Talk:Titan submersible implosion

“Disaster tourism”

I think “extreme tourism” or “adventure tourism” is a more accurate descriptor. The Titanic has legitimate value as an ecological site and as a historical site in its own right, beyond it just being part of a terrible disaster. Obviously the disaster aspect is a big part of why people are drawn to it, but I think it’s such a famous cultural icon at this point that “disaster tourism” is a bit too narrow to describe the reasons that people might want to see it. Plus I think the extreme aspect of going 4000m underwater in a sub was supposed to be a big part of the appeal and they really marketed the “scientific adventure” aspect of it. So I think adventure tourism or extreme tourism are better terms to encompass the experience that Oceangate was trying to sell. 104.142.126.219 (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If it helps, we have disaster tourism, extreme tourism and adventure travel. Davidships (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Dark tourism might also apply per The Atlantic --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Going to 4,000m in a submersible would certainly be an extreme adventure. But you cannot overlook the fact that Titan was not simply taking tourists to extreme ocean depths. They were specifically headed for a graveyard with around 1,500 souls. Also, it is by no means a trivial thing to point out that the youngest tourist onboard Titan had taken his Rubik's Cube with him for the purpose of solving it while overlooking a mass graveyard. The idea of doing this is at best childish and at worst offensive. If tomorrow, someone was to propose taking overly-wealthy tourists to visit the wreckage of Titan (the submersible) I suspect very few people would argue with calling that "disaster tourism". Does the passage of time (111 years in the case of Titanic) make this kind of voyeurism any less unpalatable? I think not. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Without comment on the larger issue of how to describe the voyage, the fact that a passenger packed a Rubik's Cube is, in the context of this article, deeply trivial. Folly Mox (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

A passenger did not merely "pack a Rubik's Cube". Listen to or read the transcript of the interview his mother gave BBC. He took it with the express intention of solving it at the Titanic's wreck site.

Why frame this fact and my TALK contribution in "the context of this article"? I didn't propose including it in the article. It's merely a fact that contradicts any notion that this passenger took this trip for any useful purpose.

The OP took issue with the use of a phrase like "disaster tourism", saying that there are many legitimate reasons for visiting the Titanic graveyard. That's true. But this passenger went there with the express intention of solving a puzzle. Let's not anyone pretend therefore that he went there to do anything useful or befitting the 1,500 souls who died.

And please stop dismissing people's considered comments with one or two throwaway remarks, or bringing "context" into play without first properly understanding the specific/immediate context and the focus of a particular discussion. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that the goal of the talk page is to improve the article, I do not see a problem with focusing on the context of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

2A00, I'm sorry I made you feel dismissed. You are correct that I did misunderstand the immediate context of the discussion, which I misread as having to do with information present in the article (the typical context of talk page discussions). My apologies. Folly Mox (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll assume you're not being disingenuous.

Is 'information present in the article' really the typical context of talk page discussions? Sometimes it is, often it is not. People introduce topics or information in talk that is sometimes relevant for inclusion in the article, is sometimes irrelevant, is sometimes incorrect, or is sometimes totally off-topic.

If someone contributes something in talk that is (objectively or subjectively) incorrect or inaccurate, other contributors might wish to (or feel compelled to) present evidence or opinion to counter the OP.

In this instance the OP is arguing against the use of the term 'disaster tourism' on the basis that there are lots of legitimate/beneficial reasons for expeditions to the Titanic wreck. That is almost certainly true: however in the case of Suleman Dawood, his taking a Rubik's Cube is a rather clear indication that he didn't undertake this expedition to contribute anything useful to science or society.

To reiterate my point, which I shouldn't have to do, I never suggested there should be any mention of cubes in the article. I only mentioned it (in talk) to dispel the notion that (in the case of one passenger at least) there was ever intention to further science during his trip. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:B129:C1C5:EA8C:6D47 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

To be brief, the intent of talk pages is listed at the top of the article's talk page. Those who ignore that message can be reverted when needed.

Regarding the discussion, I am going to ignore the passengers for a moment. According to how we define disaster tourism, I am not sure if it applies to the article. "Disaster tourism is the practice of visiting locations at which an environmental disaster, either natural or human-made, has occurred." If that is true, then this isn't disaster tourism as the sinking of the Titanic isn't regarded as an environmental disaster. (If that is false, then the disaster tourism article needs fixing.) Back to the passengers, I would limit it to saying that those outside of Rush and Nargeolet did not participate in the dive for scientific reasons and end it there. That should cover the tourism part in my opinion. Do you have any opinions on potentially using extreme tourism, adventure travel, or dark tourism? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It is my recollection, probably from one or both of the broadcast dive videos, that paying guests were briefed on tasks to be undertaken in connection with the mapping project, assessing the preocess of deterioration of the Titanic wreck. In other words, the motives and activities of all those on board will have been to some degree mixed. Davidships (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Some definitions I found:

Limited to environmental disasters

• Disaster tourism is the act of visiting locations that have been subjected to man-made or natural environmental disasters. [...] Disaster tourism is considered a sub-sector of dark tourism and although scholars have in the past have reflected on the form of tourism, it has yet to receive much seperate [sic] academic attention. With this said, there does not appear to be any standardised definition of the term 'disaster tourism'.[1]
• Though similar [to dark tourism], disaster tourism involves visiting locations where an environmental disaster, either natural or man-made, has taken place. Generally, this involves visiting the sites of volcanic eruptions or floods, but the Chernobyl nuclear disaster also fits into this category.[2]

Not limited to environmental disasters

• Disaster tourism is the circulation of people to disaster-affected places to visually consume trauma, devastation, and catastrophe. Examples of disaster tourism include the use of guided tours to concentration camps in Germany, the World Trade Center in New York City, flooded neighborhoods in New Orleans, and war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Disaster tourism also implies intent and purpose on the part of the traveling consumer. The regular tourist travels to disaster sites for the purpose of learning and gaining knowledge and information. A disaster tourist, in contrast, is seeking some sort of emotional thrill or “pleasure” and is not interested in learning, education, or gaining wisdom per se.[3]
• The ethics of disaster tourism: What is the right thing to do? [...] Not long after the [grounding of the Costa Concordia], which killed at least 17 people (15 are still missing), islanders said people came to Giglio to gawk and not because of their affection for Giglio, one of seven islets in the Tuscan Archipelago.[4]

So IMO it's not completely inappropriate to call the Titan excursion a form of disaster tourism. It is clearly an example of dark tourism and extreme tourism (the two are not mutually exclusive). The Wikipedia article on adventure travel lists extreme tourism as one of the types, so it arguably applies here as well. Finally, the extreme tourism article lists the Titanic wreckage as a destination. Xan747 (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will try to look into the passenger part, but at least the descriptors part has been cleared up. Thank you for the sources regarding disaster tourism. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a late reply, but I was unable to find much of anything regarding the work done by the passengers with Quinnipiac University being the best source regarding the title of the passengers. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It would seem that the Wikipedia article on Disaster Tourism needs fixing. The notion of it being restricted to environmental disasters is nebulous, and no sources are given to support this nebulous assertion. Furthermore, the article cites the Hindenburg disaster as an example of Disaster Tourism: that was not an environmental disaster.

In any event, is the Disaster Tourism article authoritative or well-written? Doubtful. Look at the section on Hindenburg as a single example: it reads "burst into flame" instead of "burst into flames", and contains a glaring non-sequitur in stating that because the cause was unknown and 37 people died, it became one of the biggest news stories of its time. What has the cause of the fire got to do with the importance of the news story? Did news editors ask, on 11 September 2001, "do we know why the twin towers collapsed?", and when the answer came back "because two jetliners hit them" did they dismiss the story as unimportant? It's simple nonsense.

Paying vast sums of money to visit the Titanic graveyard is obnoxious disaster tourism. Put it to a vote. Definitely don't rely on a poorly written and contradictory Wikipedia article. Not even Wikipedia cites Wikipedia as an authoritative source. 2A00:23EE:2168:CEFD:4DD7:ECDD:563C:1C9E (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

In the 'Oceangate' section near the top it currently reads, "Since 2010, it has transported paying customers.." Instead of using the present perfect continuous tense, it is more appropriate/correct to use the past perfect tense, i.e. "From 2010 until the loss of the Titan submersible, Oceangate transported paying customers..." Oceangate have suspended all operations. Coupled with the circumstances of the Titan's loss and the death of Rush, it seems very unlikely they'll operate again. In any event, until or unless they do resume operations, it is better to edit this text to convey the fact that they presently do not operate. 2A00:23EE:1C28:3BCE:81D0:3A56:D9F4:AD76 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. This is consistent with the tense used in the article OceanGate. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Photo credit

My image is currently being used (the underwater image of the Titan submersible shown at the top) without proper photographer credit : Becky Kagan Schott 2600:4040:7C4D:8F00:A02D:5AE7:79EA:B60E (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Becky Kagan Schott, I think WP & Commons would need more information to verify that you were in fact the photographer. The file states that the author or copyright owner is OceanGate. It's a non-free file, uploaded by another editor. I'm pretty sure if you want credit you would have to confirm your identity with WP:VRT. Was the image ever published with your name associated with it?

If I'm incorrect, and another editor who is more fluent in image licensing please feel free to offer feedback. Netherzone (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

See File:Titan_submersible.jpg#metadata for: Author Becky Schott; OceanGate. Uwappa (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I changed the image caption. Please comment if there are objections or the caption is not in MOS compliance. Netherzone (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the credit from the image caption, per MOS:CREDITS. The information should be on the image page, not the article page. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

The "OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, who died aboard Titan, in 2015" should be changed to "OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, who died aboard Titan, in 2023" Ccardboard (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It is referring to the date of the photo not the date he died. RudolfRed (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If there is confusion, then maybe something like "OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, who died aboard Titan. (pictured in 2015)" or "OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, (seen here in 2015) who died aboard Titan" would work better. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

change the year of death to 2023. Mattwin1999 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the image caption to "pictured in 2015 " as suggested above, since this is leading to confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Needs Photo Of Titan

Can you add a photo of the Titan submersible in the infobox below "Titan submersible implosion" so we know what exactly imploded. 86.17.54.133 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Per [5], the image of the Titan submarine cannot be used in this article. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 12:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Why cant you use a picture of the submarine? surely there is a non-copyrighted one. Dappy373 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of previous discussion about this, see the talk page archive. It would need to be a free to use photo, not a copyrighted one or a pretend CGI version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)