Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald/Archive 5

730 ft
730-foot (220 m) of the following somewhat bigger ship should better read:

730 feet (222,5 m) --Helium4 (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. I'm with you up to the 222, but tenths of meters implies precision beyond the original data. Just clarifying, you are talking about the Murray Bay length, not the Fitz?  North8000 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dee jay captain
Hi, I can't seem to find anything that explains what this term means. Can anyone clarify/expand on this? 162.97.179.150 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that you were looking at the brief mention in the lead.  It is explained in the "Career" section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is trying to say the slang term "DJ" meaning "Disk Jockey." In the article it states "Captain Peter Pulcer was known for piping music day or night over the ship's intercom system while passing through the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers." I've changed it and will now make "DJ" a wiki link for clarification. 75.95.47.110 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The DJ article and various other places list list deejay as an alternate form of the term. North8000 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Referencing errors
The script available at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors points up several mistakes in the citations on this article.
 * 1) There was a mismatch in the year for the journal article by Hultquist et al (citation number 98 and others). The SFN templates said 2007, but the citation (and the actual source) say 2006.
 * 2) the template for Wolff/Holden listed Wolff only, and therefore did not link correctly.
 * 3) There is no source listed in the bibliography for Wolff 1979. I was unable to rectify this error.
 * 4) There is a mismatch between the year shown in the bibliography and the sfn template for the article by Lawrence. I was unable to find a copy in the archives of the Detroit Free Press so was unable to confirm what the date was. --Dianna (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In the reference citation for the Nov. 11, 1975 Sault Ste. Marie Evening News article, the author's name should be corrected to Kight, with no "n." I'd do it myself, but since I was/am that author, I'm not sure that's permitted. If evidence is needed, I can offer this scan of my Evening News coverage of the storm on Nov. 10: http://members.peak.org/~kightp/graphics/PatKightFtiz.jpg Jezebel (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool and thanks! I changed it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Wolff 1979 should actually be for the later version of the Wolff book. See Talk:SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald above.  24.177.99.126 (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So all of the wolff cites should actually read Wolff & Holden 1990, ? I believe that is what has to be changed. Brad (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be the 1990 book. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

2-cylinder steam turbine?
A 2-cylinder steam turbine makes no sense to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to me either as turbines don't have cylinders. I never noticed that.   That's in the infobox, and has been in there since December 7th, 2008.  We'll have to work on that. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A preponderance of sources say simply "turbine'. One source includes "2 cylinder".   Of course no source says that her "engine doesn't have cylinders".  Any objection to me removing "2 cylinder"?
 * I took it out. North8000 (talk)

A blog to look over
Just in case there's something here worth using, I'm mentioning that Karl Bohnak wrote a column about the storm for his blog at TV6.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The removed "further reading section'

 * Ratigan, Bill. Great Lakes Shipwrecks and Survivals. Grand Rapids: WB Eerdmans, 1977. ISBN 0-8028-7010-4.
 * Shumacher, Michael. Might Fitz: The Sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald. Bloomsbury, 2005. ISBN 1-59691-167-0.
 * Bishop, Hugh E. The Night the Fitz Went Down. Lake Superior Port Cities, Inc., 2000. ISBN 0-942235-37-1
 * Hemming, Robert. "Gales of November, The Sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald" 1981 & 2000
 * National Geographic Magazine, January 1996 - Underwater pictures of the Fitz.
 * Stonehouse, Frederick. "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" Avery Color Studios 1977, updated 1982 ISBN 0-932212-05-0

I removed it from the article because, generally, the opinion at FAC is that if the entries are important enough to note, they're usually important enough to use as sources. Second, the section was inserted in the wrong place; per MOS:LAYOUT such a section would appear above the "External links". Third, all these items are already in use and a further reading section should not repeat the references used. Last, the entries should use the citation templates because the citation style in an article should be consistent.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The "all these items are already in use and a further reading section should not repeat the references" does it for me. The others not so much.  So, cool, thanks for handling.  And thanks to Flags33 for the good faith effort to improve the article.  North8000 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

S.L. v J.L. Hudson
Yesterday an IP changed S. L. Hudson to J. L. Hudson and North8000 changed it back saying that it might be subtle vandalism. There's a source for that sentence, a print book that I don't have a copy of. I don't know what the source says, but I do know that for several decades there was a large department store in Detroit called J. L. (not S. L.) Hudson. I don't know if this clarifies anything. Hope so. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Schumacher's book had the initials wrong so I corrected it to J.L. and added another source. The J.L. Hudson Department store was demolished in 1998.    Thank  you for the clarification, Steven J. Anderson.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. I was just being cautious.  North8000 (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Addition which I reverted
I reverted the following addition:


 * The shipwreck survey was done by Deep Sea Systems Int. Inc. using a special Mini Rover Mk4 equipped with a special purpose built high resolution 3D video camera. This was the 1st underwater survey of a shipwreck to be filmed in 3D. The ROV and 3D camera's were built, piloted and operated by Christopher Nicholson, Jeff Ledda and Marshal Flake.

I think that this would be a good addition if it were trimmed to the useful-here information and sourced. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It was put back in, sourced. I trimmed it (maybe too much or too little?) I got the reference (Vrana) formatted further, but it's still not fully formatted using the template....I'm not fluent on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Persistently putting back in supplier and person info on submersible
Geraldtjr ‎ keeps putting in info (supplier name, supplier location, name of a person at the supplier) about the submersible. To me this looks wp:undue for this article, promotional, persistence in adding those details raises wp:coi concerns. What do other folks think about this? Looking for your honest opinion, not necessarily your support of my view because I could be wrong, and we need to do what's best.

Either way, please do not re-insert without a talk page consensus. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. It's possible that the editor in question is extremely unfamiliar with Wikipedia.  He asked a question about the reversions which I answered - maybe it didn't occur to him to check back for a response.  I think a reversion and an invitation to participate in this talk page are in order.  Cheers.  Haus Talk 20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I think that might have an undue interest of some sort. He created Global Explorer ROV back in 2010, so I'm thinking that he might be overly interested in this topic area, whether or not it's a full conflict of interest, I dunno.  Imzadi 1979   →   20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if promotion is the motivation for the reversions, but I am pretty sure that Chris Nicholson designed and flew the ROV used for the 1989 exploration of the Fitz. I have video footage put out by Michigan Sea Grant showing Nicholson flying his ROV to the Fitz.  Nicholson also flew one of his ROVs for Joe MacInnis for an exploration of the Breadalbane (ship).  (MacInnis led the 1994 & 1995 explorations to the Fitz.)   I think Nicholson was mentioned in Phil Nuytten's article but the link in the reference section is not pulling up Nuytten's article at present.  I will see if I can find citations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My potential wp:coi and editor observation comments were really a sidebar. I think that core question is what material should be in the article.   If Nicholson is prominent in the sources, then maybe that establishes weight and that he should be in there? North8000 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Stonehouse took part in the 1989 Fitz dive and he wrote about the ROV in detail. He names Deep Diving Systems but he does not name Nicholson.  Schumacher's book also names Deep Diving Systems and does not name Nicholson.  Nuytten's article does name Chris Nicholson .  Nicholson's technology was a big advancement at that time and it was first used  to explore the Fitz.  Since we already included the company name Delta Oceanographic for a 1994 dive, I don't think it is a problem to name Deep Diving Systems in the paragraph about the 1989 Fitz dive.  I can add it with a citation if there is consensus.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The "editor in question is extremely unfamiliar with Wikipedia." In fact, I'm just finding this talk page now.

The primary objective of this particular expedition was to record 3-D videotape for use in museum educational programs and production of documentaries. The mission was about the images that would be produced and the SS Edmund Fitzgerald was chosen as one of the targets to be filmed. Unique equipment was developed to achieve the purpose. In an historic sense, this was the first use of underwater 3-D video to explore a sunken vessel.

There is a pdf document here: http://www.deepseasystems.com/edfitz/edfitznews.pdf with 28 published articles about the expedition. The gist of all of these articles is the imagery provided by the ROV and the 3-D underwater imaging system. Most of them identify Deep Sea Systems and Chris Nicholson and their part in the operation. The information we would edit gives proper credit to Chris Nicholson and Deep Sea Systems International, Inc. for the design, deployment and performance of the ROV and the 3-D imaging system. This is not an effort to promote Mr. Nicholson but to recognize the essential contribution he made to the success of the mission.Geraldtjr (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Geraldtjr, you have my vote to edit the article to include the information about Chris Nicholson and the Deep Sea Systems contribution to the 1989 Fitz dive along with citation. I can vouch for quite a few of the articles that you included in the pdf document because I have copies of them.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My only interest here is that additions be in keeping with the quality of the rest of the article. In my opinion this version is closest to having a consensus.  Perhaps it would be useful to start from there and work forward?  Haus Talk 22:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like it would be good to include Chris Nicholson in the article as well as other sourced specifics that significantly provide useful information to the reader. But it should be done keeping in mind that the mission here is to inform the reader, not to give credit, proper or otherwise.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Table of crew members
This addition was reverted, citing sourcing. But there is another reason that it it not in there. We previously had that list/table in there and based on feedback from several persons in the GA Review / Peer Review / FA Candidates process we took it out and replaced it with a summary type paragraph. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose and effect of restrictions on surveys
What does it take to get a survey permit to explore a wreck like this? How does the process work and what are the issues? Colin McLarty (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It requires an archaeological license from Ontario Heritage Trust, an agency of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport - see . The Fitz wreck is a heritage site protected as a grave site.  The law governing the wreck site is referenced in the Wikipedia article associated with this talk page.  The law calls for fines up to $1 million Canadian for violations.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mighty Fitz, the book about the sinking of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald, By Michael Schumacher
This book is about the classic shipwreck SS Edmund Fitzgerald, this book is key to this article because it has some major details on the crew, listing their name, age ,job, and where they were from. (Evan96779 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I think that it's already in as a reference. We'll have to sort this out because it appears that varying versions of the title have been used:


 * Mighty Fitz
 * Mighty Fitz, The Story of the Edmund Fitzgerald
 * Mighty Fitz, The Sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald
 * Mighty Fitz, Sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald


 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The correct title of Schumacher's book is Mighty Fitz: The Sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald. I corrected the title in the reference section.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

The plain Google Earth KML is for the center of Lake Superior, not the wreck site.

—76.219.180.189 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But looks OK to me. The way I looked it showed the actual site, and then Lake Superior as a "nearby place" with a second marker at the center of the lake showing where that "nearby place" is. Or, maybe I'm mistaken. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Reason for sinking
Hi there,

Here's a link that might explain what happened to SS Edmund Fitzgerald: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-080.htm

Regards, Cosmin

21:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.62.186 (talk)


 * Thanks, but that website doesn't meet the criteria for usage as a source in a Wikipedia article per WP:SPS, the policy provision on self-published sources. It would fail to meet the criteria for usage in a Featured Article as it's not a "high-quality, reliable source".  Imzadi 1979  →   21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Another thanks.  But it is also partially a repetition of the oldest of the many theorized causes (hatch covers not clamped) . Also it got it wrong on the clamp conditions.  Some were mangled, some were intact. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Memorial Bell(s)?
It appears to me that the Memorial section is describing two different bells, and not distinguishing between them. Mariner's Church rang its own church bell the day after the wreck- which couldn't possibly have been the bell that was later recovered from the wreck. However, the second sentence, beginning with "A legal document" and subsequent ones appear to be describing the ship's bell that was recovered. Given the disputes over the ship's bell (and its status, fate) I request comment before WP:BOLD. Still, I'd like to add a line acknowledging the second bell and identifying the two separate memorials. The section as-is is quite confusing. --Robert Keiden (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point.   I think that it was in good shape when it achieved FA and also when it was "article of the day".   Then it looks like some content got removed  and two paragraphs combined and now it has the problems that you noted.  Situation should be carefully reviewed and fixed.    My first thought is to go back to the November 2011 version of those paragraphs?   North8000 (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I went through the history. Looks like it was in good shape up until April 17th.   On April 19th someone sort of made a mess out of it.   Later on the 19th WPWatchdog partially undid the problematic stuff but not fully.   I'll revert that part to the April 17th 2012 version.   Nice catch. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not end it and just say vessel?
I grew up around the lakes, and seeing an unqualified 'boat' (as opposed to 'ore boat' per StraightDope) was somewhat eye-turning. Correct or not, it distracts from the content of the article as many readers will not share this particular colloquialism. I propose calling it a vessel as it is unambiguous. 70.36.223.239 (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ship or boat?
If she is so mighty, and she did displace more than pre-dreadnought battleships, then why is she referred to as a boat? 69.196.183.85 (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Boat versus ship, mixed useage? Choose one, stick with it!
"Boat" versus "ship" there seems to be a mixed useage here. Boat is the noun usually applied to small vessels or submarines, ship is the noun usually applied to large vessels. The Fitzgerald is clearly a ship, not a boat. 50.89.66.83 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer this *and* the section directly above, "boat" is the term traditionally used to refer to vessels that sail only on the Great Lakes, regardless of size. "Salties" (oceangoing vessels) are ships, but the Fitz was a Lakes freighter, designed only to sail on the Lakes, too large to pass through the Welland Canal to gain access to the ocean, and not built to take the sort of swells seen on the ocean anyway, and thus a boat.  It's a specialized usage for Lakes sailors.  rdfox 76 (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we an encyclopedia for general audiences or a specialized source for Lakes sailors? Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The terms are used somewhat interchangeably in the Great Lakes region, but "boat" is the more common term for a vessel not designed to leave the lakes, vs. "ship" for those that can pass through the seaway out to the open waters of the Atlantic. The language isn't that specialized to just the sailors of the region.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, general usage defines a "boat" as something that can be lifted out of the water, and a "ship" as something that cannot. The idea that "boats" are designed for freshwater service and "ships" for saltwater does not seem to have much wider circulation than the Great Lakes. As I pointed out on my talk page, there are a number of sources that refer to the vessel as a ship. Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your definition has no source. Submarine and Great Lakes freighters are called boats. Rmhermen (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm inclined to agree with Parsecboy here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"What's the difference between a boat and a ship?" at The Straight Dope has this to say: "There are exceptions, of course. Many commercial fishing craft, for example, are sizable oceangoing vessels, yet they're almost invariably called boats. Similarly for submarines, built by General Dynamics' Electric Boat Division. The Great Lakes are pretty deep, and one sees certain large vessels on them that to all appearances are ships, but in fact said vessels are commonly called ore boats."  Imzadi 1979  →   09:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC) This was discussed and "boat" agreed on. We can reopen the discussion, but somebody just unilaterally changing it or claiming it is "wrong" is themselves wrong. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Was it? Where was it discussed? Was the outcome of the discussion to use both terms in the article? Thas is what we currently have, 9 "boat"s and 8 "ship"s. I can see why some people might think it looks a bit rubbish like this. If this truly was the consensus, maybe there was something wrong with the consensus? --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to look, you would find that this was discussed in archive 1 and 2.--Asher196 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see a consensus there to use "boat", and I certainly do not see a consensus for mixed usage. Mixed usage looks really terrible. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Boat is right. Ship is wrong. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) And this is based on the Straight Dope source above, or on something else? (b) What do you think of the current "mixed" approach? --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out on my talk page, there are numerous sources that call Edmund (and other lake freighters) a ship, rather than a boat. Simply asserting that "ship" is wrong is, frankly, a non-starter. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you are commenting on a talk page comment rather than the main question here which is essentially a claim that "boat" is wrong. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Boat" is the norm and best term for lakers and "ship" is OK. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line: "Boat" the norm for lakers, and because of that it was discussed and decided several times to generally use "boat" in this article. But there's nothing wrong with occasionally using "ship". There's no rule against using two different correct nouns for an object in an article. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can only find two discussions in the archives, this (very) brief discussion and this one, where the only argument in favor of "boat" is that calling Edmund a ship "just sounds wrong" to Izmadi, since in local terminology they're called boats. Hardly evidence of a consensus for "boat", I would say. And last time I checked, we avoid jargon because we're writing for a general audience, not specialists. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Terminology: boat, ship

 * The "boat" convention for lakers just got sourced at the other article, here is the source. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well done for finding a source, but let's be honest, it isn't that great a source, is it? It's a Cruising Guide for recreational sailors and it says that "old-timers" refer to ships on the lakes as "boats". Does that really mean that we have to? I also find the switching back and forth between the two terms a little jarring. Now, I think I am ok with using "lakers" as that's less jarring. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's my point - Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for a specific region in the world, or for "old timers". "Laker" is probably too jargony for a general audience. Parsecboy (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Someone else found the source, I just brought it over. I have not had a very strong opinion on "ship" vs. "boat" but have had a strong opinion on having a process in place that doesn't have each person who comes along unilaterally roto-tilling the article to what they personally think it should be. In this case, it has been discussed and decided on twice, it is the common name where they operate, and now there is sourcing for the latter. I'd be just as happy if the group decided on "ship" as "boat", but am against the chaotic process that has been tried in the article in the last few days. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's called normal editing. On the other hand, reverting for no other reason than your (wrong, on this occasion) perception of consensus is frowned upon, by those with a clue. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So what is your plan? Each person who comes along makes 20 edits to change it to whatever their opinion is on what it should be? North8000 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * North, unless you can point me to other discussions apart from the two I linked to above, this issue was only seriously discussed once, and no strong consensus emerged for either usage. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my previous question. (Again, I don't have a strong preference either way on the actual choice of words.)     North8000 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't have a strong preference either way, can't point to a strong consensus, don't have a strong policy-based argument, and your best supporting source is a hobby guide posted by an IP, why are you edit-warring to restore the mixed version? --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The annoying thing about IPs and the other insufferable know-it-alls is that they sometimes do know it better. Now stop acting like a bunch of drama queens and get back to work.91.64.13.20 (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly a better source. I don't think anybody was disputing the local currency of this terminology. It's more a question of whether we should use it here or not. To quote Parsecboy, there are numerous sources that call her a ship. Does anybody here think the mixed terminology works well? --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it doesn't matter. There is no need to say that only one noun can be used for something.  In the same article, someone could be called a person, a woman. a contestant, a captain, a politician, a mother etc.  North8000 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a footnote to this article explaining the practice of calling them "boats", cited to the one source that's already present in this article. In writing about the components of Michigan's State Trunkline Highway System, I typically use "highway", "trunkline", "road", "roadway" in addition to the highway designations like M-6 or M-553 to avoid repetition. Using "boat" and "ship" here should not be an issue given the local vernacular.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, so it's elegant variation. This example is somewhat different from the roads one though as it involves using a word very differently from how most of the world uses it. Even with the footnote, I don't think I support it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, the issue we keep coming back to is the fact that Wikipedia is not written in local vernaculars (apart from national varieties of English, such as truck/lorry, tire/tyre, etc., which is not the case here). We write in standard English usage for a general audience, not using local jargon for a specialist audience. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Good points. On the other hand, as a minimum, I think that the commonly used name in the sphere that they operate in is also useful information, and also an important explanation if the word is used by the sources. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we shouldn't note that in the Great Lakes area, these vessels are called boats, or even that mixed usage is bad. What I am saying is that the insistence that "the locals call them boats so we have to too" is wrong and contrary to the MOS, which prohibits words or phrases...that are unnecessarily regional, or that are not widely accepted. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We should have a more thorough discussion and settle this once and for all
This keeps coming up in brief discussions, I'd like to have a thorough discussion on this and settle it once and for all. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * North's opinion My main strongly-held opinion is that we should settle it and stick with what we decided unless changed by a new similarly thorough discussion. No major back-and-forth unilateral changes by one individual that wants to change it to what they personally feels is correct.  I think that both "boat" and "ship" are fine.  "Boat" is the common term on the Great Lakes, and the Great Lakes are not just some local sphere.  The span 2 countries, 2 provinces, 8 states, have the locks that carry the most tonnage of any in the world, and have many of the largest lakes in the world.   On the grander scale, all ships are technically boats, and so "boat" is correct on that level as well.   On the other hand, "ship" is the most common noun used by readers to refer to boats of the size of the Fitz. I lean slightly towards "ship", and lean slightly towards changing it to where "ship" mostly used, (maybe 80%) but "boat" is also used and explained. Make the change after we decide, and then decide that other than occasionally changing one instance, we really don't want people changing them back and forth unless the discussion is reopened and such is decided. Other than my strongly held opinion of "lets have stability",  all of my other expressed opinions are weakly held and I would be perfectly happy if the opposite was decided.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WPwatchdog's opinion I followed this discussion without weighing in until now. Although people in the Great Lakes region commonly refer to ore freighters as "boats", I support calling the Fitz a "ship" because it is more universal and has greater clarity. I agree with North that the most important issue is stability of the article.  So I vote for "ship" but if the "boat" votes prevail, then that is what the article should use.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Use "ship" per COMMONNAME. No mixed usage; elegant variation is not good writing style. Overall this article does not meet the Featured Article Criteria at present. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion should be fairly clear by now: the vessel in question should be referred to as a ship predominantly. I don't have a problem with using boat occasionally, or at very least explaining that coal transports are commonly referred to as boats in the area (which is indeed local - it's one region in one country on the planet). The argument that local slang should be used in an encyclopedia written for a general audience is simply unsustainable. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Quartermaster's opinion is use "ship" (and I was a naval quartermaster) I weigh in on using "ship" per COMMONNAME and avoiding local usage of "boat" unless quoted. In the end, we're trying to come to a consensus of style. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of image from info box
The image that was in the info box was deleted from commons and a bot removed it from the article. I moved up another image from lower in the article. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Gender?
Why does the Article of a Boat, with a Male name. Get referred to as "her" and She"? Is it a Marine tradition? Johnny Tempest (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Johnny Tempest (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Johnny_Tempest


 * (above moved from closed discussion)


 * Yes, that's the tradition in English. In Russian, and many forms of Arabic, ships are traditionally "he"s.  Rwessel (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

New Fitz picture just added
Nice! Should we swap it into the info box? North8000 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, swap it. Maybe trim off the black border?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes.  I was also thinking maybe dialing back the purple hue (thinking it might be just photo aging) but maybe it is or could be considered natural. Plus it looks pretty cool. I'll start by just making the swap.   North8000 (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the border and swapped it in. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks nice! Thank you, Greenmars for your generous contribution!--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes! Awesome photo!  And just what we needed.

The problem with the
This article improperly places the word "the" before various, but not all, instances of ship names. This is allowed, but generally considered bad form. There are a variety of reasons for this bit of grammar, which may or may not apply to specific cases, so the use of the definite article is not recommended. Read all about it. So unless someone strenuously objects, and has good reasons for it, I'd like to remove the various "the"s, where appropriate. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you point us to the specific section of the guideline which you are referring to. This went through peer review, GA review, a tune-up by the copyeditor's guild, and a rigorous featured article review, and then a day as the article of the day for the English Wikipedia in it's current form in that respect. I'd hate to make a lot of changes on something that is just a matter of interpretation.  I'm thinking that in most cases, the "the" is a part of the grammar/sentence structure rather than expansion of the name.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure…

"Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong: Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (preferred) The Victory was Nelson's flagship … (not recommended)"

In use, for instance from USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65):

"The only ship of her class, Enterprise"

The vast majority of ship articles I've looked at follow this rule. That it made it through GA and FA without anyone mentioning this, and no one did that I can see, suggests a failure of process. These don't surprise me any more. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maury, North8000 and I spent many hours on the article but it always helps to have fresh eyes give an appraising look. Why not go ahead and make your suggested revisions and see if other editors are OK with it?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with that. Suggest starting slow (with just a few) in case there are discussions....there's no hurry. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I did the LEAD, see what you think! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems weird to me but I could be wrong. I did not research this as much as you did.  Does the guidance on this appear pretty clear cut?   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to follow the convention for ship names and since I've read many ship articles, it reads OK to me.Wpwatchdog (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Figure me as neutral on this which means I'm OK with it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

River Rouge Museum "Yearly" Memorial Service
The recent addition of the River Rouge Museum "yearly" memorial service raises questions. A search of the River Rouge Historical Museum revealed no mention of an annual memorial service for the Fitz. As a resident of Michigan well versed in Fitz lore, I am aware of one individual who held a service for the past several years in a tent in the River Rouge area at his own expense. This article explains that the service was held near Mariners Memorial Lighthouse. If no regular editor of the article objects, I will delete this recent addition.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The River Rouge Museum website now has an announcement regarding a Fitz memorial service but it is unclear if they are the sponsors of the service nor do they give any details about what organizations and individuals are involved. I am still inclined to delete the addition from the article.  I will wait a few days for further editorial comment.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Deletion done.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's back. It now cites http://www.ssedmundfitzgerald2012.com/ as a source, which says "This [the service] is a special program held each year [...]", so it does seem to be an annual service, but the museum's role sounds more tangential than the paragraph in our article suggests. And this website isn't an independent source, as its webmaster is also the organizer of the service, so I don't think the paragraph is sourced well enough yet to stay. --Avenue (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I took it out. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Either an Unlucky Ship or Not?
"the ship suffered a series of mishaps during her launch: it took three attempts to break the champagne bottle used to christen her, and she collided with a pier when she entered the water"

Neither of these are noteworthy (the champagne bottle, and the incident with the pier), and two incidents do not make a "series". Is the article trying to make an assertion that the ship was "cursed", "unlucky", etc... from the very beginning? If that's the case, then the idea needs to be "wrapped up" in the 1st paragraph, or the whole thing should be pushed down into the article. As it is right now, it's a half-hearted literary effort. If it's foreshadowing, it's very weak and fails completely. I don't have a problem with introducing the Fitzgerald as an "accident prone" ship in the 1st paragraph, but if it is going to been done, it should be DONE.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding what this article is "trying to" do in that area, it is to include factual information as covered by reliable sources. But I think that you are right that it should not be in the lead, although I would not agree with your suggestion for shortening it via characterizing the ship as "accident prone" which would be creative editor work.  I'll take it out of the lead and look for something to put in it's place.  Thanks for your thoughts.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest the ship should be described as "accident prone". My opinion is that if the ship was NOT considered to be so, then neither the champagne bottle or the incident with the pier are noteworthy.  Unless there is something special about the champagne bottle not breaking the evokes some kind of "cursed" image amongst superstitious sailors.  Otherwise inclusion of these details in the article is a distraction.Jonny Quick (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My thoughts go both ways on that and I could argue either way. But I lean towards inclusion, but not in the lead. We go by what sources gave attention to / coverage of. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Time in service incorrect
while reading the information in the box n the right hand side of my screen, it has come to my attention that the time in service you put(38 years, 2 months, 11 days) is incorrect. after I did some math on paper, the actual tome in service is 17 years, 4 months, and 2 days. please change this quickly before someone who needs some of this information finds it incorrect.

thank you very much, Gymgal12 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Gymgal12


 * It's not the time in service that's listed there; it's the time since it went out of service. The documentation is weak on which date range, if any, should be there. It's probably best just to remove it; anybody needing to know the time can do the math themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

July 1995 Dive on "The Fitz"
It was brought to my attention that in the article on the Edmund Fitzgerald, credit for organizing the July 1995 dive on the Edmund Fitzgerald had incorrectly been given to Dr Joe MacInnes. I edited the paragraph in question to state that it was in fact the Great Lake Shipwreck Historical Society and the National Geographic that spearheaded the expedition with support from the Canadian Navy and Hard Suits International. Dr MacInnes played a very minor role in this expedition. The expedition was written up by Tom Farquist of the GLSHS in the National Geographic Magazine and LCdr Robert Gwalchmai of the Canadian Navy in Sea Technology. I would be happy to discuss this change with anyone who has a differing opinion.Divergw (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your information, MacInnis held the archaeological license and the GLSHS played a minor role by contributing $10,000 so they could participate. Please refer to the many books and articles that are referenced in the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of May 14, 2015, additions
Ok, I just cleaned up the additions from May 14, 2015, by and what I suspect is his IP address. Since those additions related to work Mr. Beck has authored, I do not feel it is appropriate for him to add them to the article directly for COI reasons. If someone else would like to take responsibility for the content, that other editor can restore the content.

In addition, I have issues with the content as it was added. The Lego model is novel, but I'm not sure it's necessary to the article. Now, maybe if the model were independently verified to the be the world's largest Lego model, that would be something worthy of including. However, the only source for the is a webpage created by Mr. Beck on a website that states: "MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website." Sorry, that's too much like citing another wiki, something policy doesn't allow.

As for the article in the journal, there's no real discussion of the content of the article applied to our article. This is a source that probably should be integrated, but that integration needs to happen by someone who isn't Mr. Beck for COI reasons. The content is still in the article history if others want to review it.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the Lego model is more like the Fitz memorabilia sold to tourists and it does not contribute to the article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is like memorabilia. It is a great example of commercialized commemoration and that is why it belongs in the article. Certainly it is better than a random link to a beer company...John R. Beck (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, the Lego model seems pretty trivial. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Trivial or not, the issue/significance is found in the fact of its existence as a "popular" memorial...allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions about its "value"...John R. Beck (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the history & memory studies text ought to be included as actual scholarship whether written by the author or not. What are COI reasons beyond a restriction of the freedom of speech? The article is a valid expression of research. But perhaps the reference to the world's largest lego ship belongs under commercialization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John R. Beck (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * While there's a bit of an exception for acknowledged experts in a field, publishing your own research here is problematic. And even if you're adding a cite to a paper you published someplace we'd usually consider a reliable source, there's a bit of a COI simple because citations are the sine qua non of academic publishing.  IOW, citing yourself is likely to be considered promotional.  And as written, it provides a very positive (perhaps deserved, I don't know) reference to that article.  I see a particular issue if this article is behind a paywall, if you're the author.  Having an article behind a paywall (or offline) is not an issue (although for obvious reasons freely available references are preferred), but in this case you're asking us to "trust me, I've written this fantastic article, but you can't see it".  Because of the COI, I think you need to appear above suspicion.


 * In any event, the new section, Commercialized Scholarship has issues as written. Terms like "healthy" are a judgment which would need to be supported by a reference, and the name of the cited article, while it should be in the footnote, is not particularly relevant to the article.  The notion of "ownership" of a history is hardly unique to this case, and should perhaps be mentioned, although there's often controversy as such ownership should *not* be used to color the actual facts, and as regards Wikipedia, facts are what should be here.  And unless Wikipedia is particularly notable in a case of (mis)appropriating a history, the reference (to Wikipedia) is likely inappropriate as well.  Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the information again according to the suggestions listed above. How do I provide access to my article when it is locked behind a pay wall? John R. Beck (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit my reference links to make them look short like the all the other ones..John R. Beck (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the Lego model again., we have a concept around here called WP:BRD, which stands for "Bold, revert, discuss". You were bold to add the content, but you were reverted, and now is the time to discuss it. Once this discussion is done, then we can edit the article. We have no deadline around here, so there's no rush. Additionally, this is a Featured Article, which is a status that only about 0.1% of articles achieve, so some of us take an interest in keeping the quality level high. As just one example, our Manual of Style, in the MOS:HEAD section, says that headings should be in sentence case, not title case, which is what you've been using.
 * Two other editors in addition to myself have said that the Lego model isn't the type of content we want to include. Because of the COI concerns, Mr. Beck, you should avoid directly editing the article. Instead, you should propose additions here and let others comment on the suggestions. We'll discuss everything and come to an agreement. Trying to assert yourself in editing against the objections of others, when it means you constantly undo (or redo) edits is called edit warring, and edit warring is something that can get your account blocked from editing.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This has a been a great conversation for my Michigan History class to watch unfold. We take a minute or two at the start of class to check the progress on the article. What this open process reveals about Wikipedia is that it isn't an open platform for everyone but a selected platform for editors with a preferred point of view. That is both a positive and a negative. It does tend to make me more open to allowing my students to cite Wikipedia for academic purposes. Normally I just allow them to go to the footnotes and external links. On a different note, intended or not, the "quality level high" comment is insulting. Mere formatting "errors" aside, my contributions improve the overall quality of the article. If some editor doesn't like my contribution, leave it in, and then discuss it on the talk page. How does the community benefit from censoring it first and talking about it second? The brick ship is a great example of commercialization. Certainly it is on par with a link to Edmund Fitzgerald Beer...if that's not self promotion I don't know what is...perhaps I should start another page on Commemorations for the SS Edmund Fitzgerald with a link from this page? Also, how is having my Lego version of the ship designed to scale any better or worse than the other scaled model of the ship? Why allow one but not the other?John R. Beck (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I recall that someone without a COI added the Edmund Fitzgerald beer to the article but I haven't confirmed that. If the beer was added as self-promotion, then mention of it should be also be deleted until editors without COI choose to add it.  Wikipedia does not serve as a forum for self-promotion.  If this discussion reaches a consensus that the Lego model should be included, then as Imzadi 1979 already said, let someone without a COI add it to the article.  It will still need a valid citation.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The "Memorials" section does not reflect current scholarship and activities. For example, consider the following third party site references to my article and model...none of which I "control"...which I think meets the COI standard?: http://www.greatlakesgazette.com/2014/10/20/the-storms-of-november/ http://clioscurrent.com/blog/2014/9/15/the-wreck-of-the-edmund-fitzgerald (I didn't know this site existed until I googled it) http://ijh.sagepub.com/content/24/1/203.extract (ditto for this one) http://ijh.sagepub.com/content/24/1/203.full.pdf (part of the "pay wall" to the article) http://wmich.edu/history/research/archive/2012-13/2012-13gradarticleschapters.html (just a reference to my article) http://www.sooeveningnews.com/article/20130718/NEWS/130719518 (an article about my talk at the museum) http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2011/11/18/news/doc4ec4042dbb2b9165372054.txt (picture of the model) http://www.northernwilds.com/pages/Explore/faces/strange-tales~print.shtml (another article with a few errors) http://www.heraldpalladium.com/news/local/st-joe-calling-all-legos-lovers/article_0a31791c-442c-5227-b2a1-0aa15c0e687f.html http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1518219/26116193/1428348044047/Conference+Program+April+10.pdf?token=fz6PlsQhySsVd9%2BgScniT2pdfSc%3D (a link to Central Michigan University discussion panel I was on)

There's enough third party stuff here to justify a sentence or two in the article if only to reflect the fact that commemorations continue to evolve... — Preceding unsigned comment added by John R. Beck (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC) John R. Beck (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The ship in popular culture
I'd like to develop a section called "The ship in popular culture" under the memorial part. Jerry Seinfeld references the ship in an episode. Tim Hawkins parodies the Lightfoot song with a 30 second tribute, etc. Dr. Russell wrote a play called "Holdin Our Own" commissioned by the Marquette Maritime Museum. Of course some of this could go under theater and music...Do I need permission from wikiland for that considering there's no COI and presumably no war editing? Hate to get myself blocked you know...John R. Beck (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Conceptually not a problem, but I'd advise paying attention to WP:POPCULTURE. Many people don't like "pop culture" sections at all, so what goes in them needs to be actually significant, and well sourced.  Certainty the Lightfoot song qualifies, but the Hawkins parody, at first blush, would appear to be trivia that should probably not be included.  Rwessel (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the parody. That's something that would be more appropriate in the article about the song, but here it's another level further removed from this article's subject. As for the others, it's really better to have them sources to secondary sources, like a newspaper article written about the play that discusses the themes and subject of it. The essay Rwessel mentions gives some particularly appropriate advice about passing mentions. The Jerry Seinfeld example sounds like it falls into that category, and a quick search on Google shows that the mention in the episode is more about the Lightfoot song than about the ship. I'd say that doesn't fit with this article then.
 * Now, Shelley Russell's play should be in the article already. This press release isn't a bad place to start, but we can find better sources to use. The Mining Journal around that time should have run an article about the play and its debut. Citing the play itself should be avoided at all cost. This webpage should not be cited since it comes from a fansite. This article is a FA, which needs to use "high-quality reliable sources", and fansites don't meet our "reliable sources" guideline. ("Reliable source" is a bit of a Wikipedia term of art, and some sources that non-Wikipedians might consider reliable fail our test and vice versa.)  Imzadi 1979  →   09:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * References to Lightfoot's song in popular culture belong in the Wikipedia article, Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What about this site?http://www.lakesuperiortheatre.com/2013-lake-superior-theatre-company.html I found many references to it but nothing in great detail...John R. Beck (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the wiki definition of trivia? Is there some standard for this? It is unclear to me the difference between someone's view of trivia and their personal point of view...one man's treasure is another woman's junk, right? It's not like there's a limited amount of space...the criteria for inclusion in a FA seems...arbitrary...to one unfamiliar with the inner workings of wiki...seeking clarity here not trying to be petty...John R. Beck (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In case you missed it, Rwessel gave you the pertinent link already. WP:POPCULTURE--Asher196 (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Some additional comments: First, while space is (mostly) not limited, things not well related do not improve the article, since they just add clutter that the reader has to work through. That's the ultimate criteria - does this make the article better?  Mere length, or large numbers of marginally related facts do not make articles better.   Obviously this is a judgment call at times, but the more directly related to the primary subject the better.  As in any writing, coherency is important.  In the case of the Lightfoot song, that song is probably why most people know about the wreck.  Second, it's not that the rules are different for FAs, it's just that they tend to be more strictly enforced.  Articles (painfully) become FAs after much hard work to improve their quality, and one hates to see backsliding.  That's not a problem with the FAs, it's a problem that the other articles, which have received inadequate editorial attention.  Of course there's an essay on that as well: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Pretty much everything that happens on Wikipedia is determined by consensus, the policies and similar (like the essays) are usually where you'll find that consensus documented.  Rwessel (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the "Holdin' Our Own" content referenced above. I thought the university's website would be a sufficiently strong source for the information...let me know if that's not strong enough. I did not think it necessary to mention subsequent performances. I could use help fixing the footnote. I don't understand how to make it look like a link and not the text of the link..John R. Beck (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * please do not modify others' comments, even by splitting them and inserting a reply in the middle. It makes it confusing to know who's saying what when signatures are separated from parts of the comments. It is considered quite rude, and very improper, to edit others' comments, akin to "putting words into [someone's] mouth", even if you didn't actually change what someone else typed.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I edited what you added, to conform to our formatting styles. First, we usually don't append "Dr." in front of the names of people. Second, names of plays are rendered in italics, not quotation marks, so I switched that around. I also used the sfn template to create a shortened footnote to the press release. Then I added the press release into the references section since it can be used to cite both sentences you added, simplifying the sourcing. If I have a chance, I'll go to the library soon to see if The Mining Journal ran a news article about the debut of the play. Remember, we don't need to have all of our sources online. It's great when there are copies online, but it's not necessary to use only online sources. Books and newspaper articles on microfilm make great resources for our research.  Imzadi 1979   →   23:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on protocol in the "modifying comments" comment. I didn't know you couldn't split comments in order to answer them...makes sense I guess. Thanks for not reverting my addition. Thanks for editing it as well. This is very exciting. John R. Beck (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree that a section be devoted to the Edmund Fitzgerald in popular culture. The saga of the Fitzgerald has been more commercialized than woven into pop culture, even with the success of Gordon Lightfoot's haunting ballad, and so it would be superflous to this page.TH1980 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained request for a citation of a photo caption
I don't understand this. What is the debate over the caption mentioned here? An unclear request for citation was made, but it is almost drive-by tagging and gives no explanation. When I attempted to clarify the caption, based on text that is in the actual photo, further clarification was requested without explanation of what clarification was needed. Can someone explain this? what is the exact problem with the photo caption? I think the caption was fine as it was, it was basically captioned by the Museum. Are we saying the museum is not trustworthy? Are we saying the photo is fake? I thank the original uploader for the contribution, though I don't understand the removal. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The images in Fitz article went through an extensive vetting process for FA.  Since the Frankenmuth Historical Museum isn’t accredited,  there is no way of knowing if the display went through a rigorous review to verify whether there was a chain of custody to prove the taconite pellets are from the Fitz.  The image does not provide supporting evidence of the claim that the taconite pellets were “inadvertently recovered” from the wreck site.


 * There is evidence that taconite pellets were intentionally recovered from the Fitz wreck site. The Ontario Ministry of Culture released video footage of a 1994 submersible dive to the Fitz that documents taconite pellet removal from the wreck site.    However, since the information was obtained via a Freedom of Information request, it cannot be included in the article.


 * MacInnis held the archaeological license for 1994 and 1995 Fitz dives. In his book, Fitzgerald’s Storm: The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, on page 123, he wrote: "What had been whispered about Farnquist’s rule-bending behavior seemed to have been confirmed. The families were also dismayed about what they had heard concerning the taconite pellets.  Farnquist knew the Ontario government’s archeological license stated the bell was the only object to be removed from the ship.  But he had obtained some of the Fitzgerald’s cargo and was passing out the marble-sized pellets to friends."


 * Given that the Frankenmuth Historical Museum taconite display raises questions of credibility, that the taconite pellets were likely intentionally removed from the Fitz wreck site, and that the image is superfluous to article, I think it is best to remove the image until it is established that it is a credible.Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the explanation. Perhaps it would have been best if you had specified what the problem was in the first place in the citation request or edit summary instead of just "reason=Your explanation here". Alternatively, the caption could have been reworded more to your satisfaction to say only that it was taconite from the wreck site and avoiding saying accidentally. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The taconite pellets from the Fitz are one her controversial topics. I avoided going into it until your reasonable request for an explanation.  I contacted the Frankenmuth Historical Museum Collections and Exhibits Curator requesting information on the taconite image display.  I will report back if there is a response from the museum.Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)