Talk:Sinking of the Titanic

Displacement?

In Sinking of the Titanic#Background, 3rd paragraph, it says “Her huge displacement caused both of the smaller ships to be lifted by a bulge of water and then dropped into a trough”.

“... lifted by a bulge of water and then dropped into a trough ...”? This looks like nautical nonsense. I don’t doubt that SS City of New York and Oceanic were disturbed by the passing of the Titanic but it clearly wasn’t a phenomenon associated solely with Titanic’s displacement. Something else was involved - perhaps Titanic’s bow wave. We should describe it accurately. Dolphin (t) 22:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The displacement surge is not the bow wave, and isn't nonsense. However surge is typically not a large effect, and at a guess the smaller ships moved because of the low-pressure flow field created by the passage of the Titanic, not because of a displacement surge or bow wave.

I wasn't there, and haven't read details. Ship collisions with each other and with structures continue to be a problem, and it seems to be always the hydro-dynamic force created by the speed of the moving water in the narrow channel around the large-displacement object, not a displacement surge. Bow waves cause collisions of small light-weight surface objects.

124.187.219.128 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: RMS, Royal_Mail_Ship

Please link RMS (in the lead sentence) to Royal_Mail_Ship 124.187.219.128 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Moons of Io (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

I could request to edit some more people aboard the RMS Titanic when it sank on its doomed maiden voyage in 1912. 71.178.35.120 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Collision Order

In my edits, I fixed the order given from "full astern" to "full stop." The only evidence that the "full astern" order was given was Fourth Officer Boxhall, who was not even on the bridge at the time of the collision. He was in the officer's quarters, walking towards the bridge. Therefore he would not have been able to see the order given. Several boiler workers, including Frederick Barrett, testify that the order given was "full stop." Please stop reverting my edits to the incorrect command. Thank you, and have a pleasant day. MisterKubic (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You used https://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq03Barrett01.php as a source for "full stop". The phrase "full stop" does not occur anywhere on that web page. DrKay (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to quote from said webpage. The numbers are Senator Smith's questions, and the dash afterwards is Barrett's response.

"1860. Now just tell us what happened that you noticed?

- There is like a clock rigged up in the stokehold and a red light goes up when the ship is supposed to stop; a white light for full speed, and, I think it is a blue light for slow. This red light came up. I am the man in charge of the watch, and I called out, "Shut all dampers."

1861. You saw this red light?

- Yes.

1862. You knew that was an order to stop the engines?

- It says "stop" - a red piece of glass and an electric light inside."

Barrett testifies that, yes, they did order to stop the ship. The telegraph said "full stop." Therefore I am correct.

Thanks for reading! MisterKubic (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability for guidance. DrKay (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no violation of verifiability. This, for all intents of purpose, is a proper and reputable site with the inquiry. The inquiry itself was Frederick Barrett's, which, i believe, the people over at encyclopedia titanica have verified to be accurate and legit, notwithstanding the breakup. Boxhall was not on the bridge at the time of the incident and came up " a little while later" to see the telegraph at full astern and only overheard Murdoch mention his order. My theory is that Murdoch initially telegraphed for full stop, only later to rectify it. Still, this source is legit, so perhaps mentioning both as conflicting orders would be the correct way to fix it. By being very vague and accusatory in your reply, you have negated your right of way. CEP (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Full stop" does not occur anywhere in that source. Per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, sources must explicitly support proposed article content. "My theory is ..." is insufficient. All content must be pre-published in independent reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process." CEP (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this. CEP (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

" Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. " My point still stands. The article, as long as it is not stated as definite, is valid. CEP (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"- There is like a clock rigged up in the stokehold and a red light goes up when the ship is supposed to stop; a white light for full speed, and, I think it is a blue light for slow. This red light came up. I am the man in charge of the watch, and I called out, "Shut all dampers."

1861. You saw this red light?

- Yes.

1862. You knew that was an order to stop the engines?

- It says "stop" - a red piece of glass and an electric light inside."

Stop=full stop. CEP (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That is (or was, at least) the proper nautical term for the time, as far as I am concerned. CEP (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Capt Smith's mental state during the sinking, helpful or in shock? Answer...Both!

I edited this before but it was reverted...The context, the current narrative for Capt Smith:

"and became lost in a trance-like daze, rendering him ineffective and inactive in attempting to mitigate the loss of life. However, according to survivors, Smith took charge and behaved coolly and calmly during the crisis. After the collision, Smith immediately began an investigation into the nature and extent of the damage, personally making two inspection trips below deck to look for damage, and preparing the wireless men for the possibility of having to call for help"

We have no direct sources yet everything Titanic has been greatly debated including Capt Smiths mental state as many want to know if his lack of action killed 100s more by him not ordering the lifeboats be filled closer to capacity.

I'm requesting at a minimum that some sort of update stating that it's possible he was at times helpful and at other times in a state of shock.

The consensus about his mental state was, because he assumed there was a ship nearby to rescue everyone he was helpful. It makes the most logical sense that if he suffered a state of shock, it would have been once he realized help won't arrive before the Titanic would sink and that roughly half will die. This is a very human response and something you cannot train for. Nothing wrong with stated something like "Some have speculated he was originally helpful yet perhaps went into a state of shock once he realized no ships could provide rescue assistance before the Titanic would sink. Perhaps his state of shock was only temporary and he somewhat overcame his state of shock and resumed being helpful. While speculative, this is the most plausible explanation which validates all sources of his conflicting mental state" NotBond007 (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is entirely WP:or and WP:SYNTHESIS. We're an encyclopaedia not a comments/editorial section. You would need reliable sources to back all this up. As editors we cannot make conjecture as to the whys, we can only say what reliable sources say. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The only evidence we have are the statements made to the enquiry about Smith. But we do not have any professional judgements on how those statements might have accurately reflected on Smith's "mental state". The best we might find is speculation from recognised experts, who have written about the disaster, which might be added as attributed quotes. Do you have any of those? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)