuitable in 2010. This seems to be saying that in 1910 it was the most suitable material? Sandpiper (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Diverging slightly from Sandpiper's original point: the recovered sample under discussion wasn't typical of the steel used in the vessel, so the conclusion that steel "unsuitable for use at low temperatures" was used for construction isn't valid. The point's discussed lower down, but it doesn't have the same prominence. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone tried to operate Titanic today, they would be in strife for hundreds of design and construction criteria; metallurgy would be just one of them. This is a Red herring and just another attempt by some researcher to be clever and find something new and sensational to point a finger at. The designers were not negligent in their choice of steel. End of story. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So: does "unsuitable" in the article need to be adjusted to reflect all this?--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Rumiton (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision to footnote 52 in RMS Titanic article

For footnote 52, under RMS Titanic, it says Titanic: The Lifeboat Launching Sequence Re-Examined, by Bill Wormstedt, Tad Fitch and George Behe". http://home.comcast.net/~bwormst/titanic/lifeboats/lifeboats.htm. Retrieved 2010-03-04.

The correct URL is http://wormstedt.com/Titanic/lifeboats/lifeboats.htm. Same article, same authors. The Comcast.net address is no longer being used, and will deleted at some time in the future.

Bwormst (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Bill Wormstedt

Thanks for the "heads up". How important is this reference to the article? I only ask because, as the website editor acknowledges, it's a self-published work and these generally aren't considered to be suitable sources here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The corrected URL is a longer, updated version of an article that WAS published in the Titanic Commutator (quarterly magazine of the Titanic Historical Society), in #155, published in 2001. How important? Critical to the issue of when the lifeboats were lowered and in what order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.70.23.45 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Previous unsigned comment by Bwormst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwormst (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Belfast, Ulster, Ireland

Marker10, please stop reverting edits to the article. Irish provinces are never used in location references in this way. Any arguments about Ulster formerly being "pretty much its own country" are irrelevant, because the phrase "Belfast, Ulster, Ireland" is stylistically redundant. There is no need for the "Ulster" here. (In fact there is no need for the "Ireland" there either, to make the article conform to the infobox styles on Titanic's sister ships' articles)

Please refer to other historical pages in relation to Northern Ireland, to see how place names are laid out. If you begin to edit-war, it will soon be seen as vandalism, I suspect.☮KEYS767☮ ^talk 23:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Titanic's Hull Fracture

Here we see a hull fracture on Titanic's starboard side near the mail room. Titanic's hull is covered in rusticles, which are causing massive corrosion to the Ship. To see a picture and read more please visit..http://promenade.expeditiontitanic.com/blog/1-expedition-news/62-hull-fracture-picture-of-titanic.html

Along410 (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsinkable

"I thought her unsinkable and I based my opinion on the best expert advice available. I do not understand it." -- P.A.S. Franklin, Vice President of the White Star Line. According to the article, "[t]his comment was seized upon by the press and the idea that the White Star Line had previously declared Titanic to be unsinkable (without qualification) gained immediate and widespread currency."

If Mr. Franklin believed the ship to be unsinkable, then, logically, he had to believe that BEFORE she sank. So, if he believed the ship unsinkable before the accident, others probably did too. In the A & E special on the Titanic, Eva Hart tells about her mother's reaction to the claim that ship was unsinkable, describing it as "flying in the face of God."John Paul Parks (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

To add onto this, according to Snopes, there was a flyer from White Star that was unearthed by the 1993 issue of The Titanic Commutator that advertised the Titanic (and the Olympic) as being unsinkable.[1]

"...as far as it is possible to do so, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable." --Know Your Role, Jabroni! (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Women/Children/Men disparity of survivors

There is a section in the article dedicated to the preferential survival of first class > second class > third class, but no section describing the preferential survival of women > children > men. The lack of a table showing survivor percentages based on sex and also broken down into children and adults is the single largest shortcoming of this page entry. "Women and children first" was the cal of the day, and to show that this policy was rather strictly adhered to would illustrate the nature of 1900's cultural attitudes towards gender.

In the german version of this article is a more detailed table. So the required information is available. Feel free to add them if you see the need. --DFoerster (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

First Class Windows From Titanic's Wreck Site

This photo taken at Titanic’s wreck site displays two windows from first-class cabins. The window on the left leads to Stateroom W, while the window on the right leads to Stateroom U. Historians believe that Staterooms W and U were unoccupied for Titanic’s maiden voyage. See more here Titanic Underwater Photo

Along410 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Titanic is Owned

The Titanic was, and is, a British ship which was British built (Belfast was, and has remained, in the United Kingdom), registered in Liverpool a British city and owned and operated by a British company with a British crew. Never once in its lifetime was the Titanic ever in American waters. Canada is the closest country to the Titanic's resting place. The ship is presently the property of the insurance companies which under-wrote the wreck in 1912. These companies still exist. And of course, nomatter where you keep your property, it is still your property to own and to keep. Could someone please explain, therefore, what on earth a court in the United States, of all places, is doing allowing some of the present-day plunderers of the wreck to actually keep their ill-gotten gains? Shouldn't it be beneath the dignity of such a foreign court to even be asked to do this? (204.112.57.130 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

No they couldn't explain anything - this page is only to be used as a forum for discussing improvements to the article. Richerman (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

How fortunate for them. Shouldn't the points raised here be represented in the Article under the Ownership and Litigation section? (204.112.57.130 (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Wrecks of merchant vessels have traditionally been held to be abandoned in maritime law (contrast naval vessels, which (theoretically) remain the property of their governments), although there is some inconsistency in the application of this rule. Abandoned goods belong to the first possessor ("finders keepers"). If extraterritorial jurisdiction applies in this case, the actions of Americans are subject to U.S. law (whose else?). It may not be a perfect system, but it's what we have.

However, Richerman is correct in that this page is for discussions about the article, not for rants and complaints about the state of the law. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Life Boat #7

In the 'Insufficient Lifeboats' section, it says "For example, Lifeboat #7 launched first, at 00:40 and with only 12 people aboard, despite its capacity of 40", yet in the 'Lifeboats Launched' section, "Lifeboat 7 on the starboard side with 28 people on board out of a capacity of 65." Which one is right? 174.91.94.88 (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Potential active involvement by new folks

We have a group of people who recently worked to bring the SS Edmund Fitzgerald to Good Article and now Featured Article. A big part of our effort was having fun, zero-drama working atmosphere where nothing matters except trying to make the article better and achieve FA. Upon completion of FA, someone asked/suggest that we might come here and actively help work on this article to get it (back) to FA, with the 100th anniversary of the sinking coming up in April 2012. What do y'all think of that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think we'll probably try to do that. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the advantages of having taken Fitz through the FAC process is that once you do one FAC the next one is easier and so on. In a lot of respects Fitz and Titanic are alike. As work begins on this article keeping the ultimate goal of FA in mind will make things a lot smoother. I recall that Fitz had to have a lot of its sources changed after GA in order to meet "high-quality and reliable" sources for FAC.

I just looked over this article and it suffers from weak sources all around but it's not as bad as I had thought it was. I'm aware that this article has had a high level of vandalism and "popular culture" fans wanting to include every bit of silly trivia possible. Brad (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no shortage of good sources on the Titanic so we can fix that. I'll be back in a few weeks to work on it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! North8000 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I just finished reading a Night to Remember and I started another Titanic book. I will focus on strengthening the sources. I agree with Brad that the article does not have that many problems.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts and ideas

Could use a substantial expansion on the collision itself and the damage from the collision

Right now I think that there is just one sentence which has specific information on the above 2 topics. I think we should try to expand that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to gather a number of spin-off articles related to Titanic. Here's what I have so far:

• Titanic alternative theories
• Olympic class ocean liner - Not really a spin-off but should contain the majority of technical, political and construction information.
• Changes in safety practices following the RMS Titanic disaster
• RMS Titanic in popular culture
• List of films about the RMS Titanic
• Timeline of the sinking of RMS Titanic
• List of Titanic passengers
• List of crew members on board RMS Titanic
• Titanic Lifeboat No. 6
• Grand Staircase of the Titanic

I'm sure there are more. The idea being that spin-off articles may contain more information than is already listed here and vice-versa. The Timeline article looks to be very detailed. Brad (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

wow! I noticed that the time line article had a lot of good info. North8000 (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I plan to copy a few sentences on the collision itself from the time line article into this one. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I did it. Section still needs sequencing and tidying, possibly exacerbated by my additions. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The template says that it is in British English, but the article appears to be in American English

Does anybody have any info or thoughts on this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Protocol says British ship British English as American ship American English. This could be an issue if the main editors here don't have a grasp on British English. Brad (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP policy is that if an article was started in Am. English/Br. English and is mostly same, it should remain so regardless of the "nationality" of the subject. Shirtwaist (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll give a quick run-over with a Br Eng spell checker (and reach for the bookshelf any tricky "ship English" appears), but some of the spellings—artifact is one— appear in quotes and should keep to the original. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. There was only one, and even that has its defenders—mostly classical scholars of Greek—as correct British usage. Did you have anything particular in mind? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I just brought it up for clarification (or decision someday) or just to learn the history here. No biggee. Per above we have some new folks planning to help. Not sure where all are from, but the two previous most active editors at the Fitz article are from the west side of the pond. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting the article at this point would likely be a waste of time. A whole lot of information is probably going to be rearranged and changed before long. Brad (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We'll need to do some head scratching when we talk tonnages

We'll need to make sure we do our homework when we talk tonnages. One thing that we slowly figured out during our efforts at Fitz article is the GRT / Gross Registered Tonnage has absolutely nothing to do with actual tonnage. It is a legal number derived from the usable volume of the ship. Displacement deals with real tonnage, although it need qualifiers in order to be non-ambiguous. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC).

I agree that GRT is an ambiguous, legalistic and essentially meaningless term, but displacement isn't much better. A merchant ship's displacement varies greatly with levels of cargo, passengers, fuel, stores and ballast. This subject is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article, IMO best just to minimise refs to tonnage and try not to put in anything too misleading. Overall length and perhaps breadth give a pretty good idea of a ship's size. Rumiton (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There exist fully unambiguous numbers, such as lightweight and deadweight. In case of the Titanic, these were 38,760 long tons resp. 13,550 long tons, resulting in 52,310 long tons displacement at the design draught of 34.58 ft. These are the official H&W data which are still available today. Usually, the displacement at design draught is given, but this should be mentioned somewhere. While it is true that the GRT is an ambiguous number it still is an important indicator for a vessels size. --DFoerster (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You folks are good at this...please stick around here. I was more bringing up an issue to keep in mind rather than having any particular opinion. I guess my one opinion is that tonnage figures should say which of those we referring to. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Sticking around for a while. Light displacement and deadweight are unambiguous, as you say, but need quite a lot of explaining. And GRT...I would say, forget about it. It was really just a term that defined taxation levels and port fees. There were so many exemptions, some of them silly and others downright dangerous (tonnage hatches etc) that it was not really a measure of anything except the owners' willingness to bend the rules. Rumiton (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of dead

Apologies again, for not trawling the archives. This must have been raised before. List of disasters of the United Kingdom and preceding states says this: "1,490 – RMS Titanic sinking, 15 April 1912 (1,517 fatalities per U.S. investigation; 1,490 per British investigation)" but I can see no mention or discussion of the UK figure in Survivors, victims and statistics. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So, is there any source for 1,490 casualties? Or should it be removed? Why a difference of 27? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should tag any questionable numbers until we can get it solidly clarified. North8000 (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The figure of 1490 comes from the British Inquiry ( http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepSaved.php ). The figure of 1517 comes from the US Inquiry ( http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/USReport/AmInqRep03.php#a8 ).WhaleyTim. Discussion of how and why these number differ is probably an article in its own right. (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But in the mean time - should the British Enquiry figure get any mention here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article should at least make it clear that the exact numbers are uncertain and almost certainly unknowable.WhaleyTim (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My opinion would be to say both figures and where they came from....like "the death toll was x,xxx according to aaa, and y,yyy according to bbb" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There are also modern calculations that come with different figures - For example the Encylopedia Titanic gives the figure of 1495 casualties (POB 2207 of whom 712 were rescued) ( http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/ ). There are a number of such estimates to be found. An interesting discussion on this matter can be read here ( http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/csi_titanic_who_died_how.html ). WhaleyTim (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Louise Patten's family secrets

These may well have been discussed before, so before adding to the existing Note 43, I thought it best to raise them here. Loiuse Patten is the grand-daughter of Commander Charles Lightoller, Second Officer on board the Titanic. In this Guardian article of 22 Sept 2010 [2] she describes what were thought of as "family secrets" for 98 years, but which she used as the plot line in a novel. The two secrets, which (through staff loaylty) were never officially reported by Lightoller concerned - first the confusion between rudder orders and tiller orders, and second the decision to keep the ship moving after the collision. The first certainly corroborates the information given by Butler in 1998 which is already given n Note 43. The later supports the disputed claim that the Chairman of White Star Line, Bruce Ismay, refused to stop the ship. So this may be a useful reference to use in the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A very cursory search of the Talk page archive shows that this was mentioned by an anon editor when it was picked up by Reuters last year: [3]. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A long talk page discussion archived here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But not that long, I see that your view is "a new novel about banking written by a former banker". The conclusion to that discussion thread is this: "There is no current or historical corroberation for any aspect of her story." But that contradicts what can currently be found in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is that fiction—it's a novel about missing money—can't be used as a source, particularly when it's new into the bookshops and busy publicists are trying to make a splash in the press. The current reference, "Butler", is a from a factual study of the sinking and it explains tiller orders in some detail. What part of the article is contradictory, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Then your point is misplaced. The novel is not being suggested as a source, but instead Patten's claims of what her grandfather told her. To say "There is no current or historical corroberation for any aspect of her story." (meaning her family oral history, not her novel) is not true, since you say yourself that Butler is a factual study (which supports her claim about orders and wheel movements), and since there are also claims about the ship not stopping (which support her claim about Ismay). I would argue that these suggestions by a grand-daughter are worthy of mention somewhere in the article, if not as a direct set of facts then as notable claims which cannot really be disproven. I have also read the discussion that you raised at [4] and I'm not convinced that this was properly concluded. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Claims...that cannot really be disproven" are nonetheless claims that need a reliable source before getting in. Reports of a family yarn are hearsay, and don't count. Again: what part of the article is contradictory, please?

--Old Moonraker (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

More on hearsay as it applies in this case is here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with OM. This is no less than fourth-hand hearsay - a very tough sell in WP. Seems very - pardon the pun - fishy to me. The only possible way for this kind of thing to get into the article would be for one or more RS providing critical commentary on her "secret" information and its veracity, or lack of same. But even then, anyone favoring its inclusion would have a hard time overcoming WP:UNDUE. Shirtwaist chat 03:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree this would be hearsay in the legal sense and inadmissable in a court of law. And yes they are "fourth-hand" in that all news reports are "second-hand", information told directly by Lightoller to his wife would then be "third-hand", and from grandmother to Patten would be "fouth-hand". But before we interpret these claims, do we agree that the article as it stands mentions and supports two "facts" - that the man at the wheel turned it the wrong way and that the ship did not stop immediately (the latter of these seems to be have been contested or have have conflicting claims to support it). If we do agree this, then I'm saying that the line in the discussion thread "There is no current or historical corroberation for any aspect of her story" is contradicted by what is already in this article. Essentially I am saying Patten has nothing new except that Lightoller kept quiet about the two facts on purpose, or even lied, to save his fellow employees. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Martinevans123, just clarifying, by "did not stop immediately" did you mean that it says that they deliberately kept moving longer? Because a ship of that size would never / can't ever stop immediately. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you are quite right. I think what Patten meant in her claim was that Ismay persuaded Murdoch that the ship should continue sailing on, presumably after the initial engine stop comnmand(s), thus causing water to flow into the ship faster than would otherwise have happened. Currently it's unclear in the article when Captain Smith "ordered a full stop." - was this immediately or after 130 minutes? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm the dummy here....I was just clarifying the question; I don't know the answer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say "the man at the wheel turned it the wrong way"? it's a long piece and I may have missed this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking about this wikipedia article, or about The Guardian news article? I have to admit that the actual words "the man at the wheel turned it the wrong way" appear in neither. But I was referring to Note 43 in this article, which has the quote from Butler (1998), and to paragraphs 8 and 9 in The Guardian article.

However, I think hat I may have been jumping to conclusions. I need to take a step back before we asses what Patten has claimed. The section on “Tiller Orders” in the Tiller article seems to have more detail about the Titanic sequence of eventsc than does this article, which seems strange. But can we first agree the basic sequence of events? (sorry to be going over old ground for you).

• 1. First Officer Murdoch was told that the iceberg was straight ahead.
• 2. Murdoch wanted to avoid the iceberg by turning the ship to the left, i.e. a turn towards “port” side.
• 3. To do this he issued the tiller order “hard-a-starboard”.
• 4. The helmsman Hitchins heard this command clearly and correctly interpreted it as a tiller order. Because he was holding a wheel and not a tiller he thus correctly moved the wheel hard over towards left, i.e. an anti-clockwise turn.
• 5. The ship correctly moved towards the left, which is what Murdoch and Hitchins had both intended.

Is this the agreed sequence of actual events? Is this what our article is trying to say? Is this all fully supported by eyewitness accounts and/or evidence from the official investigation? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, point 4 is wrong: The helmsman had nothing to interpret. The rudder worked inversely (just read note 43). Thus, the helmsman moved the wheel to the right (or starboard). So there was no possibility of confusion. Also point 1 is not really sure. In the US inquiry hearings Mr Fleet claimed Well, she started to go to port while I was at the telephone. This would suggest that the iceberg was first seen by Murdoch. Additionally, it is quite sure, that Murdoch tried a porting around menoeuvre, so there were more rudder orders than just the hard-a-starborad. --DFoerster (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I really am confused. Note 43 tells us that the rudder went left, i.e. port, not starboard. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake: I wrote rudder instead of wheel. Now I see, that note 43 is contradicting Tiller#Tiller_orders. But the source for this contradiction is Patton. Are there maybe additional sources regarding tiller orders on British vessels? --DFoerster (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. So going back one step further then, we all agree, do we, that the wheel on The Titanic worked like a tiller? So that if the wheel was turned to the right, the ship went to the left? And point 4 should thus read:

• 4. The helmsman Hitchins heard this command clearly and moved the wheel hard over towards right, i.e. a clockwise turn.

Is this correct? Um, do you mean Patten instead of Patton? If so, why exactly is her claim a source of contradiction between Note 43 and Tiller#Tiller_orders? I am still more that a little confused here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, Tiller#Tiller_orders says this: "He ordered 'Hard-a-Starboard', which was a Tiller Order. The helmsman turned the wheel to port as far as it would go." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording in that article is incorrect. It should read "He ordered 'Hard-a-Starboard', which was a "Tiller Order". The helmsman turned the wheel to starboard (clockwise) as far as it would go. The Titanic's steering gear then pushed the tiller toward the starboard side of the ship, swinging the rudder over to port and causing the vessel to turn to port".

The important point to remember here is that when they say "tiller", they mean the part of the rudder structure that is forward of the rudder's pivot point, with the actual "rudder" being aft of the pivot point - which results in both parts going in different directions. Just what the "tiller" on Titanic looked like - a set of gears? - a long bar connected to hydraulic lines? - I don't know. Shirtwaist chat 05:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Shirtwaist chat 05:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Shirt, for clearing that up. It still looks like Tiller#Tiller_orders has more detail than here, which seems odd. I think I had imagined that a ship as large as The Titanic would have had a more sophisticated steering system whereby turning the wheel to the right would make the ship do the same (and I see that there were steering engines, presumably for the two outboard propellors, not just a single rudder?). So we are left with Patten's steering claims:

No, we aren't! Murdoch ordered 'Hard-a-Starboard', Hitchens turned the wheel to starboard. The wheel was turned into the direction as commanded, independently of rudder or tiller orders. The inversion was given by the turning direction of the rudder, not by the turning direction of the wheel. That's the point! --DFoerster (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure what you are disputing. We haven't all agreed that sequence of events? Surely the helmsman turned the wheel. Which way did he turn it? Are you saying that rudder and tiller orders should not be mentioned at all in this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No, what I'm trying to explain is that it makes no difference for the helmsman if rudder or tiller orders are given. He turns the wheel into the direction which is given by the order. The officer which commands the vessel has to know if the vessel is steered by rudder or tiller orders, i.e. in what direction the rudder turns with respect to the turning direction of the wheel. So there is absolutely no chance of confusion for the helmsman and thus the claim of Patten is nonsense! --DFoerster (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I see what you mean. In that case I think the description of Tiller orders etc might be made clearer, or else, like me, a reader might think that interpretation was required on the part of the hemlsman, when in fact it all has to be in the first officer's head. Two possibiliies remain - that Murdoch got it wrong with his order, forgetting how the ship worked, or that Hitchens in some way countermanded Murdoch's order on the basis of his own misunderstanding. These both seem entirely implausible. And, in any case, why should we need to explain Patten's claims? It is starting ro sound more and more like some kind of mixed up blaming/ scapegoating of the helmsman, reconstrucued after the event. But I begin to wonder if Louise Patten had read this article before she made her claims, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But, consider the statement now added in Note 3 by Old Moonraker: "Tiller orders were in use in the British merchant service until 1933". So this must mean that after 1933 there were no longer any vessels in the Merchant service which required tiller orders? It was not a matter of choice by the first officer, nor of training nor of interpretation by the helmsman. It was simply a matter of ship steering construction. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really a matter of construction, just a matter of the telemotor connection, thus a change probably was possible without much work. I'm not sure how to interpret this note. Were the telemotor connections changed for all vessels in 1933? Or were they changed gradually and the change was completed in 1933 or ...? --DFoerster (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was using "construction" rather generally, and I agree it's rather ambiguous as to how that change happened. I had assumed that the period of using the two different systems extended over a period of many years. But my main point was that describing this change in terms of "tiller/ rudder orders" suggests that it was the `command system' that was the driving force of the change, when in fact the commands simply changed to fit in with the new way the ships worked. Do you agree? And why did they change? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know. To give an educated guess, I would say after there was no technical reason to keep the tiller orders, it seemed illogical to new officers to give a command in the opposite direction, so a change to rudder orders was much better for new personal. On the other hand, it required a change for the experienced officers. So there was a competition between tradition and modernity. In 1933, modernity won. --DFoerster (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it became clear that there are flaws in some sources. Just read [[5]]. --DFoerster (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"The man at the wheel, Quartermaster Robert Hitchins, was trained under rudder orders – but tiller orders were still in use in the north Atlantic. So when First Officer William Murdoch first spotted the iceberg and gave a 'hard a-starboard' order, a panicked Hitchins turned the liner into the course of the iceberg. "The real reason why Titanic hit the iceberg is because he turned the wheel the wrong way," said Patten. By the time the error had been corrected, two minutes had been lost. Nothing could stop the iceberg breaching the hull."

Does anyone have any fresh comment on this, particularly with regard to Hitchen's "training"? The consensus over the story seems to be that either it's a case of generational Chinese whispers and/or a sensational fiction to help sell a self-penned novel. Could it have arisen from the later attempt by Murdoch to "port around" the iceberg? Would that have happened after two minutes? I am still inclined to see the Patten claims as worthy of mention, if only as a footnote in Titanic alternative theories? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens was a Master Mariner from the Cornish fishing village of Newlyn. Does anybody know why Patten claims that he was "trained under rudder orders"?--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a very useful addition you have made, but do we have any information on Hitchen's experience? Your inclusion of the note about the tiller orders in the Merchant Service there suggests that he was primarily Merchantman? Presumably we would know if he had served in the Royal Navy, or does the sail/ steam distinction make this a red herring? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably a fisherman. Note, btw, the steering arrangement on this Cornish fishing smack (although this one's from St Ives, about ten miles away from Newlyn as the seagull flies). --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, boats this size have a tiller and not a wheel, don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So we are left with Patten's sailing on claim?

"Lightoller was also privy to shocking decisions that followed. Shortly before the Titanic went down, there was a final meeting of four senior officers in the First Officer's cabin. It was there that Lightoller heard of the communication mistake. He also discovered that after the iceberg struck, the captain, Edward Smith, was persuaded to keep sailing by the chairman of White Star Line, Bruce Ismay, perhaps fearful of damaging the company's reputation. "My grandfather described the decision to try and keep Titanic moving forward as criminal," said Patten. Pressing on added to the pressure of water in the hull, forcing it over the bulkheads and sinking the ship many hours earlier than it would otherwise have sunk."

(The meeting in Murdoch's cabin effectively seems to make the two sets of claims "fifth hand"). Does Patten's claim that Ismay made Smith sail on (to avoid making the company look bad) bear any closer scrutiny? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile reading Quartermaster Hichen's replies to the questions that were put to him at the British Inquiry. (The transcripts aren't entirely clear because Lord Mersey interposed and began a debate with the Attorney General about what the witness had meant to say - rather than what he actually said!) However, it does appear that Hichens stated that the wheel was only just 'hard-over' when he felt the impact of the berg. If that was what happened then it's doubtful that there would have been sufficient time for the rudder to cause any significant alteration of the ship's heading. There really wasn't time for it to have made much difference, whichever way Hichen's turned the wheel. Hichens also stated that the compass heading changed by two points - just after the impact - or perhaps slightly later - he was never questioned in detail about this important aspect. He was never asked if the compass card was steady when he noted the two point difference (magnetic compass cards oscillate after an alteration of heading and it's very likely there would have been some additional oscillation from the shaking and vibration associated with the impact.) I don't think Hichens was even asked whether the reported two point alteration of the compass heading, which he said he observed, was to port, or to starboard of the original heading. Norloch (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was secretly hoping for some kind of navigational evidence to prove matters one way of the other, with regard to steering. But in the light of that information it seems that we will never know (or was Lord Mersey also confused about tiller orders!?) There can't be much source closer than the compass cards and documented reports of Hitchens himself? And there certainly seems to be no evidence from this source that supports Patten's claims. Patten's third claim, of course, about Lightoller's silence, might be seen as conveniently explaining why there is any disparity between the official records and her other two claims? But did Hitchens say anything about sailing on after the collision? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To Martinevans - No, Hichens doesn't appear to have said anything about sailing on after the collision. He wouldn't have been able to see much of what was happening on the bridge because he stated that he remained at the wheel (in an enclosure behind the bridge area) until 23 minutes after midnight. However, by that time the lifeboats were being cleared and at least one boat had been swung outboard. It would be most improbable that the ship would be under way (moving) if lifeboats were being launched. In addition, Hichens didn't say that he was given any steering orders after the engines were stopped. He only said that he remained 'standing by' at the wheel.If the engines had ever been re-started it's also improbable that the ship would have proceeded without some appropriate steering orders being given to the helmsman. ( N.B. as a point of clarity on my reference to the 2 point change of heading in my previous post - it's true that Hichens was never asked for the direction of heading change - but later, in another part of his testimony he did actually observe that the ship' head altered to just south of West. He gave this to the Inquiry as a piece of unsolicited information. ) 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norloch (talk • contribs)

I see. Altered from where, due West? Indicating that the ship had indeed moved slightly to port? I can't find any reference in ths article, or in the timeline, as to the ship's initial heading before the collision. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Patten's claims amount to a steaming mound of irritating horse manure. The sooner they are forgotten the better. Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that in-depth analysis there, Rumiton. I feel the same might be said of some of the ideas at Titanic alternative theories. But I would not want to insult any of our equine friends, or my roses. Any unfair claim which comes to popular notice deserves a proper rebuttal? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To me it seems, that this lady searched for something to sell her book. Thereby she did not understand the tiller orders and created this illogical claim. The idea to the sailing on claim may have come from David Brown's book The last log of the Titanic which was published in 2001. Brown speculates that the captain might have headed for Halifax. The reason for his speculations are discrepancies in the testimonies regarding the initial flooding rates and the flooding rates later on. There is also reliable testimony that the Titanic moved after the collision. Just read the testimony of Frederick Scott. Here an extract: “5609. They rang down "Stop," and two greasers on the bottom rang the telegraph back to answer it. Then they rang down "Slow ahead." For ten minutes she was going ahead. Then they rang down "Stop," and she went astern for five minutes.” --DFoerster (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well the heading for Halifax theory seems more plausible. But whatever the reason, I would have guessed that a ship moving forward would flood more rapidly than a stationary one. I suppose Ismay, not being a crew member, would not have given evidence to any enquiry? His pressure may have been the reason for Smith wanting to head for Halifax, of course. Alternatively, Ismay have been concerned as to the welfare of the passengers. But this is all pure speculation. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To Martinevans - Hichens gave evidence that he was steering a course of N71W ( i.e 289 degrees ) by compass - before the collision. The 2 point alteration he observed made the heading just south of West - by compass. ( i.e slightly less than 270 degrees. ) However the Inquiry never asked for details of the ship's deviation card ( or at least they didn't at the public hearing ) so the change of heading is only approximate and, as noted previously, it's unknown if due account was taken of any oscillation or heeling error that may have affected the compass.Norloch (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Perhaps this is useful information that could be added to the article? Whatever, it provides no support as far as I can see, even with compass oscillations, to the claim that the first command was to turn the ship to starboard and then (after two minutes?) to port. The evidence, already given in the timeline, suggests that, if anything, a command to turn the ship to port may have been followed by one to turn the ship to starboard. There is (for me) still a niggling doubt about what Murdoch may have intended, and then changed his mind on, and what Lightoller may have remembered. Either way Hitchens seems to be blameless, whether "in a panic" or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)