Talk:Flotsam, jetsam, lagan and derelict

message: That rubber duckies thing sounds like urban myth to me...you sure about that, Meeler? I would expect the cargo to be sealed in containers, which would probably float, but not open. Pollinator 02:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That was almost my reaction, when I first saw the story in the Washington Post. Check the link in article now.  I know I should have backed it up with a reference, but I was quite busy.  Yours, Meelar 19:48, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Is there much effect other than providing temporary shelter for fish and sargassum life? The ecological benefits are slight (there is no shortage of natural floating material) compared to entanglements and the chocking hazzard it poses. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 05:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubber duckies  

message: This list of pop culture items are all things which happen to be called Flotsam and Jetsam, not actual Flotsam or Jetsam, which is why we have a disambiguation page that links to all of these and its right up there at the top. --Billpg 07:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I'll take it out. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 02:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture? 

message: The relevant section is Part IX, Chapter III, §255, which reads as follows: 
also defining "tidal water". However, the Act does not use the words "flotsam", "jetsam" or "lagan" anywhere else, and "derelict" is also not defined (presumably it just has its common meaning). I have therefore removed the reference to the Act which seemed to suggest it defines the terms, which it doesn't. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merchant Shipping Act 1995 

message: Why was this page recreated? It was merged into marine debris in April 2008 to create a substantial, well referenced article. A few months later it was recreated, citing a salvage of "the text on historical/original meanings." Firstly, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Secondly, this article is poorly is a poorly written, and totally unreferenced stub. – Jack – 16:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it was not "merged", contrary to your claim, therefore it was restored in the first place. 
There should be no confusion between marine debris and shipwreck.
Second, "poorly written" is a non-argument, third, it was referenced,  by resuing the ref from [[[Receiver of Wreck]], but some editor questioned the correctness of the refs. Fourth, wikipedia:verifiability does not require immediate referencing of everything. Fifth, "not a dictionary" is meaningless: the article not about words, but about things. The article discusses the distinctions important for maritime law and the info is verifiable. Quick google search shows that each term "flotsam/jetsam/lagan/derelict" has been discussed in legal terms for ages and there is a potential of growth of this article. I will try to make more sense with the article when I have more spare time.  Xuz (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation after merge 

message: This article is almost word perfectly identical to Stephen Fry's description of marine wreckage in the Flotsam and Jetsam episode of QI. I doubt that is coincidence. Do we have a copyright problem here?
--Buckhead72 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since much of the wording here is mine, and I never heard of it, I am a bit dubious.  Which words are similar? Shajure (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the flip side, a good bit of this is chopped straight out of the law, IIRC from my checking of the oddly-written article this was when I random-article-hit it.Shajure (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reviewing, I mostly cut... so the words might be substantially copied.Shajure (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Problem 

message: What exactly is the image of?  Its labeled flotsam by its creator, something that floated ashore after a wreck.  Dream Focus 17:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flotsam image 

message: There doesn't seem to be an authoritative source for the definitions stated in this article.  The eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published 1910, says the following:
Jetsam (the same word as jettison, from Lat. jaclare, to throw) is when goods are cast into the sea, and there sink and remain under water; flotsam (floatson, from float, Lat. flottare) is where they continue floating on the surface of the waves; ligan (or lagan, from lay or lie) is where they are sunk in the sea, but tied to a cork or buoy in order to be found again.  Flotsam, jetsam and ligan belong to the sovereign in the absence only of the true owner.  Wreck, on the other hand (i.e. goods cast on shore), was by the common law adjudged to the sovereign in any case, because it was said by the loss of the ship all property was gone out of the original owner.  This singular distinction which treated goods washed ashore as lost, and goods on and in the sea as not lost, is no doubt to be explained by the primitive practice of plundering wrecked ships.
I'd like to make this correction (sans the last sentence, which is speculative) unless there are any objections.
Johngcarlsson (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent with definitions of 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica 

message: Disagreement over if these things should be there. 
Curtis Ebbesmeyer named the Great Pacific garbage patch.  What does he or it have to do with flotsam, jetsam, lagan, or derelict?  As I said in my edit summary "That is garbage that was never part of a ship or its cargo when it got into the ocean".  Read the definition of the four defining words of the article, and you'll find they are all related to ships.  And Driftwood, while can include the remains of old wooden ships that once sailed the ocean and got smashed up at times in storms and whatnot, is mostly just wood washed over from land.  Dream Focus 09:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant policy is WP:SEEALSO.  It states: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."   Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how Curtis Ebbesmeyer is justified as being in that section.  I'd like more input from other editors on this.  Comparing shipwreck debris to a massive amount of garage in the ocean is a thin enough connection on its own.  But why link to an article about a guy who got press for talking about it?  Dream Focus 10:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   I have answered that above.  If the connection is indirect and/or tangential, that is enough.  It's not like it is completely unrelated.  In fact, the very first line of Curtis Ebbesmeyer's biography (Wikipedia article) states: Curtis Charles Ebbesmeyer is an American oceanographer who, in retirement, has studied the movement of flotsam (emphasis added).  If you do not see a connection between that (a guy who studies flotsam) and an article specifically about flotsam, then I certainly can't help you.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Curtis Ebbesmeyer, Driftwood, and Great Pacific garbage patch be in the see also section? 

message: This article is using Webster's definition, which includes the phrase, "and is washed ashore". Is this to imply that if said equipment or cargo is floating in the water it isn't considered jetsam? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jetsam