Talk:Sinking of the Titanic/Archive 5

Channel 4 documentary, supposed new evidence
This has the whiff of a fringe theory so I hesitated to add it. Thoughts? Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, fringe theory. It's been around for years (see so it's not exactly new. Prioryman (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can make out, the documentary centres on recently discovered photographs of the ship during construction and its first voyage, where marks on the hull are detectable before the voyage, in the position of the bunker fire. They argue this is additional evidence of a longstanding fire which must have been known to the company. They argue that unusually almost all the stokers declined to stay on for the atlantic crossing after taking the ship from Belfast to Southampton, implying they were aware of a dangerous situation. It then backs this with experts arguing such fires are not uncommon, this one is plainly documented, and I think the experts argued the strength of the affected bulkhead would likely have been reduced to 1/4 of its design strength. There are contemporary reports of buckling after the fire and of the metal having been red hot.  The argument is not exactly that the fire damage caused the sinking, but that once flooding had reached a certain point there was a catastrophic collapse of this bulkhead, leading to a sudden increase in the rate of flooding and sinking. Thus a relatively leisurely sinking which might even have appeared containable or at least anticipated more time for evacuation and rescue, transformed into a very much more urgent one. They bring in circumstantial evidence of financial pressures on the company to meet the deadline for the maiden voyage, which had already been delayed considerably, and of disputes with the board of trade over the quality of steel used in the construction.
 * It is more of a nuanced argument about the flooding than a total variation, but has some implications for the validity of various alleged failings in not getting boats launched quickly enough, or leaving half full. It is of course a conspiracy theory in the sense it highlights a potential risk with safety which the company knowingly took and lost, which then gave them further economic reasons for a cover up of potential contributory negligence. There is a much touted theory that the ship sank because of water cascading over the bulkhead tops, whereas this theory might in fact argue that is wrong, and at least in that respect the ship's safety design was better than has been claimed. Sandpiper (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with and  that a/ there have been variations of this theory for some time, and b/ it is essentially still WP:FRINGE. Irondome (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am forced to observe that if a theory has been around for some time, then it might be regarded as established orthodoxy. It would seem that fire damage was discussed in the original sinking enquiries.Sandpiper (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice the article already contains some potentially misleading information about the rate of flooding, suggesting that the rate of flooding was way in excess of the pumps abilities to remove it. To the extent that flooding into the ship would cease once various sections had filled, it would only be the rate of water entering the relatively sound sections with which the pumps would have to contend. In this respect, a collapse of the next bulkhead along because of fire damage would be highly significant. Sandpiper (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the longevity of a theory does not automatically give it added weight. As to conspiracy theories as to the loss, I had several conversations with Robin Gardiner over the years, and some of his technical points are interesting, as is his examination of the conduct of the crew, especially the officers during the chaotic loading of the lifeboats, but are untenable in his overall theory of an insurance job, which is completely discredited by further subsequent finds at the wreck site, especially the propeller number stampings. It is arguable whether any ship of that era would have survived the massive damage that Titanic took, and indeed she lasted for two and a half hours, exceeding the initial estimates of Thomas Andrews. The fire damage may have contributed, but there were many other factors. A single reason is always problematic. Irondome (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see there is also some difficulty over what orders were given regarding engine speeds and steering (the principle parties not having survived), and a suggestion that in fact it would have been technically impossible to stop the centre propellor in the time between sighting the berg and sriking it, whereas the article implies this was done, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the rudder.Sandpiper (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also sources I have been hunting online (including those cited) seem less than definitive on the precise number of compartments being flooded which would result in the ship sinking, also that in fact there is no evidence the first compartment did flood. Google gives me page 29 of the paperback Ballard book, which might or might not differ from page 22 of the 1987 hardback cited. This states what is quoted in the article about betwen 2-7 compartments flooded sufficient to sink the ship, but is inadequate in detail, and does not explain where Ballard got his numbers. The compartments shown in profile above are very different in size because of the narrowing of the ship forward. Also, the bald figures would be affected by loading, and the ship was certainly low on coal, apparently quite low on number of passengers: potentially it was light in the bow with empty holds. Sandpiper (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah,to answer my own question, I found page 45-46 of the Mersey report, which probably is the source for Ballard since it contains more detail. Ballard therefore as a reference is not adding to this point. Unfortunately Mersey actually states he did not go into this in great detail because it was of no consequence to whether or not the ship would sink, once he was convinced sufficient compartments were flooding, such that the ship would inevitably sink (p.46). Hardly an ideal source, Mersey has been heavily criticised by many subsequent authors. Sandpiper (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a well-researched piece on this issue here which is worth a read. Prioryman (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a very informative discussion. Do you think the black marks on hull warrant mention? I haven't seen beyond the article to which I posted so I'm not sure about that. I note that it originates from a journalist who appears reputable and notable. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I could not assess the reputability of the documentary, or article which says similar things. I don't know if other experts would agree about the pictures or their significance, but I would think the article should have a discussion about the bunker fire, its potential significance with regard to the failure of the last critical bulkhead and a better explanation of the water tight compartments. It seems already established as fact that the bunker was burning before the ship reached Southampto. The pictures, if being correctly interpreted, would only be additional evidence pushing the start of the fire to an even earlier time.
 * Reading around this, it seems the fire has long been a source of contention, which is in itself notable. The existence of the fire and damage to the bulkhead is an established fact, the point at question is whether or not it contributed to the sinking. Mersey seems to have taken the view that the sinking was inevitable anyway, so he was not interested in the fire (other parties at the hearing seem to have disagreed). I have not seen anything which actually confirms Mersey's conclusion this was irrelevant, but significant cirumstantial evidence no one had an interest in publicising a potential industry-wide safety issue with coal.
 * Its odd, but in trying to research this I have run into links to the twin towers disaster, where as I understand it a building was brought down by structural failure of steel components due to a kerosene and general furnishings fire. Similar issues seem to have arisen over whether such a fire could have been hot enough to cause the failure. The situation in Titanic's bunkers seems not wholly dissimilar to a coke oven, where the burning charge of coal is enclosed with inadequate air so that its own heat will drive off volatile oils leaving only coke. These run hotter than simple coal fires: restricting the air supply actually makes it hotter. It seems in the twin towers steel actually melted. As one of the biggest ships afloat, Titanic presumably had the biggest bunkers which again could have increased the problem.Sandpiper (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I think the bunker fire definitely warrants a mention. I did skim the article and I don't believe it's there now. Coretheapple (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised it isn't mentioned. I have never noticed it's absence. It may be that one's consciousness become saturated with numerous narratives of the event. Should the slight list which is mentioned in many accounts be mentioned also. I am not seeing it, but perhaps it is already there. Irondome (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a stable featured article on a subject I'm not too familiar with, so I suggest that someone with some background in the subject make a bold add or perhaps propose text. Coretheapple (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that there is substantial press coverage of this new theory in multiple reliable sources: New York Times today, Time magazine, CNN, and quite a few others in Britain and worldwide. See Google News. That suggests that this is not a fringe theory and deserves mention in the article. Evidently this is genuine new evidence, though it is disputed whether the coal fire accelerated the sinking. My feeling would be that the coal fire deserves greater weight and that this new theory deserves a couple of sentences. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the key is that the fire's existence is widely established and was not actually mentioned here or on the main Titanic article. I think the best way is to highlight the fire's existance, and note that theories have existed that it may have exacerbated the collision's effects. Despite how it is being reported in the press, the ship sank because it hit an iceberg and this remains the case. The section I have added - sorry I didn't see the discussion here earlier - seems to have reached consensus on the main Titanic article. It's not a major feature or reworking of the article, more that it is supplementary information. Particularly in the case of the fire's existence, this should have been featured years ago in my opinion. TAG 21:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the subsection you added is fine and covers it adequately. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While the ship sank because it hit an iceberg, more people died because it sank fast, and if a fire meant is sank faster then it was the fire which killed those people. Score 1200 deaths to iceberg and 300 to fire?Sandpiper (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I'm editor mainly in the Spanish Wikipedia but I have recently edited the page regarding the bunker fire issue. I wanted to share my thoughts here, as I see much of what is being said above is wrong. I did watch the documentary by Senan Molony, which has sparked all the debate. I’m appaled to see that some people are very keen to consider this documentary as proof of something. They are wrong. I will explain why:
 * First of all, Molony claims in the documentary that two recently unearthed photos of the Titanic shows marks on the hull exactly in the same spot that the coal bunker fire was raging. This is not true. You can check by yourselves in this site: www.paullee.com/titanic/time.php, and compare the photos with the place the coal bunker fire did happened. The marks simply doesn’t match.
 * Also, the scorch marks seem to change position, size and shape between the two photographs. Even another photograph of Titanic taken at the same time of the other two brought up by Molony, doesn’t show anything at all. Indeed, other photographs of Titanic before sailing day shows no external damage. Go figure.
 * Another important argument by Molony is that Titanic seemed not to sink until “something catastrophic happened”, referring to the alleged watertight collapse by fire damage that "he has discovered". Furthermore, he goes on to say that the designer of the ship, Thomas Andrews, said that “the ship wouldn’t sink, as long as the filled compartments held”!! Both statements are false, as Titanic was already condemned as soon as the first 5 watertight compartments were breached, Thomas Andrews acknowledged that and told so to captain Smith, according to survivors ("The ship has 1 hour, or 1 hour and a half at best", Andrews said). This is fact. Molony claims are wild speculation, not based in evidence. According to real experts (already cited in the references included by me), the alleged collapse of a watertight compartment didn't happened, it was only a coal bunker door (not designed to hold for water pressure) which collapsed and let water fill Boiler Room 5. So all these had a minimal effect in the rate of flooding. Titanic was going to sink anyway, and Molony does not offer a real proof to believe the contrary.
 * It is also implied in the documentary that Titanic was running short of coal, and thus this forced captain Smith to maintain the heading of the ship towards the ice bank at full speed, to further back Molony’s arguments. Again this is false, as can be read in “Short on coal”, an article by expert Mark Chirnside included as an annex in his book “The Olympic-class ships” (pages 337-341), which clearly denies this. Chirnside has written some few books about the Olympic-class ships, and is a renowned expert in the field.


 * There are many more innacuracies that would make this list very long, I will not extend it. In summary, it is a flawed documentary: based in flawed “evidence” and therefore reaching wrong conclusions, which are highly misleading.


 * Molony is also a well known autor in the Titanic community, but unfortunately not for good reasons. He has been involved in the Californian-Lord affair for a long time, often with very bad results. See the above link by Paul Lee. He is highly controversial and not reliable.


 * It is, then, no surprise that the foremost experts on the Titanic (Mark Chirnside, Samuel Halpern and others) have expressed their astonishment and sadness regarding Molony’s documentary. As you can see in this thread of the Encyclopedia Titanica website, one of the best site resources about the Titanic on the net.


 * I hope to have clarified some of the points discussed here. The coal bunker deserves a brief mention in the page, sure, but not the predominant role in the disaster that some people tend to believe now after watching a bogus documentary.


 * I therefore propose to mention the coal bunker fire briefly, but to move all these details, to RMS Titanic alternative theories. This is the place where they should be brought along, as a sideline discussion, and certainly not in the two principal articles (RMS Titanic and Sinking of RMS Titanic). Thank you and best regards to all.—Hanjin (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. The plausibility, supporting evidence and presentation of the recent coal fire ideas in the media is very weak. There's nothing mysterious about what happened or about at what speed she sunk after the strike. And the compartments didn't need to be breached, they were over-topped. The "compartment barriers / bulkheads"  were actually only like dividers in an ice cube tray.  North8000  (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're in agreement guys and the article now reads well. Good job on this one! TAG 15:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added a link to a complete rebuttal of Molony's claims that has been recently published by some of the foremost experts on Titanic (Bruce Beveridge, Mark Chirnside, Tad Fitch, Steve Hall, J. Kent Layton and Bill Wormstedt) called Titanic: Fire & Ice (Or What You Will). It also demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of Titanic authors are completely against this 'new theory'. Now the article gives a more balanced view on the coal bunker fire issue, but still I see that much weight is given to an unproved theory, and sadly it is given a prominent space in the article, which clearly it doesn't deserve. As I said above, the issue should be mentioned much more briefly, and all the detailed controversy on the issue should be placed in RMS Titanic alternative theories, so that further details can be included. -Hanjin (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. The fire itself is appropriate but the related theories are fringe or below. "Below" fringe is putting out something that you know to be stupid  or baseless just to get publicity and the related money. Agree with moving the theory part 100% to RMS Titanic alternative theories.  North8000  (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If the coal bunker fire had been in any way serious the crew would have hosed-it-down until it was out. Normally in an enclosed bunker the fire is limited by the amount of air and therefore oxygen within the compartment and after an initial spurt when the oxygen is consumed will settle down to just smouldering due to being starved of plentiful oxygen. Such fires were often ignored simply because they were not serious, and would be eventually uncovered by the shovels of the stokers who would then dispose of the burning embers.


 * One needs a forced draught to cause coal or coke to burn at sufficient temperatures to affect iron or steel. That's why blacksmiths have to use bellows, a fact that has been known to metalworkers since the Iron Age, but which, it appears, was unknown to the documentary makers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ship's time and GMT
We are working on a translation of the article to Norwegian and are in the final stages of improving the Norwegian language in the translation. A question has appeared which we would like som help to solve. The article says: «.. she struck an iceberg at 23:40 (ship's time)[a] on Sunday, 14 April 1912. Her sinking two hours and forty minutes later at 02:20 (05:18 GMT) on Monday .. » and we are trying to understand the discrepancy in minunutes from GMT and would like to understand why. I have tried to find out which source contains the information and would be happy if anybody knows which is the correct source. Thanks. -- ツツDyveldi ☯ prattle  ✉ post 21:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find a reference for it but I seem to remember hearing somewhere that a ship on a long crossing would set their clock at noon each day(Solar time) as there is no relevance to time ashore in mid atlantic. The surprising thing (if that was the case) is that the difference was only two minutes as it could have been anything at all. As I say, I can't remember where I picked this up from so it may be fanciful. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have suspected that the 2005 book by Lord possibly contains something. It seems to appear as a citation close to the information further down in the article and in the Titanic article, but right now I have no way of checking. After finding this discussion I most certainly realized the complexity of the matter. What I did find a source for was that the Californian's time was 10 minutes behind the Titanic's ( (this book is digitally readable for Norwegian IP-adresses (which is wonderful working from Norway, but unfortunately not so wonderful if you work from somewhere else in the world))) . Yes we have also found the setting of ships time's beeing set locally on the ship historically, but we'll probably have to find a navigator or an astronomer to explain exactly how this was done That it has to to with the ship's meridian seems to be clear. «Prior to 1920, all ships kept solar time on the high seas by setting their clocks at night or at the morning sight so that, given the ship's speed and direction, it would be 12 o'clock when the sun crossed the ship's meridian. The local apparent noon is 12 noon.» (i Nautical_time) og «Noon Greenwich Mean Time is rarely the exact moment when the sun crosses the Greenwich meridian and reaches its highest point in the sky there, because of Earth's uneven speed in its elliptic orbit and its axial tilt. This event may be up to 16 minutes away from noon GMT, a discrepancy calculated by the equation of time. » (i Greenwich_Mean_Time). The information could very well be correct it seems, but how to find a citation? -- ツツDyveldi ☯ prattle  ✉ post  22:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was a ship's navigator, so I will try to explain. The above is all correct. In Titanic's day, the clocks were adjusted so they read 12 o'clock at exactly the time when the sun was highest in the sky. If you are on a ship looking at the sun, and you say "Now! The sun is at its highest point", someone on another ship a few miles to the west will say "Not yet! It isn't quite there yet." So the longitude is important. Your clock should read 12 o'clock, but your friend's clock might read 11:59. That is why Californian's time could well be 10 minutes different. Traveling at a slower speed and on a different course, they expected to be in a different place at noon the next day. There was a hand-written note pad called the Clocks Book that was sent around, usually after evening meal so as not to confuse the cooks, which would tell everyone when the change should be made and how many minutes forward or back. By the 60's, this unnecessary fussiness was dropped, and clocks were only adjusted when it was worked out that noon next day (sun's highest point) would be more than half an hour from 12 o'clock. Rumiton (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC) And of course, the difference between ship's time and GMT at the time of sinking was 2 hrs 58 minutes because of the above practice. Rumiton (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for an excellent explanation and very understandable explanation Rumiton. The next question is how did they establish the connection between GMT and ship's time. My suspicion is that the telegrams sendt were archived with both sender's and receiver's local time, but I do not know !!. And where is the source for the connection between ship's time and GMT? The explanatory note in the article is good, but should (maybe) have a source since this question just might pop up again in some years. -- ツツDyveldi ☯ prattle  ✉ post  10:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Radio officers started and finished their watches according to GMT, and times on messages sent and received were noted in either GMT or some other time standard (eg NYT). Ship's time may have been given as a note. The relationshiop between ship's time and GMT depended entirely on the ship's longitude. I don't know how you could source this, it is self-explanatory when you think about it. Rumiton (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Or am I misunderstanding something? Rumiton (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC) The officer of the watch enters the time being kept in the deck log (eg GMT+2hrs 58 mins), along with other details of the watch. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again thanks for everybody's patience and another very good explanation Rumiton. What I have been thinking is that with the amount of reports, hearings and examinations after she sank and the ensuing books being published for a hundred years was that someone must have written something. Several reports were avalable with small bits of text via Google books, but not enough. Taking a good look again I found that the note attached to the information had a citation (which I should have seen right away of course). And using this book as a gateway to searching I finally found: CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS WITH REFERENCES AND NOTES a page claiming to be based on the same reference as I finally found in our article and at the bottom the page there is a link to another page providing a comparison of NYT and Titanic's time for the voyage and the sinking. This provides further explanations. I would not have found this without the help received on this talk page, thanks a lot. -- ツツDyveldi ☯ prattle  ✉ post 20:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Times given in GMT would almost certainly have been taken from the ship's chronometer used for navigation and the time by this clock would be accurate to within a few seconds of Greenwich.


 * Ship's time could be easily calculated by reference to the longitude, ie., calculated ship's position, and the time at Greenwich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

12 vs 24 hour time.
An editor keeps changing this from 24 to 12 hour time. Refering to it as "military time" which i've never heard it called before. And several editors have reverted it.

I prefer the 24 hour time format myself as it's simple and unambiguous and is in widespread use in the Uk and internationally. And surely it can't be that hard to count past twelve. So just wondering what other editors think.

P.S. Is there any wikipedia policy on what time format to use? G-13114 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS:TIME says it should be determined by "context", but doesn't define that. Generally, the previous or longstanding format is considered to have consensus. DrKay (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that 24-hour time is better. To me, it is clearer, which should be what an encyclopaedia article should aim for. As for international usage, it should be noted that it's not just in English-speaking countries that the English Wikipedia is accessed. People in, say, France, Germany, Russia and Japan also access it, as well as their local versions, because the English Wikipedia is more extensive. And in those countries, the 24-hour clock is usual. Incidentally, the user seems to suggest in this edit summary that Wikipedia as a whole should use 12-hour time, so maybe he/she should take the discussion to the Manual of Style talk pages.—A bit iffy (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the big picture, I think that we should use 24 hr time in this article. FYI, in the USA 12 Hr. time is overwhelmingly used, and the most common terms for 24 Hr. time are "military time" and "navy time".  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. Well judging by this, the consensus seems to be to keep the 24 hr format. G-13114 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no strong view either way, but in official documents in the British Merchant Navy, (log books, cargo registers, voyage reports, etc) a.m. and p.m. are not used. It is always 24 hour timekeeping. I feel 12 hour times would look strange in this context. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The 24-hour clock was originally devised for the purposes of ship navigation so as to make recorded times unambiguous and to prevent expensive and tragic mistakes due to mistaking AM for PM. It was also exclusively used for time-keeping by the BBC World Service up until comparatively recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Charles Joughin- Last Survivor to leave the ship?
I was in an edit war recently with IP: 137.205.183.121 regarding Charles Joughin being the last survivor to leave the ship. Sources (including the source he gave me http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq06Joughin02.php) does say he rode the stern down into the water, and with common sense there would be no survivors still aboard ship after it had sunk. Am I in the right or am I using Original research? Heres an excerpt from the inquiry:

6072. Were you holding the rail so that you were inside the ship, or were you holding the rail so that you were on the outside of the ship? - On the outside. 6073. So that the rail was between you and the deck? - Yes. 6074. Then what happened? - Well, I was just wondering what next to do. I had tightened my belt and I had transferred some things out of this pocket into my stern pocket. I was just wondering what next to do when she went. 6075. And did you find yourself in the water? - Yes. 6076. Did you feel that you were dragged under or did you keep on the top of the water? - I do not believe my head went under the water at all. It may have been wetted, but no more. Zyon788 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, by analysis, it's about 99.9999% sure that you are right, with the other .0001% being somebody possibly crawling out of a submerged area. But in Wikipedia terms, if what you have on this is just what you posted, then IMHO in Wikipedia it would be considered to be O/R.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Either way it isn't worth pain and suffering and getting into edit war trouble over. Suggest both of you take it to talk. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I reverted my edit back and you are right its a small detail, not worth it. Zyon788 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Engines stopped before the collision
According to testimony of Frederick Barrett (Leading stoker) on day 3 of Brittish inquiry just before the collision a red light flashed in boiler room no. 6 with order to stop the ship and he ordered "shut all the dampers". While they were shutting them the water came in. An officer whose name I don't remember saw a full astern on the tellegraph after the collision and said they ordered engines to full astern after the collision to stop the ship faster. Also putting the engines to reverse after being driven at nearly full speed would make the ship shudder heavily and no passanger described such shudder. Most of them slept right through it. And on page R.M.S. Titanic here on wikipedia under a maiden voyage section, it is said the engines were stopped before the collision. Martin Papp (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Tides were not extraordinary in January, 1912
The tides on the coast of Labrador were not extraordinary in January, 1912. Yes, there were perigean Spring tides in January. Such tides occur frequently. The article claiming extraordinary tides was published by a popular science magazine, Sky & Telescope, desperate to increase readership by riding the wave of the Titanic centennial. It was not a peer-reviewed article. It is poor astronomy and poor oceanography, and the authors have no expertise or professional background in ocean tides. The section citing this nonsense should be deleted, or at minimum it should be cited as highly speculative. 184.219.18.231 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources that support your contention? Rumiton (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want a primary astrometric source of exceptional standing such as Jean Meeus, or are you happy with the computations of any one of a multitude of organisations (including the RYA and USCG) or software packages that use orbital motions derived from those sources? I have added the annotation that 184.219.018.231 requested. Astronomy Explained (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Having added a comprehensive rebuttal of this fringe theory which was published in a popular magazine without proper peer review, I find that my edits have been reverted but no action has been taken concerning the utter falsehoods of the theory. Once again, it appears that there are editors who are prepared to promulgate any idiocy provided that such fallacies have been published elsewhere. Such behaviour only serves to further enhance the opinion that Wikipedia is not itself a reliable secondary source. Astronomy Explained (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Due weight for fringe theory about the significance of proximity of moon and sun
Under the heading Background is some information about the closeness of the moon, and the closeness of the Earth to the sun, in the weeks prior to the sinking. This information states the resulting high tides were significant in releasing large amounts of ice from the coast of Greenland, including the iceberg that damaged Titanic. This information has been seriously challenged on this Talk page on at least two occasions.

The sources cited to support this information are of questionable reliability and have been challenged on this Talk page. The article introduces this questionable information by saying it is now known that ... I suggest it is inaccurate, and possibly mischievous, to use the expression it is now known to give unwarranted support to what is little more than a new theory that appeared recently in a couple of places in the popular press. To give no more than due weight to this theory we would have to delete it is now known that and replace it with something like A new theory suggests. Better still, the contentious material could be removed while we examine this new theory and decide what status it truly deserves.

The first of the two cited sources is by Olson, Drescher and Sinnott. The link appears to be broken and only an error message results. The second of the cited sources is by Broad - it looks like popular reading for the masses rather than a high-technical or peer-reviewed article. The information has been seriously challenged for this reason.

I propose the contentious material be removed or suppressed until it can be discussed and some agreement reached. At the very least, Wikipedia should not be supporting this information with the expression it is now known that ... Dolphin  ( t ) 13:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this comprehensive summary of the contentious paragraph, Dolphin. My background includes a degree in planetary science with special interest in solar system dynamics, 46 years of observational astronomy and 17 years of science engagement. As I listed on the reverted pages, I have a number of issues with the claims made in the primary source, the populist US magazine 'Sky and Telescope', by Olsen and Drescher (Sinnott is credited due to his rôle as an executive editor).


 * Closest perigee for 1,400 years: The closest lunar perigee of the 2,000 years before 4 January AD 1912 (221,442 miles) was 1,115 years earlier on 19 December AD 796 (221,436 miles), not that of 24 December AD 451.


 * Other recent close perigee: The perigee of 23 December AD 1893 was barely further away at 221,454 miles.


 * Practically simultaneous perihelion and perigee: Earth's perihelion that year was the previous day rather than on the day of perigee. That was because of the way that leap days are calculated to keep the calendar aligned with the spring equinox, not perihelion.


 * Effect on the tides: The combined effects of the closer perigee and closer perihelion would only have increased the total gravitational influence on the tides by 5·1% above the average figure recorded over the past two millennia and less than 1¾% when considered relative to a normal perigee syzygy. For comparison, a tidal surge due to weather conditions could raise the maximum tide height by up to 10%.


 * In summary, although it could be claimed that slightly higher tides resulting from this cyclical alignment of celestial events may have loosened some 'bergs which had grounded on the eastern seaboard, the probabilities suggest that the overall influence on the risk of an ocean liner sinking that night was trivial compared to other factors. I have no objection to the theory being listed as one of the many suggestions about minor contributory factors with the words It has been suggested that...., but would contend that if it is then the above refutations should also be shown. Astronomy Explained (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. We need to be alert to fringe theories creeping into this article. There is so much fringe theory surrounding the sinking of Titanic that the genre has its own article - RMS Titanic alternative theories. If there remains significant support for the extra-high tide theory, the appropriate place for it might be the article about all the alternative theories. Dolphin  ( t ) 14:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As a yachtsman, I pay attention to tides as they can range (difference between high and low) in height in my area as much as 10 feet during a Spring Tide with Neap tides running in the order of six feet. However, I have been scrutinizing the tides for Saint John's, Newfoundland and the HIGHEST range I can come up with over the years is less than six feet while "normal" (or Neap tide) is in the order of 4 feet. This range difference in a spring tide would be (IMO) unlikely to have much effect on the open ocean. I concur that fringe theories must not be allowed to creep into the main article. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  15:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Quite a contrast to the coast near my parents' house which has a usual spring tidal range of 31', Aloha.
 * Yeah, I live less than 60 miles from the highest tides in the world which are at Burntcoat Head NS However, the Bay of Fundy is an anomaly being funnel-shaped. Having said that, here are the tide charts for St. John's Newfoundland [] and precisely at this moment in time, it is a spring tide of 5.2 feet. The devastating tsunami of 2004 was reported to have only resulted in a seismic oscillation of 8 to 12 inches, which is equivalent to the forces of the sun and moon.Not much effect in the open ocean. Devastating as it came ashore. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  02:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If we consider that most reports suggest the 'berg responsible in this case stood 100' above the water, it was probably nearly 1,000' in overall height. Given the extreme figure for increased tidal range due to surplus gravity at the closest perihelion perigee syzygy (known to the astrological community and populist media as a supersolar-supermoon) is only 5·1% greater than average, then if the usual range is 72" we are considering a putative refloating of this colossal mass of ice due to an extra depth of water of 3¾" or less - about the size of the swell in a force 3 breeze.


 * I think that final comparison between tidal and weather effects should really put this implausible theory in context.


 * PS. Besides my academic qualifications in planetary science, I hold the (UK's) Royal Yachting Association "Yachtmaster Ocean" certificate of celestial navigation and seamanship. Astronomy Explained (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have hidden the contentious material. There might be other views, or opposing views, forthcoming in the near future. If not, the contentious material can be erased. Dolphin  ( t ) 12:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the text in question should not be in the article. Extraordinary claims like this require a far higher degree of sourcing than presented here. Coretheapple (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There being no support within a week for retaining the contentious material, I erased it. See my diff. Dolphin ( t ) 12:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sinking of the RMS Titanic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.titanicresource.8m.com/cries.htm
 * Added tag to http://media.skyandtelescope.com/documents/Titanic+layout.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822142553/http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRep01.php to http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRep01.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103014858/http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepWC.php to http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepWC.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103010506/http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepObserv.php to http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepObserv.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death - medical accuracy
I'm re-reverting this edit because it's simply incorrect, clinically. The comment states that the main issue is lack of a specific "Titanic" reference - it's very unlikely that the Titanic victims in the water died any differently than any other persons similarly plunged into freezing water, and we have plenty of references for how the body reacts medically to that situation. I've listed a few below.I've also specifically looked for Titanic references.


 * Report to Canadian Government ("TRansport Canada") on survival in cold water:


 * Author is a doctor, also author of "Lifejackets through the ages", probably knows what he is talking about.
 * 2. "Four clear stages... cold shock ("3-5 mins), swimming failure [incapacitation] (within 30 mins), hypothermia (after 30 mins)
 * 4. "Historically, there has been a preoccupation with hypothermia ... However, it is now considered that the early responses to immersion (stages 1 and 2) probably account for the majority of open water immersion deaths."
 * p.16 "It has now become clear that over half of the immersion-related deaths occur during the first two stages of immersion, i.e. cold shock and swimming failure ... The problem is further compounded by the fact that such a good job has been done educating people on the dangers of cold water, immersion and hypothermia, that even the pathologists now list the cause of death as hypothermia, even though the cold, wet body on their autopsy table actually died from cold shock or swimming failure and drowning."
 * p.16 "There has now been more research done on loss of tactility in cold water during the first 10-15 minutes of immersion (Reference 68). During this time, the cold water renders the limbs useless, and particularly the hands ... This only enhances the possibility of perishing before hypothermia is established".
 * p.18-20: "There are several common threads in these accidents: the victims were good swimmers, the water was cold, death occurred within a matter of only minutes - much too early for hypothermia ... Most important, there was potential help at the scene of the accident, but no one recognized the danger of sudden death from cold shock in an otherwise healthy person."
 * p.20 "It has now become apparent that much more emphasis must be put on swimming failure as a cause of death. It must also be understood that ability to swim in warm water is no indication of how well a human can swim in cold water ... These are not rare events"
 * p.22 "Tipton (1989) (Reference 59) had already documented the initial cardiorespiratory responses to immersion in cold water, i.e. the massive increase in heart rate and blood pressure within the first three minutes of immersion. Then  in 1994, Tipton et al investigated the cardiac responses to submersion in water of  5ºC and 10ºC.  (Reference 62).  Ectopic arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats) were observed in 11 of the 12 subjects in 29 of the 36 submersions ...  For those with a potential heart conduction defect, the heart is likely to be very susceptible to sudden immersion in water of 10ºC, resulting in a cardiac arrest or death." [Tipton's own writings and credentials are below]


 * Others


 * Titanic, a peculiar history: "Most victims - even good swimmers - were probably killed by the freezing water in just a few minutes. They would have been paralysed by cold shock, which can cause a heart attack..."


 * NOVA transcript on cold water drowning and the Titanic: "We now know that it's not just even hypothermia alone that is the problem. We now know that in the first few minutes of immersion, you suffer a phenomena called cold shock, where you can't control your breathing, and your heart rate soars, and your blood pressure goes up, and you are totally incapacitated for just a few minutes if you're not used to cold water. And even competent swimmers, Olympic standard swimmers, get into difficulty in those first few minutes. And they can't even swim a short distance to save their own lives. Later on, and much later, body temperature ebbs away, and the people suffer from hypothermia. So, they have to survive the cold shock phenomena before they even die from hypothermia."


 * British RNLI (National lifeboat service) advice on cold water: "Sudden immersion in water any temperature below 15C puts people at severe risk of cold water shock [... which ...] can quickly lead to drowning ... The RNLI’s advice is to float for around 60-to-90 seconds – the time it takes for the effects of the cold shock to pass and for you to regain control of your breathing."


 * Times Higher Education article "Findings: Titanic victims in 'cold shock'" quotes Michael Tipton (a professor of physiology, described elsewhere as "an expert in naval medicine" and cited repeatedly here): "Research shows that the vast majority of people die within minutes. Two-thirds die within 10ft of safe refuge - and 60 per cent of those are good swimmers. Contrary to popular belief, most people who fall into cold water do not die of hypothermia as deaths occur too quickly. Instead, they are incapacitated by cold shock, a set of responses seen on initial immersion that include uncontrollable hyperventilation and an increased heart rate that is triggered by a rapid fall in skin temperature and is responsible for most deaths within minutes of hitting the water."


 * Immersion and submersion from research to protection (Handbook of offshore helicopter transport safety) discusses the Titanic specifically: "Despite statements at the formal investigation, such as that of 17 year old First Class passenger Jack Thayer, that: 'The cold was terrific. The shock of the water took the breath out of my lungs....' or that 200 yards was about the maximum distance any survivor claimed to have swum and climbed into a boat, the clues suggesting hazardous short-term responses evoked by immersion were not recognized. Instead, the fact that most of those that died on the Titanic did not “go down with the ship”, but ... were pulled from the sea the next morning by the crew of the Mackay-Bennett, led to the belief that hypothermia was the primary hazard to be faced on immersion in cold water."  "The pre-occupation with hypothermia persists ... The UK Home Office Report of the Working Party on water safety (1977) found that approximately 55% of the annual open-water immersion deaths in the UK occurred within 3 m of a safe refuge (42% within 2 m) and two-thirds of those that died were regarded as good swimmers. The statistics remain about the same today (Tipton, 2014). Anecdotal accounts of people succumbing quickly on immersion in cold water with cardiac problems or drowning were common enough for the term “hydrocution” to evolve. Later, the scientific literature (see below) on immersion examined and described the initial responses to sudden cold water immersion.  "It was this literature, plus the anecdotal accounts from fatal accident enquiries that, in 1981, led Golden and Hervey to propose four stages of immersion associated with particular risk:   Stage 1. Initial Responses – first 3-5 minutes.  Stage 2. Short-term immersion – 5-30 minutes: neuromuscular dysfunction leading to physical incapacitation caused by cooling of superficial nerves and muscle  Stage 3. Long-term immersion – 30 minutes plus. Hypothermia will not occur earlier than this in adults even in coldest water temperatures .  Stage 4. Post immersion ... This remains the most valid categorisation of the hazards to be faced by those immersed in cold water, and provides the definitive framework for the understanding and interpretation of accidents involving cold water immersion..."  "CONCLUSION: The initial responses to cold water immersion represent the greatest threat to be faced by those accidentally immersed in cold water..."


 * Works by Mario Vittone on his water safety blog. Vittone is described as "an expert on sea survival" by the LA Times, a "nationally-noted marine safety writer and former Coast Guard rescue" by The Landing School (a college in Maine), a "marine safety expert" by the Bangor Daily News, Swimways describes his credentials as "a nationally recognized expert on water safety. His writing on aquatic risk and drowning prevention has appeared in magazines, websites, and newspapers around the world .. a former Coast Guard Helicopter Rescue Swimmer and instructor and has lectured on boating and water safety across the United States. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of the National Drowning Prevention Alliance and the Joshua Collingsworth Memorial Foundation". Also awarded "U.S. Coast Guard's Enlisted Person of the Year" 2007, in a citation that identifies him as a former Aviation Survival Technician 1st Class.  From "The Truth About Cold Water" (part also quoting from a fuller version of same article, linked from bottom of article):  States bluntly, " It is impossible to die from hypothermia in cold water unless you are wearing flotation, because without flotation – you won’t live long enough to become hypothermic. [emphasis in original]"  "Despite the research, the experience, and all the data, I still hear “experts” – touting as wisdom – completely false information about cold water and what happens to people who get in it. With another season of really cold water approaching, I feel compelled to get these points across in a way that will change the way mariners behave out there on (or near) the water. When the water is cold (say under 50 degrees F) there are significant physiological reactions that occur, in order, almost always: You Can’t Breathe ... You Can’t Swim ..."  "If you have ever heard the phrase, 'That water is so cold, you will die from hypothermia within ten minutes' then you have been lied to about hypothermia. For that matter you can replace ten minutes with twenty, or thirty, or even an hour, and you’ve still been lied to. In most cases, in water of say 40 degrees (all variables to one side), it typically takes a full hour to approach unconsciousness from hypothermia, the third stage of cold water immersion.  But remember, you must be wearing flotation to get this far ...  The bodies efforts to keep the core warm – vasoconstriction and shivering – are surprisingly effective. The shivering and blood shunting to the core are so effective, that [during a trial] twenty minutes after jumping in (twice the “you’ll be dead in ten minutes” time), I had a fever of 100.2 ... RECOMMENDATIONS [in full version linked from bottom of article] : 1. When working on deck, wear flotation.  This includes, especially, all fisherman in Alaska.  I couldn’t find more recent research, but the 31 Alaskan “fell overboard” casualties in 2005 died from drowning, not cold water.  Not one of them was wearing flotation.  Many couldn’t stay above water long enough for their own boats to make a turn and pick them up..."

I've undone the revert, and added further cites, including one of the "Titanic specific" cites above. FT2 (Talk 11:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a line under section Passengers and crew in the water (02:20–04:10) where it says Sudden immersion into freezing water typically causes death within minutes, either from cardiac arrest, uncontrollable breathing of water, or cold incapacitation (not, as commonly believed, from hypothermia); (my emphasis)
 * The problem with this is that "cold incapacitation" and "hypothermia" both redirect to the hypothermia page. The hypothermia page includes only a single mention of "cold incapacitation," where it says ...cold incapacitation (inability to use or control limbs and hands for swimming or gripping, as the body "protectively" shuts down the peripheral muscles of the limbs to protect its core).
 * Is this correct? If so, this distinction should probably be included within the contents of this article, given that the current way of phrasing is unclear. It looks like this may have been what you originally reverted, but someone has added back in the meanwhile. Tkbrett (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I find this discussion adds an interesting perspective to the peculiar case of Charles Joughin, the ship's chief baker, who apparently, after consuming a quantity of alcohol, managed to survive in the water for some time before he made it to one of the lifeboats. (There's some doubts about details of his story, which may have changed over time, but the basic outline seems clear enough.) People have questioned his story because alcohol is assumed to be detrimental to fighting hypothermia, but if the initial risks of entering cold water are cold shock and swimming incapacitation rather than hypothermia onset, having a surface temperature warmed by moderate alcohol consumption might be an effective counter to those, at least for some people, and may have provided the extra advantage he needed, along with the life jacket he was wearing, to survive long enough to make it to a boat. (Mind you, I'm not recommending getting hammered before entering icy water. :) ) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Article
I added the article "The" to the intro of this article, however now I'm not sure that's correct. If it isn't, should the article be removed from the title? WOPR (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not correct and I have reverted. See Naming conventions (ships). Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case the title is wrong. It should be "Sinking of RMS Titanic". WOPR (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Rename this article to "Sinking of RMS Titanic"
As noted in the section above, the title of this article seems to be out of line with the guidelines in Naming conventions (ships). Most explicitly, the section Using ship names in articles says:
 * "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)"

So is there any objection to removing the word "the" from the title, so the article would be named "Sinking of RMS Titanic"? (Obviously there would be a redirect from the current title.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The guideline also mentions the use of definite article is not technically wrong. If I am not mistaken, the Titanic is almost always referred as "the Titanic" in most texts/sources, so it's more of a common name issue here, and therefore I would oppose changing the title. Alex Shih (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO it should be either "Sinking of the Titanic" or "Sinking of RMS Titanic" - it may almost always be referred to as the Titanic, but not as the RMS Titanic. Perhaps start an WP:RM.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The RM would be the way to go. Alex Shih (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ship's time
Can someone (?) expand the ship's time footnote to explain what exactly ship's time is? Does it track with our somewhat related article in that they were daily reset according to solar time? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

As each day began at midnight, the clocks were turned back (or ahead, on an eastbound trip) according to the ship's approximate/expected longitude at noon that day. That is, the clocks were adjusted so that the sun would be directly overhead at 12 pm ship's time. The relevant part of nautical time is this:

"Prior to 1920, all ships kept solar time on the high seas by setting their clocks at night or at the morning sight so that, given the ship's speed and direction, it would be 12 o'clock when the sun crossed the ship's meridian. The local apparent noon is 12 noon."

because in modern times ships keep time according to the time zone they are in or divide the standard time zone into 15-minute increments. In 1912, if two ships met in midocean and moored to each other, at local apparent noon it could well be 11:56 on Ship A and 12:02 on Ship B because of errors in predicting the longitude at noon based on the time correction made at midnight.

Overall, it's not the easiest thing to understand or explain, especially to people who live in a world where your phone will automatically adjust to your current time zone. The reference to Sam Halpern's "Report into the Loss of SS Titanic..." is a reliable one, however. To complicate matters, Titanic struck the iceberg 20 minutes before a clock adjustment was due. It's widely agreed that no adjustment was made -- but the calculations were done, the clocks were due to be turned back 47 minutes, and now and then one encounters a passenger's account where their pocket- or wristwatch was set to April 15 time in advance of the passenger turning in for their last rest on Titanic. So for any given point in time during the disaster, there's Apparent Time Ship (ATS) for April 14, ATS for April 15, GMT, New York time, etc., not to mention separate ATS times on Carpathia and all the ships Titanic contacted over radio. At least standard time was already in place, so New York was a round number of hours behind GMT. (But even then, the time zones themselves were different. I live in Canada just west of Buffalo, NY, and in 1912 I would've been in Central Time according to History of time in the United States, even though the current Central Time boundary is nearly 500 miles to the west!)

Anyway, while I'm not an expert on the matter of Titanic's ship's time, I've made an effort to explain the basic details with a few new sentences. Let me know what you think, please -- ship's time is an important issue in the "Titanic community" and I may even be able to get a real expert to contribute if you want more explanation than the article provides. Roches (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2018
In the lead, please change "cold water immersion" to hypothermia -- cold water immersion is a therapy. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Partially undone, per discussion in . DrKay (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction and for the clarification (it is unlikely that the victims considered their experience "therapeutic"). —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)