Talk:J. Bruce Ismay

Fair use rationale for Image:Bruce Ismay.jpg

Image:Bruce Ismay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ice warning telegraph in the possession of Bruce Ismay

Under "Controversy" - the assertion that only one passenger claimed to have seen Ismay flaunting an iceberg warning at dinner time is not accurate. Also it is not neutral to assert without evidence that the testimony of some passengers is unreliable or invented.

The fact that Ismay had shown them the telegram was testified to by two people - Mrs Thayer and Mrs Ryerson (USA Senate Inquiry 963-64 and UK Inquiry 18828-40). The details they recalled of the telegram which was read out to them by Ismay very closely matched the wireless message received from the "Baltic". Many writers on this subject have accepted that it is likely that this incident did occur.

I propose that this passage be changed to express a more balanced view of this incident - but would like to hear any comments on this.

RMIT CC 04:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ismay and Carter

I noticed that the article states at one point that when Ismay left the ship on a lifeboat, so did another First Class passenger at the time, William Carter. Does anyone know if he was of the same Carter family that had brought a motorcar on board?_TThe Kensington Blonde _C 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

William Carter

William Carter did have a new Renault 35 hp automobile shipped on board. Both his wife and 10 year old son also survived (on boat No 4). Carter’s wife subsequently divorced him – though false – rumours that he had dressed in women’s clothes to escape were citied in the divorce papers. RMIT CC 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:8475-23805.jpg

Image:8475-23805.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Bj08 i did not edit thearcticle. i think someone got into my account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BJ08 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cowardice and treachery?

Ismay was branded a coward by the US Senate itself. His act of cowardice is well documented and universally acknowledged. It is the main point of this article. Any decent man then or now would have gone down with the ship. PS: I have been checking this out further, and think there may have mitigating circumstances... The more I look into this, the more I feel the man has been maligned. O well. I suppose they had to find a scapegoat. The whole incident was just down to plain bad luck. No one is really wholly to blame - ceratinly not Lord or Ismay. Maybe we should blame the iceberg! Wallie (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether Ismay was a coward or not is not the issue. What is relevant and can be reported here is that he was reported and portrayed as a coward (and had to live with the stigma for the rest of his life).--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would 'any decent man then or now . . . have gone down with the ship' when there were spare places in a lifeboat available without children to fill them? I certainly wouldn't have - it would be ludicrous to assert that he should have allowed himself to die when there were free, unused spaces. I also fail to see why a man should give up a space to save a woman as you assert. Either way, this ridiculous viewpoint should not be stuck onto this article. BodvarBjarki (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I daresay this man was a HERO, many women & children owed their lives to what he did. I have no idea why he was demonized so68.98.249.230 (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity?

The article seems to stray off-topic in the paragraph concerning Ismay's actions and the "women and children first" principle. It reads, in my view, as if the author is going out of their way to try to rationalize Ismay's actions. Thoughts? OldSpartan (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's qualified to judge the man who hasn't lived through a similar situation. I don't know how I'd have behaved, frankly.13.13.137.1 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Children

The article says he fathered five, that one died in infancy, and goes on to list three names. Either I'm calculating incorrectly, or something isn't quite right. 68.82.179.158 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ref 3, Encyclopedia Titanica, says has four children, two boys and two girls. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Just a note on the controversy part... the author quoted from the September 22, 2010 Reuters article seems to have only come forth with her "revelation" about Ismay's telling the captain to keep sailing solely to create controversy to sell her own book. I truly doubt her interview could be considered pure fact without other witnesses corroborating her supposed account from her grandfather. It seems more a cheap publicity stunt to try and bolster the sales of her own book. I move that it be removed or amended to state that the credibility of the account given is suspect due to the author's own interests. UncleThursday (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but are there reliable sources establishing that the author's credibility is suspect? Doniago (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not required. Lightoller was not on the bridge (he was off-duty in his cabin) so couldn't have heard Ismay tell the Captain to keep going. In any case the engines were only on for a very short time after the iceberg was struck. The ship was going to go down within 2 hours due to the filling of 5 watertight compartments, nothing to do with whether the ship kept moving after the accident. Exile (talk)

¶ Hardly a controversy, but did Bruce Ismay have any title? Was he Sir Bruce (as in two or three movies) or Lord Ismay (as in an episode of You Are There)? Sussmanbern (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bruce Ismay.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Bruce Ismay.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:J b ismay.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:J b ismay.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Ismay, Texas"?

The town does not exist, and I can't find any evidence for its existence, except websites saying that the town changed its name, or maybe considered changing it but decided against. Is this just the newspapers made up a funny story way back? 91.85.162.72 (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

True number of survivors

This article says 706 survivors for the Titanic, while the main article on titanic says 710 survivors. Meanwhile, most sources say 705 survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.76.177 (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The article now says 705 survivors; however, the numbers no longer add up: 705 survivors + 1517 lost, make 2222 on board, not the 2223 stated. This is a discrepancy to resolve. -99.120.130.167 (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

But Ismay knew more than other 1st class passengers

"Why would 'any decent man then or now . . . have gone down with the ship' when there were spare places in a lifeboat available without children to fill them? I certainly wouldn't have - it would be ludicrous to assert that he should have allowed himself to die when there were free, unused spaces."

The difference is that Ismay was the head of the shipping line. He knew (1) that there weren't nearly enough lifeboats, (2) that there were still plenty of women and children on board, albeit not first class passengers, and (3) that the ship was sinking. Another first class male passenger might have been able to plead ignorance (in fact, more first class men survived than third class children, contrary to longtime officially sponsored belief), but Ismay knew the truth. That is what caused the public to view him with such contempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.100.5 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

One of his sons murdered his sister

The article says that Bruce Ismay had five children, and that one murdered his sister. This is a truly alarming statement. What is the source? I know the grandson of Margaret, and she was not murdered. George was a captain in the Irish Guards and was killed in action in Tunisia in 1943: he was unlikely to have been a murderer. That leaves the only combination that Thomas murdered Evelyn, who died in 1940 aged 43. She was the wife of the first Lord Sanderson of Ayot, and there is no mention of his wife being the victim of a family murder.

There is the other possibility that 'murdered his sister' refers to J Bruce Ismay's sister (if he had one); that is to say a child (Thomas) murdered his aunt. Ballenstedter (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Numbers do not match RMS Titantic article

The RMS Titanic article claims that 705 were saved and that the number of people aboard the Titanic was 2,224 which puts the beginning text of this article in direct contrast. I'm not going to guess which is right, but if someone could find a reliable source to solve this issue, it'd be much appreciated. 98.19.46.130 (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. Bruce Ismay. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050604083440/http://www.titanichistoricalsociety.org/articles/ismay.asp to http://www.titanichistoricalsociety.org/articles/ismay.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)