Template:Did you know nominations/United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic

United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic

 * ... that Senator William Alden Smith (pictured) chaired the United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2009–10 Logan Cup. Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that the article is being expanded by User:Prioryman, so credit should be given there as well (not sure how to add another user to the nomination).
 * I've added a credit below. Prioryman (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest an alternative hook? The proposed one is a bit dull, but this might be a bit more interesting as it presents an unexpected fact. Prioryman (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that Senator William Alden Smith (pictured), who chaired the United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic, was called a fool, ignorant and an ass by the British press?
 * That's certainly true, but I'd prefer not to rehash newspaper soundbites from the time. That's fine for the article, where those quotes can be seen in context, but on DYK people may just read the hook and not read the article. I've also just been reading the Conrad essays (see here, where he talks of "The unsentimental truth stripped of the romantic garment the Press has wrapped around this most unnecessary disaster.". He is referring there to the tales of heroism and the romantic ideals being talked about in the press, but the sentiment is the same: the press putting spin on the matter. I'd be OK with a hook saying that the inquiry was heavily criticised in the British press, while the American press was generally positive, but I'm less happy with singling out examples. Another alternative (not yet mentioned or sourced) is that the US inquiry's questioning of Captain Stanley Lord, led to the British inquiry changing the scope of its questioning to allow questioning of Lord on the role of the Californian and its officers (see page 171 of The Other Side of the Night). Another possible hook would be to highlight witnesses such as Marconi and Otis (in the US inquiry) and Marconi and Shackleton (in the British inquiry). Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, but to be honest I don't think the current hook is likely to attract many people either - I doubt that many people will know who Senator William Alden Smith was. How about this hook and image? Prioryman (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT2: ... that the United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic (witnesses pictured) declared the disaster an "act of God" because nobody could be held liable for it under maritime law?

Created/expanded by Carcharoth (talk) and Prioryman (talk). Self nom at 08:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Two notes: (1) There is a 'twin' nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic. (2) The image proposed for the second hook will not work well at the size used by DYK on the main page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this replacement better, do you think? (see right) Prioryman (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. The sort of images that work best on the main page at DYK size are those showing a single object in reasonable close-up. Something that can be recognised without needing to click on it. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Question To me, the most surprising thing is that the US Senate inquired into the subject at all. Before reading the article, my biggest question is "Why would they do that in the first place?"  Therefore, I'd just like to suggest a radically different hook: "... that the United States Senate held an official inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic?"  Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think it's surprising? It was an American-owned ship (albeit British-operated), it sank off the coast of North America and it was on its way to New York City. The existence of the inquiry is fairly widely known, I think. The reason I suggested the alternative hook above is that everyone knows the ship sank because of a catalogue of failures, but it's more surprising that nobody was held liable for them. Prioryman (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I care less about the hook at this point, than about getting someone to look at the article and see if it can be approved. FWIW, it was not just the ownership of the ship, but the nationalities of the passengers, and that many of them were emigrating to start a new life in the USA. If a hook is going to go in this direction, it could focus on the way Senator Smith set up the inquiry, and how some perceived it as grandstanding on his part. Without Smith seizing what he saw as an opportunity, it is likely that no US Senate inquiry would have taken place (or a much more limited one with less witnesses available). Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The ownership of the ship was the key issue - Smith had a long history (~20 years or so) of tangling with JP Morgan (Titanic's ultimate owner) and other major industrial interests, and was responsible for many of the regulations governing transport safety in the US. Many of the accounts of the inquiry that I've read make that point. I agree that Smith was the key figure, but the key question is why Smith?; the answer to that is his long-running campaign for better regulation of transportation. The hook I suggested makes essentially the same point that The Guardian mentioned this morning in an article about a new play that's running in Belfast at the moment, based on transcripts of the British inquiry - the outcome of both inquiries was effectively "1,517 dead and nobody to blame." It speaks to quite a different culture regarding blame and liability than what we see today. Prioryman (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think it is possible to come up with a hook that brings out the point why Smith?, which could then be used with the picture of him? To pass muster here, this would all have to be covered in the article and clearly cited. But if this is possible, it would be a good hook. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What's happening here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought this had already been resolved. I'll see if I can come up with something that will pass muster, though it'll have to wait till tomorrow. Prioryman (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to have a hook that we agree on. It is more important that someone reviews the article in the normal way (this has not been done yet), and then gives an opinion on the various hooks suggested. The original hook (that I suggested) is fine even if somewhat boring, but it can't be used until someone reviews the content of the article. The normal thing to be done here would be for someone to review the article and the hooks suggested so far, and then come back to the nomination if more hooks are suggested. I did say elsewhere that I thought one of the reasons no-one has reviewed this nomination so far is because the amount of discussion here makes it look like a review is in progress, when in fact no-one has even started a review yet (alternatively, this nomination is just languishing as part of the overall backlog). To answer Crisco's question more directly, what is happening here is that we are waiting for someone to review the article and say whether the original hook is OK or not. Devising other hooks and getting those approved is a separate matter that shouldn't hold up the review of the article and the hook suggested at the time of the nomination. I've nominated at DYK several times, and this is the longest I've ever had to wait for someone to even start a review. I even went and reviewed another nomination (the Mississippi copper plates one) while waiting. What I'm thinking is that in cases where there are joint nominators, discussion between the nominators over the hook should probably take place on the talk page of the nomination, to avoid precisely what seems to have happened here. This would leave the front page of the nomination free for the normal review. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg In that case, this needs a review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg article is big and new enough, many references, has a balanced reporting of what was controversial at the time, did not spot plagiarism from a quick check. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)