Talk:Stanley Lord

message: Suggest that the following could be added to section 6 of the main article….
The discovery of the remains of the Titanic on the sea bed, in 1985, provided evidence which dispelled some of the prejudiced assessments of Captain Lord's culpability. 
The position of the wreck makes it indisputable that the S.O.S position given by the Titanic's officers, after the collision, was very inaccurate. (The error in position amounted to about 13 miles.)
At both of the Titanic enquiries, in 1912,  there was a conflict of evidence about the true position of the Titanic when it sank. The conclusions of the 1912 enquiries discounted the evidence of uncertainty about the Titanic's position. It was incorrectly assumed that the position which Captain Lord had given, for his ship, was incorrect and that he was actually much closer to the Titanic than he claimed to be. 
The true location of the Titanic wreck confirms that those enquiry conclusions were wrong and the balance of probability is that Stanley Lord gave a genuine account of the circumstances. J.Fowler  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.100.120 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Main article  - section 6. - Stanley Lord's reputation. New evidence in 1985

message: The most recent edit of the article contains a number of speculative claims which lack citations or references. The general slant of the edit gives the impression that the authorities considered it expedient not to charge Lord with any of the offences mentioned, perhaps because - (a) they believed Stanley Lord, himself, was innocent of any offence - or (b) that he had specific information which the authorities did not want to have revealed. ( i.e something which Lord could possibly have said if he was charged to answer at a formal public hearing.)  However, there are no references in the article to verify either (a) or (b).  - Neither are there references for the speculative 13 mile undersea voyage of the Titanic, after the ship sank ! Norloch (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quoted from the article - "Another conclusion stated that had Lord rushed towards the distress signals that fateful night, the ship would have arrived in time to perhaps save another 200 passengers". This is a very speculative claim. "Rushing" through an icefield, in darkness, is one way of incurring propellor and rudder damage and that wouldn't have aided any rescue attempt. (Read Captain Rostron's testimony to the Titanic inquiry - regarding the ice conditions which he saw at dawn. Rostron himself was wise enough to wait for daylight before he attempted any rescue.) A few moment's thought on the matter will show the obvious risks to any people, floundering in the water, if a ship  was to go blundering around the vicinity in pitch darkness. The fact that the area contained a substanti
al amount of small ice would also have made it extremely difficult to identify bodies in the water, during darkness. Norloch (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputation section of the Article. - Too much unreferenced speculation ? 

message: The following sentence is confused and unreferenced - " However, the only person aboard the Californian, with a good understanding of morse was asleep."
For clarification, navigating officers are trained and qualified in the transmission and reception of morse code as visual signals (i.e. using a signal lamp.) Radio officers are trained and qualified in the transmission and reception of morse code as aural signals. (i.e. using radio telegraphy.)
Second Officer Stone, aboard the Californian, was a qualified officer.If it is being claimed that he did not have a good understanding of morse code, by visual signalling, this should be verified by references.Norloch (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article section "During the night." unreferenced claim 

message: It would have been difficult for Lord to petition the Board of Trade in 1965 much less 1968 given that he died in 1962.
When did this petition occur if at all?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.208.152 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did Lord petition the Board of Trade 

message: "Among its conclusions were that although the Californian was probably out of visual sight of the Titanic's rockets had been sighted by the Californians crew."71.230.201.203 (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence doesn't make sense 

message: Since the Titanic's true position was established in 1985, it has been stated that the Californian could not have reached the scene ahead of the Carpathia, as previously assumed. Does this mean that the Californian was not the nearest ship to the Titanic after all? Valetude (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titanic's true position 

message: The paragraph about the speculations by Daniel Allen Butler about Lord’s mental health (or possible sociopathy!) is very jarring to find in a Wikipedia article. Although it’s countered within the text, does it really have enough merit to be included? Does Butler have any expertise in psychiatry? Tobelia (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord’s mental health