Talk:Stockton Rush

Fraud

The Independent here says:

"On Tuesday 20 June, it emerged that Mr Rush had been sued for fraud by a Florida couple who claimed their planned deep-sea voyage to the Titanic was repeatedly cancelled and attempts to secure a refund were ignored."

"Marc and Sharon Hagle filed a lawsuit in Orange County in February that accused CEO Stockton Rush of defrauding them of $210,258 which they paid to secure two berths on a 2018 trip to the famed North Atlantic shipwreck."

Should this be added? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done I did add a mention of the lawsuit to the article, but I did not claim that it was fraud given that the lawsuit appears to have not been resolved before Rush's death. Feel free to suggest an alternative wording if the one currently in the article doesn't work for you. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That wording looks fine thanks. Although, here in UK the source is not visible. It just says: "This content is not available in your region." 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I had to update that section anyways due to the lawsuit being dropped, so now there are four sources for that portion. I believe that at least one of those sources should be viewable in your area. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

All those three additional sources are fully visible, thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Unlicensed Engineer

Unless someone else can find Stockton Rush's engineering registration, it appears Stockton Rush was not a licensed engineer.

I propose to put the pre-fix adjective "unlicensed" in front of "American engineer" in the first section. Hr5accsaz (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless we find a RS that says he was an unlicensed engineer, we will leave it as engineer. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The RS's are from the Washington State Department of Licensing and the Offices of the Secretary of State, Corporations and Charities Divisions as follows:

Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Title 18 > Chapter 18.43 > Section 18.43.020 as follows for definition of "engineer" #3:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.43.020

A search of Stockton Rush's name at Washington State Department of Licensing comes up with no results, and he is thus, an unlicensed engineer, nor does the company name OceanGate show up as a licensed engineering firm:

https://professions.dol.wa.gov/s/license-lookup

OceanGate is a corporation registered in the state of Washington where the Titan sub was built:

https://ccfs.sos.wa.gov/#/BusinessSearch

"OceanGate claimed on its website as of 2023 that Titan was 'designed and engineered by OceanGate Inc.' "

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2023_Titan_submersible_incident#Titan_submersible Hr5accsaz (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at this from another angle and ask "what source describes Rush as an engineer?" He was clearly a 'flight engineer' when younger, but if no reliable sources describe he was an 'engineer' in any other capacity, the claim should be removed altogether. Sionk (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"CBS News, David Pogue said that while many are questioning Rush's designs, they should remember that he was a 'Princeton-educated aerospace engineer' who built and designed airplanes and previous submersibles."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/titanic-submarine-implosion-oceangate-ceo-stockton-rush-2021-hes-broken-some-rules-in-design/ Hr5accsaz (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I could see either including or omitting "engineer" being permissible under MOS:FIRSTBIO. Rush is definitely most known as a businessman (specifically with respect to OceanGate) and engineer (specifically with respect to the Titan submersible). "Engineer" could be argued as a contentious term but in the US it tends not to imply professional licensing (though that varies by state). Businessman seems sufficient for the time being. If future coverage or events push heavily on his engineering role in developing the Titan craft, this would be worth revisiting. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

naval architect v engineer; could say previously served as a flight engineer and trained as an aerospace engineer. That would avoid the licensing issue. Using naval architect would also eliminate the word engineer -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Stockton Rush advertised himself (i.e. convey the impression) as an "engineer", per RS RCW "..it shall be unlawful for any person to practice or to offer to practice in this state, engineering or land surveying, as defined in the provisions of this chapter, or to use in connection with his or her name or otherwise assume, use, or advertise any title or description tending to convey the impression that he or she is a professional engineer or a land surveyor, unless such a person has been duly registered under the provisions of this chapter..."

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.43.010

Although he was conveying the impression that he was an "engineer", he was not licensed as an engineer in Washington State (per RS RCW).

In interview below, he indicated he wanted to be remembered as an "innovator", though he identified he did "good engineering":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnfF37PpVAM

Per RS RCW, if the title "engineer" is used for Stockton Rush, per RS RCW he would be an unlicensed engineer (most common, non-professional form).

Per RS RCW, the title of "innovator" requires no license, has no rules, and no restrictions. Hr5accsaz (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Per RS RCW? That isn't going to be used as a source, and combining it with sources about Rush would be WP:OR. He was a engineer for McDonnell Douglas, which is based in Missouri, not sure what state he worked in for them but the WA laws would be meaningless unless he was based out of there. Licensed engineer or unlicensed engineer both would be an engineer. Someone with a degree in engineering and a worked as an engineer is an engineer. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate, is registered in Washington State, and Stockton Rush lived in Washington State (see above). Hr5accsaz (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a biographical article about Stockton Rush, OceanGate is irrelevant to whether he was an engineer or not, particularly because the company he was employed as an engineer wasn't OceanGate, and as I said that was a Missouri based company. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your own comment indicates it is relevant to you "Unless we find a RS that says he was an unlicensed engineer, we will leave it as engineer". If you want to leave it as an engineer, then can you provide the state, or nation, he was registered as an engineer in (e.g. Missouri, Texas, Canada, Mexico)? Hr5accsaz (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Washington state court, nor are we any other court. The majority of editors here (self included) are not lawyers. The article should reflect what is written in reliable sources; attempting to provide a novel interpretation of specific laws is original research. It's unclear to me what you even want changed in this article right now; at this point this feels like a WP:FORUM post accusing Rush of fraudulently describing themselves as an engineer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how verifying registration of an engineer from a RS is "attempting to provide a novel interpretation of specific laws", and how does looking up a registration become original research when a reliable published source, RCW, exists, and is available for anyone in the public to view?

" The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"

Please provide the WP:RS section that would apply to RCW as not being a RS when it is a published source that exists. Hr5accsaz (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

No source says Rush was an unlicensed engineer. Taking a source that says he is an engineer, then taking a source that says the laws of Washington, and then looking up registered engineers and then combining them to claim he was an unlicensed engineer is original research. Please read the WP:SYNTH section of WP:OR. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s a reliable source, but’s insufficient for the claim you’re making. There are fifty states in the United States of America, you only checked one. You need to prove that he was not registered as an engineer in any state while actually holding the job of engineer with any company to prove if you want to add to the article that he practiced engineering without a license in the United States of America at any point. Tvx1 21:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Stating that a law exists is different from stating that a given individual has violated it. See the WP:SYNTH section of the original research page. In this case I think you're also wrong, but that doesn't matter—even if you were right, you need a reliable source which states the thing you want added or changed. Which brings me back to my earlier question; what change are you asking be made to this article as it currently stands? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"It's unclear to me what you even want changed in this article right now", at this point in time, nothing, unless someone wants to identify his final title/occupation as "engineer", then put the clarifying adjective from RCW as "unlicensed engineer" or "unregistered engineer", unless someone finds some other WP:RS authority having jurisdiction, over his final public title/occupation. Hr5accsaz (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

at this point in time, nothing — excellent! In that case, I recommend you stop bludgeoning people over this; not only does no one agree with you, it seems no one disagrees with you either. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide the RS of registration of OceanGate in Missouri? Hr5accsaz (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Why? No one said they were registered there. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You did above: "OceanGate, and as I said that was a Missouri based company." Hr5accsaz (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Please learn to read. You’re making an utter fool out of yourself right now. Tvx1 22:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Why? He wasn’t working as an engineer for OceanGate. The Missouri registration would have been needed for his job with McDonnell Douglas.Tvx1 21:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Please learn to read. You’re making an utter fool out of yourself right now." is a WP:PA.

"Why? He wasn’t working as an engineer for OceanGate.", well, per insider: " 'I think I've broken them with logic and good engineering behind me. Carbon fiber and titanium? There's a rule you don't do that,' he told alanxelmundo. 'Well, I did.' "

https://www.insider.com/oceangate-ceo-stockton-rush-broken-some-rules-titanic-sub-remembered-2023-6

"On the company's website, OceanGate wrote that the Titan was "designed and engineered by OceanGate Inc. in collaboration [with] experts from NASA, Boeing, and the University of Washington."

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-university-of-washington-deny-helping-design-oceangate-titan-submersible-2023-6 Hr5accsaz (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hr5accsaz: Just to let you know, you've replied to the wrong comment and this is not the first time in this discussion that this has happened. Please be more careful. To get back on track, since this discussion is starting to be derailed by a mistaken claim, I am going to try to resolve it. The mistaken claim is due to your attempt to claim another user said OceanGate is/was a Missouri based company. What the other user actually said was that McDonnell Douglas is a Missouri based company and that Rush worked as an engineer for McDonnell Douglas in an unknown state. Thus, your claim is mistaken.

As an aside: WP:MREL applies to Insider and Business Insider. (See WP:BI for details.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So if there is an actual engineer involved here in the engineering with OceanGate Inc, according to their website being "engineered", who was it, was it Stockton Rush (with the discussion fork here in talk converged to CEO occupation), an employee of OceanGate, NASA, Boeing, University of Washington, or someone from Mexico, India, China, Russia, or elsewhere? As it stands at this moment, Stockton Rush said he had "good engineering" it appears there were no US registered engineers behind him, involved in building the sub machine called Titan, until someone can find a RS that shows it. Hr5accsaz (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a major difference between “doing some engineering” and having practiced as a professional engineer somwhere without a licence to do so. You have still not provided any evidence he did the latter.Tvx1 11:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Then provide the relevant WP:RS in Washington State that backs up your point about "major difference", that is, if you can, without resorting to more WP:PA, otherwise, it is not a neutral point of view WP:NPOV WP:TPG

There is no evidence of a WP:RS, at the present moment, that Stockton Rush, was registered as an engineer, in the State of Washington (or any other place), that is my point here. The discussion fork concluded he had an occupation as CEO of OceanGate. The fact that he was publicly conveying the impression that he was creatively doing some "good engineering" building the Titan sub machine inside the state of Washington, is a separate matter, of his occupation, as CEO of OceanGate. Perhaps you can explain what you want this article on his bio to say, so that progress can be made. Hr5accsaz (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have placed the prefix "unlicensed" in front of engineer, until someone can provide WP:RS that provides his registration as an engineer. Hr5accsaz (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You'll need a source calling him an "unlicensed engineer". – bradv 13:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Find the source that shows his registration. Hr5accsaz (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That's original research. We say what the sources say, so unless you can find a source calling him an unlicensed engineer, we cannot call him that. – bradv 13:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Where is the https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources that list him as an engineer? Hr5accsaz (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

New York Times "Mr. Rush, was an aerospace engineer" CNN "he moved to Seattle to work for the McDonnell Douglas Corporation as a flight test engineer" Associated Press Rush, a former test flight engineer". WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there a WP:RS for his role as an "engineer" for OceanGate, other than CEO? Hr5accsaz (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Why does that matter? We're talking about the lead sentence. – bradv 14:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It was his final occupation for his bio. Is it CEO or "engineer", or both, and if it was engineer for OceanGate, where is either his registration as an engineer of OceanGate as a RS, or the RS of the registration of OceanGate as an engineering firm that does "good engineering" to build sub machines in Washington State that backs up his occupation as engineer, as opposed to just CEO? Hr5accsaz (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This may blow your mind, but you don't need to be a licensed engineer to work as an engineer. If RS refer to someone as an engineer, then there's all the RS we need. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No, the lead sentence summarizes the whole article, not just the end of his life. And while this really isn't relevant to the article, the regulated term is not "engineer", it's "professional engineer", and in most jurisdictions the license is only required when offering engineering services to the public (which OceanGate does not). Rush has received an engineering degree, has worked in a relevant field, and therefore is accurately described as an "engineer". But again, that doesn't matter, what matters is what reliable sources say. And those are listed in the article. – bradv 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"engineer" for whom? Hr5accsaz (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you're clearly trolling at this point. – bradv 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm really starting to question your intelligence or your understanding of the English language here. Either way it's dead obvious you fail to understand what all of us are telling you. We have multiple reliable sources here that support he worked as a flight test engineer for McDonnell Douglas and that's the only claim this article makes. These sources are more than enough that satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Or are you genuinely going to claim that a major aviation company like McDonnell Douglas, under the overwatch of the Federal Aviation Administration, hired unlicensed engineers?? I also don't understand why you are so obsessed with the registrations of the state of Washington, when the laws you cited also state that one can also be certified when registered with any or US state or territory or even other countries with acceptable qualifications.Tvx1 17:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Hr5accsaz (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, no one has at anytime ever tried to imply in article that he specifically worked as an engineer at OceanGate, simply that he was an engineer. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

An engineer for whom and from what RS? Hr5accsaz (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I already told you yesterday for whom[1], and sources were provided along with quote that say whom just above in a reply to you ~30mins ago[2] that you literally replied to. It also says for whom(McDonnell Douglas) in the article with its own sourcing. Please just read what people are saying to you. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Then clarify that in the article instead of just saying "engineer" in general. Hr5accsaz (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You just replied to a comment where I said the article already says it.... Under career it states "Rush briefly worked for McDonnell Douglas as a flight-test engineer" in its first sentence. In the lead, people have included just "engineer" because the fact that he worked at McDonnell Douglas isn't really important, nor lead worth. Seeing as he has a degree in Engineering, worked as an engineer, and oversaw engineering at OceanGate(See CNN, AP, NYT sources I gave you), people thought it relevant to mention he was a engineer along with businessman and whatever else. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Due to the fatalities, along with his own death, the clarification of his final occupation as an "engineer" and/or "CEO" for "whom" is very significant. Hr5accsaz (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No one is even arguing about whom he was CEO for.... No one is declaring is final occupation as just an engineer. I'm done arguing with you as you keep arguing against things no one is arguing and ignoring simple points. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hr5accsaz, you're consistently misunderstanding what the page is saying (nothing says "final occupation" anywhere, and the terms used in a first sentence in a biography are what the person was known for) and what people are saying to you. I'm going to try and be as clear as I can here.

There is no support here for throwing "unlicensed" in front of engineer every time it appears and there is no understanding that the word "engineer" must refer to a professional engineer (i.e. a licensed one). I can personally promise you that you are entirely wrong about the use of the word "engineer," as it appears in my own job title, but that's besides the point—six other editors have now weighed in here, and none support the inclusion of your original research.

And yet, now you're threatening people with edit warring in your diff summaries? That is completely inappropriate. Please listen to the warnings left on your talk page and drop this. I genuinely would love to see your enthusiasm applied to less contentious editing on Wikipedia, but this will not end well if you keep going. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"I can personally promise you that you are entirely wrong about the use of the word 'engineer' ", perhaps you can provide a [WP:RS] that backs this up with your [WP:PA? Hr5accsaz (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Saying you are wrong about the thing you are attempting to bludgeon everyone into believing is not a personal attack; in fact, being able to disagree with you is critical to Wikipedia discourse. If you genuinely feel that I'm being uncivil towards you, feel free to bring my conduct to WP:ANI. I don't think I've acted perfectly here, but I feel like I have been civil, and I'd welcome an outside opinion if I'm missing something about my behavior (hey, it happens!). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Part of being civil is humility (e.g. understanding Dunning-Kruger effect, and which end of the spectrum of confidence you are presenting), and yes, I do not know what "engineer" means inside the minds of other people as you claim to know what is inside my perception, so I look elsewhere for a conformable standard. I do not know your perception of "engineer", and it appears you assume that I am completely wrong about the definition without any external WP:RS as a basis of your claim. I perceive this as WK:PA because it shifts the focus onto the editor instead of what is being edited, Stockton Rush's bio in Wikipedia. I hope we are not talking about our own resumes here, we are focused on an accurate bio of Stockton Rush. I am simply asking for a reliable, concise, contextually clear, source, outside of yourself, and outside of myself, outside all of the Wikipedia editors, as to the definition of "engineer", especially context, under what entity served as "engineer", in every location of Stockton Rush's bio. In order to reconcile perception, for every substantial occupation that Stockton Rush had in his bio, is likely not going to be an easy task. To use yourself as a reliable source and assume that you are right (and the same with me), does not carry much weight, and I will say the same for myself, even if either of us is a PE, or a non-PE, in any state and any jurisdiction, except maybe Washington State. I am using the Revised Code of Washington State as a reliable source for "engineer" (particularly definition #3, #5, and #8, and #10), as this is the state where the sub machine company, OceanGate, built the Titan, and that Stockton Rush worked at, as CEO, and maybe some other, to be determined occupation. I suspect, there are also many other "reliable sources" on this topic of what an "engineer" is, as standards for occupation of "engineer", such as from USCG, Princeton University ABET accreditation in year of Stockton Rush graduation, McDonald Douglas F-15 project details (what version of F-15?), Boeing, NASA, FAA DER, NTSB, University of Washington, the USCG, Airforce, Navy, Marines, Army, Marine Technology Society (for DNV-GL), American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) "Rules for Building, and Classing Underwater Vehicles Systems and Hyperbaric Facilities" (1/2021), Washington Board of Registration for Professional Engineers, the local fire department in Everett, Washington, Bill's machine shop in the Galapagos Islands, or "Joe's Taco Stand" in Puerta Penasco, Mexico, and maybe countless other places. So if anyone wants to write that Stockton Rush served as an "engineer", or is an "engineer", since many people seem to be one these days, whatever it means, it is substantial to know, and be clear, of what conformable entity, for his bio, even better, the details in that role, like for how long, did he work on the F-15, what was the outcome of the project, what were the details of his experience working on the F-15? Hr5accsaz (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

F-15 at about 1 atmosphere of pressure. Hr5accsaz (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Also as a heads up to other editors (esp @Tvx1 who made the original change), my removal of "flight test engineer" from the first sentence ([3]) was because Rush wasn't known for being a flight test engineer (MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE). I now see that "flight test" was added to try and appease Hr5accsaz, so sorry for changing that without paying more attention.

Personally I think just having "businessman" in the first sentence is preferable here—it's uncontroversial and does a fine job describing what he's known as—but I can see an argument for including "engineer." Being more specific to appease Hr5accsaz, on the other hand, is a bad idea, as it causes the sentence to drift away from something Rush is actually known for. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see anythting controversial about engineer either. He worked as an engineer for one of of the best known aviation companies worldwide. Tvx1 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah my bad, should clarify; I don't think it should be excluded because it's uncontroversial, but because it's not what he was known for. I agree that using the term "engineer" within the article is uncontroversial; it's just the first sentence description where I think it doesn't extend to one, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms (em added). If there's an argument for including "engineer" here, it's because of Rush's work at OceanGate and not because of a job he briefly held early in his career. I'm opposed to using "flight test engineer" in the first sentence for that reason. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should describe him as just an engineer, but in conjunction with everything. He was a business owner, engineer and pilot I think was one version I like. He got a degree in engineering, he had a job as an engineer, and as CEO of OceanGate he "oversaw the engineering" there. So it's not like some one off job, but his education and career is one of an engineer. Flight test engineer isn't needed as engineer covers that, and McDonnell Douglas doesn't need to be mentioned either in lead. In career section, we go into those specifics. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Just engineer is too vague. There are many classes of engineers. Even while studying to obtain such a degree, you study to become engineer in a specific field. You don’t get a general degree as engineer but rather as engineer in a specific field. Tvx1 18:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have a personal preference towards simpler first sentences. Long lists of a person's accomplishments in the first sentence often make it less clear what they were known for and might lend undue weight to accomplishments that aren't part of why the subject is notable. My example for this would be bios of incredibly accomplished people like Barack Obama: the first sentence describes him just as an American politician and not a lawyer, law professor, philanthropist, writer, activist, or any other number of things that would be entirely factually valid (and noteworthy!) to put there. But if there's a consensus on describing him as an engineer in the first sentence, so be it.

At this point though it's clear that the inclusion of "engineer" is contested (independent of Hr5accsaz's concerns). I recommend we remove it until consensus is established, but since I've already been reverted today after removing it and I'm not going to edit war over it, I'll leave that up to y'all. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU heads up on this discussion (note that only the bit starting at the outdent is really about the current state of the first sentence). FYI while I agree with removing the company name from the first sentence it does appear to be sourced within the body of the article: the first paragraph of Stockton Rush#Career states it and cites to [4] which contains the text he also worked briefly with McDonnell Douglas as a flight test engineer before getting an MBA from Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so it is true. I find the current sentence acceptable, but what do I know. In any case, the sentence as it was put in by Hr5accsaz ([...]was an American businessman and briefly worked for McDonnell Douglas as a flight test engineer.) feels wrong grammatically. Perhaps "and" should be substitued for "who". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I found this further detail on "flight test engineer" from ( https://www.crunchbase.com/person/stockton-rush-2 ): "In 1984, Rush joined the McDonnell Douglas Corporation as a Flight Test Engineer on the F-15 program. During this time he spent two years at Edwards Air Force Base on the APG-63 radar test program and then on the Anti-Satellite Missile Program as the sole full-time representative of McDonnell Douglas."

This appears to have come from a Linked-In page that existed at one time.

My perception is "flight test engineer" is too vague in the lead section, without providing further details, such as saying "spent up to two years as a flight test engineer on the F-15 for McDonald Douglas" in the lead section.

I keep seeing claims of many years in avionics, here there are only 2 years. It would be interesting to learn of what else he did.

"In 1989, Rush personally built a Glasair III experimental aircraft, which he still owns and flies today. He also completed a heavily modified Kittredge K-350 two-man submersible, in which he has conducted over 30 dives to date".

"Rush has written numerous engineering articles on manned submersible vehicles in subsea operations for a variety of trade publications, and has spoken on private-public investment opportunities in the new ocean economy."

If anyone can find a link to these "engineering" articles, it will be interesting to read. Hr5accsaz (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

While I understand what your saying, the specifics really aren't needed. Its same as saying Britney Spears or Bob Marley are singers, vs specifying pop singer/reggae singer. Or someone being described as a lawyer instead of a defense/divorce/family/civil rights lawyer. Anyways this discussion has sort of diverted from "he isn't a engineer/is an unlicensed engineer", to a discussion of how we should word the lead which might be better off in it's own discussion separate from this if needed it all. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The other examples you cite are not applicable because they are not cases of people holding a very specific degree of higher education. To practice any sort of the lawyerships you mention it suffices to hold a master's degree of law, not one specific version for that specific field. This is contrary to engineering degrees. Rush only held a master's degree of a specific field of engineering because higher education of engineering is split over various field. We need to acknowledge the correct information. Tvx1 22:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We do acknowledge the correct information either way. If he was a aerospace engineer or a flight test engineer, he was an engineer. As I said, I get what you are saying, all I am saying all types of singers are singers, all types of lawyers are lawyers, and all types of engineers are engineers. Its simply a matter of how specific we decide to describe them. You think its too vague as just engineer, I do not. Also, not that it matters here, there definitely are general engineering degrees, but saying just engineer doesn't imply that is what they studied. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And that's were you are wrong. While all lawyers have the same law degree and singers don't even really need one, all engineers do not have the same degree. You only achieve a degree in a specific field of engineering. Tvx1 20:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

These descriptions are about what a person is known for. There's no specific degree (in the United States) required to be a businessperson; the same holds for using the general term engineer. Rush is known for OceanGate and the Titan accident. I'd argue that putting a job he briefly had decades ago or one of the degrees he received right in the opening sentence is a violation of the principle of least astonishment; I think "engineer" is a generally well understood English term on its own, and covers the various things editors have brought up here.

At this point, the first sentence has read an American businessman and engineer stably for a while. It's clear not everyone agrees on this exact wording (I was fine leaving engineer out entirely, for instance), but it's also clear (or as clear as it can be within the bludgeoned mess of this conversation) that the majority of editors here do not strongly object to this language. I recommend we not change it without clear consensus. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

His degree as a master in business administration does explain him being a businessman though. And aeronautics engineer is not just “a job he briefly had”. That’s the degree of education he had, and I struggle to see how mentioning that would be astonishing in any way. You’re overreacting here. Not many people in this discussion ever even commented on the aeronautics part. Tvx1 07:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I do not know if you are right or wrong but you must stop edit warring. In fact, everyone must stop edit warring or I will have to issue blocks or perhaps protect the article again. It's pretty simple, start a new section proposing whatever is wanted and see if there is a consensus. Do not edit the engineer description until a clear consensus emerges. If necessary, examine WP:DR and start an WP:RFC. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, you’ve clearly misunderstood the situation here. There’s no edit warring here. Just one user making one revert on a misunderstanding. The specification of aeronautics engineer has nothing to do with the behaviour and intent of the blocked editor and really isn’t controversial. That issue had been settled. You have simply overreacted here. Tvx1 11:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: there are at least two users explicitly disagreeing with your change here (me and @WikiVirusC). I don't see anyone besides you supporting it. I'm not saying that's a strong consensus one way or the other (it's not), but you seem to keep claiming that consensus is unnecessary because you're "right." And hey, you might be right in this case, I don't know, I disagree, that's why consensus processes exist. But I understood exactly what was going on when I restored the only version of that sentence that has anything resembling consensus right now.

You're behaving the same as @Hr5accsaz was (even though you disagree with their version of the content too). Please, please, take a look at WP:1AM and rethink your approach here. Your AfD was speedy closed because beyond it having no support, you kept throwing barbs at everyone who commented disagreeing with you. The two conversations at the top of this page were both closed by me because you kept doing this even after processes had run their course (it takes two to tango but this comment is about your behavior). You've been warned for edit warring behavior on other articles recently (and 3RR is a bright line, not the definition of edit warring, and you know it). Take a deep breath here and consider the possibility that other editors might not be "misunderstanding" what's going on.

As a procedural note, I recommend at least starting another discussion if you want to change the language beyond "engineer" because I doubt any more editors are going to bother to untangle this mess; you may also want to look at Johnuniq's recommendations. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 14:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed "I'm right", I only ever pointed out some flaws in others' arguments, which is exactly why talk pages exist. Please don't accuse me of claiming things I didn't. Why do you give the impression here that only you have the right to disagree. You need to learn to assume good faith.

I find it utterly deplorable that you portray me here as being the same as the SPA, battleground editor Hr5accsaz is. My behavior doesn't come anywhere close. I did not repeatedly disrupt this article and blew 3RR to smithereens. I made literally one revert, which is the exact same amount as you did, so you're really not in a position to lecture others like this here.

Two against one is far from one against many so that has nothing to do with this. I really don't understand why you found it necessary to bring up that AFD again, since I have clearly accepted the outcome and moved on from it, which is where I differ greatly from Hr5accsaz. My opinion here on the description of his engineering field has nothing to do with that.

I also don't understand why you would bring up 3RR, because I'm nowhere near breaking that and I have not signaled any intention whatsoever that I intend to pursue an agressive edit war like Hr5accsaz did. Also Johnuniq clearly stated that everyone needs to stop edit warring, so they were referring to you as well. I now these policies very well, so there is no need to lecture me about them. It seems like you have clearly made incorrect assumptions about my motives.

On topic, I really don't understand why it is such an unacceptable drama for you, to the point of blanket reverting, that the specific field of engineering he was educated in, the only field of it he actually held a professional engineer job in, is acknowledged?Tvx1 16:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No one has sad all engineers have the same degrees. You can make up points and say that they are wrong, but if no one ever said them, you can't just proclaim them wrong. I clearly said all engineers are engineers, not that all engineers have the same degree. A doctor and a dentist have two completely different degrees too, but they both can be described as medical professionals. Once again its just a matter of how we want to describe them. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with either removing "flight test engineer" from the first sentence/section or clarify as "flight test engineer for up to two years under McDonald Douglas on the F-15"

It seems he only spent two years as a role of "engineer" for McDonald-Douglas, and it may not have been entirely on the F-15, as it appears he worked on the "APG-63 radar test program and then on the Anti-Satellite Missile Program as the sole full-time representative of McDonnell Douglas."

Lots of interesting details in this article from the Smithsonian Magazine to help anyone wanting to contribute to this page:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/worlds-first-deep-diving-submarine-plans-tourists-see-titanic-180972179/ Hr5accsaz (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I could understand removing the flight test part, but at the very least it should read aeronautics engineer, as that was the university degree he held and not a general degree of "engineer". Tvx1 23:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Both his flight test "engineer" experience and his "aeronautics engineer" degree were specialized at one atmosphere of pressure, it is kind of relevant, just a few more atmospheres, and it would be even more relevant. Hr5accsaz (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Flight happens in the air, and the air is pretty much one atmosphere of pressure, with slight variations, but no flight engineer would be working at more than say 1.1 atmosphere. Moons of Io (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Amazing! Hr5accsaz (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

At the deepest part of the ocean, pressure can reach up to 1,100 atmospheres of pressure, "akin to having about 50 jumbo jets stacked on top of you." So that's how aircraft are relevant... 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If we put fifty 737-MAX's on top of the Titan, it might make a relevant test. Hr5accsaz (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There might have been easier and less expensive test methods. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

RTCA Level D certification of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) of the 737-MAX allowed for spare planes, at least for a while (though I suppose, hope, they "fixed" that issue, though makes me wonder what else they played with).

According to Rush, "safety is useless beyond a point", seems his point on the Titan was off, a bit, beyond 1 atmosphere.

The F-15 that Rush worked on, that had an APG-63 radar nose cone cover, probably had not too much more pressure than 1 atmosphere, but not enough, for someone to gain practical "engineering" experience copying the concepts under water pressure. Maybe the F-15 is how Rush chose a beer can shaped cylinder, as opposed to a robust sphere, the beer can looks a little more like the F-15 than a Titanium (or CFRP) sphere. At least the Lunar Module looked more spherical, even though their was not much of an atmosphere on the Moon.

It is interesting in US 11,119,071 B1 Rush creatively made a structural sensor system that had a an alarm, data acquisition, and data storage (makes me wonder if USCG/NTSB will find something).

I wonder how Rush perceived that someone could respond to an alarm within a few milliseconds of implosion. I'm a poor, homeless, over 50 years old, slow, fat, ugly, white guy, with a laptop, so I would of been a bit slow to respond if I was in his can. I'm grateful I'm not a billionaire. Hr5accsaz (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

An alarm that says "sub about to catastrophically implode"? Not sure what any of the occupants would be expected to do about that, even if they had a few minutes of panic time to spare. At least an F-15 has an ejection seat. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there was an eject switch on the Logitech gamepad. Hr5accsaz (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears that there was an interview (on or prior to September 27th, 2020) between CEO of OceanGate and Teledyne where Stockton Rush said "..rebuilding the Titan submersible. The original carbon fiber hull we used, we referred as Maritime it was a wet layup format and it did not have the durability for the multiple cycles of the Titanic so we're now working with NASA and other Aerospace manufacturers on a replacement of the carbon fiber, so being in that development mode a lot of what our engine... you know what our effort is our engineers and sales and marketing all of whom can generally work pretty well..."

I wonder why he hesitated after saying "what our engine.."

I found the interview on youtube (it was on Teledyne's channel, but then taken down, then someone was able to resurrect the video from waybackmachine, it seems to indicate he had prior knowledge of a critical structural problem with the carbon fiber hull.). Hr5accsaz (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Occupation

Shouldn't this be added into the "title" instead of displaying his occupation as a Cofounder of the company. See other CEO's like Elon Musk. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 17:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, I do not know if Elon Musk is a licensed engineer, though I suspected he is unlicensed too, unless someone can find his registration as well, in the state that SpaceX is registered in. Each state has their own licensing rules. Hr5accsaz (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How does a licence be relevant in adding information in titles or occupation? I thought this was already addressed by another editor, unless a RS tells otherwise, Rush stays as an Engineer and I think it's more appropriate to add his role in the title parameter. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 05:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about above "Unlicensed engineer" topic

"How does a licence be relevant in adding information in titles or occupation?" Per RS Revised Code of Washington (RCW) RCWs > Title 18 > Chapter 18.43 > Section 18.43.010 "In order to safeguard life, health, and property, and to promote the public welfare, any person in either public or private capacity practicing or offering to practice engineering...": https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.43.010 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Title 18 > Chapter 18.43 > Section 18.43.020 as follows for definition of "engineer" #3 as well as "engineering" #5: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.43.020 Hr5accsaz (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC) That link appears to be a non wiki link and a government site. I'll still have to look more into it, I don't know what are you trying to get at when you clearly are having the same discussion with other editors here Talk:Stockton Rush#Unlicensed Engineer. Rejoy2003(talk) 06:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Stockton Rush is an unlicensed engineer, if his title is engineer, per RS RCW (above). Elon Musk's title is not under the RS of RCW. Hr5accsaz (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC) I removed "engineer" from the opening sentence earlier. Whatever Rush may have wanted to be known as, he seems very largely to be known as a businessman and founder of Oceangate, in reliable sources. It seems his initial plan was to buy submersibles and rent them out. However, he certainly seems to take ownership of certain design decisions (e.g. the unconventional materials used) of Oceangate's submersibles. I haven't read deep enough into it to have an opinion on whether Rush designed submersibles himself, or paid someone else to do it. If it turns out he was a hands-on designer or engineer (based on how independent sources describe him) then maybe we can revisit his description. Sionk (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hr5accsaz please don't derail every discussion on this page; no one mentioned engineers here. The question is whether "CEO of OceanGate" belongs under Title in the infobox (as it is on some other CEO's pages, e.g. Elon Musk) or Occupation.

Regarding that: It doesn't seem like there's a strong standard either way and I see both Title and Occupation being used on various CEO's pages (see Steve Huffman or Linda Yaccarino for examples of other CEOs where it's listed under "Occupation"). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 14:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion about above "Unlicensed engineer" topic

It seems that no "check whether there's already a discussion on the same topic" of title or occupation on this talk page was made before "derailing" to this new, more general, "Occupation" talk section in lieu of the existing "Unlicensed Engineer" talk section (i.e. POV fork to Elon Musk on title/occupation in order to avoid an objective consensus on a reliable source as to what title or occupation of Stockton Rush had that he conveyed the impression of practicing "good engineering" not only to the public at large, but in particular, to his paying customers). https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines According to "OceanGate Expeditions" website, the text line under his name is "President, Expedition Leader, Chief Submersible Pilot" https://oceangateexpeditions.com/personnel/stockton-rush/ Under the Washington Corporations and Charities Filing System he is "Governor of OceanGate" (UBI Number: 603 165 120 https://ccfs.sos.wa.gov/#/BusinessSearch/BusinessInformation ), along with Mike Furlotti, Jim Snyder, and John Lockwood. Where is the reliable source for Stockton as "CEO" of OceanGate? For "strong standard either way" for "occupation"/"title", depends on what the standard is, and the enforcer (authority having jurisdiction) of the standard, Wikipedia editors (e.g. POV fork to Elon Musk page), or another reliable source? Hr5accsaz (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC) This NYT article ([5]), which is the source cited in the sentence describing Rush as chief executive officer of OceanGate, clearly states Stockton Rush, the chief executive of OceanGate Expeditions as its opening line. Neither being listed with other titles on the official website nor being listed as a Governor on WA state incorporation documents contradicts this. I'm genuinely having trouble understanding some of what you wrote above, especially your last sentence. I also think you might be misunderstanding what POV fork means on Wikipedia. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 23:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) To further clarify last sentence, this discussion fork of "Occupation" away from "Unlicensed Engineer" is expressing a Point Of View (POV) of "Occupation" and of another title page, e.g. Elon Musk with "chief engineer" in his title, as a discussion fork, as to what the actual title, or actual occupation, or both actual title and actual occupation, of Stockton Rush was. Discussion fork: ((Per https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking/Internal discussions should not be forked to multiple talk pages, noticeboards, or other venues, but centralized in a single place. Opening duplicate discussions (e.g. new discussion fork "Occupation", siting other page as an example) wastes editorial time, scatters editorial input, and can even lead to conflicting outcomes. Intentionally forking discussions may be interpreted as forum-shopping or canvassing.)) Per Stockton Rush's own words, he stated he did "good engineering" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnfF37PpVAM ), that is publicly conveying the impression as an "engineer" of which per RS RCW #3 and #8(8)(a) "Practice of engineering" means any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training, and experience and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design, and supervision of construction for the purpose of assuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works, or projects." Stockton Rush acting as CEO (per NYT) of OceanGate, conveyed the impression of unlawfully practicing unlicensed engineering as "creative work" (per RS RCW definition #5, and demonstrated by US Patent 11,119,071 B1 and final dive of the Titan) by publicly stating "..I have broken some rules to make this, I think I have broken with..with logic and good engineering behind me, carbon fiber, titanium, there is a rule where you don't do that, well I did" building a submersible machine (RS RCW definition #8), that transported paying customers who signed a wavier stating the machine as "an experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma, or death." Hr5accsaz (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC) @Hr5accsaz: I think you're confused about several things. That's not unreasonable; Wikipedia policy and talk pages are both unlike other websites and it makes sense to be confused! I'm happy to help you understand these topics if you want help; feel free to reach out on my talk page. I'm going to hat (section off) this section of the discussion as it's not helpful for editors working on the Stockton Rush page and has been derailed from the thing Rejoy2003 was trying to establish a consensus about. If you still have concerns about engineering licensure, please keep them in the section you already started (however, do note that the page currently does not state that Rush was a professional engineer, and that changes should be based on reliable sources and not personal research into WA state law). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 10:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rejoy2003: I took a look at Template:Infobox person to see if there was anything useful there. The occupation field seems intended to be for general terms about that person's work, which would normally be businessperson and engineer based on the Categories at the bottom of the page. (Given the engineer discussion, including or excluding it would likely depend on what consensus is reached there.) In any case, tt should be noted that there is a request when using this field: Please observe sentence case and capitalise only the first letter of the first item. The title field seems intended for the exact position about that person's work with it being used for multiple purposes. Note that the successor field can be used in conjunction with the title field, which would not work for the Co-founder part as there cannot be a successor for that position, but it could work for the CEO portion. The known for field is clear in that it is intended to briefly describe the notability of the person. Note that brief appears to depend on the perspective of the user. See Jeremy Allaire where ten lines are used to describe six of the things that Allaire is known for and see Carol Bartz where one line is used to describe Bartz's most notable position with the term following afterwards. The employer field appears just to be for listing relevant employers, which in this case would be OceanGate. It is possible to have the line read "OceanGate (Co-Founder; CEO)" to show his connection to the company. I will note that this was a personal suggestion and I did not find any evidence that this is used in this format elsewhere on the Wiki. I am unsure if this could be considered bad formatting or not.

Personally, I would say that the fields appear to be commonly misused in articles, so it likely isn't much of a problem to use the wrong fields. That said, the current use is incorrect and it is likely a good idea to attempt to fix it. Based on what I have said, what field do you think is best to use? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. To be honest, like you've mentioned this was only a suggestion that I had in mind. It was actually my first time seeing something like this. And as Dylnuge mentioned above, there isn't a "strong standard" if we use it in either way, i.e Title or Occupation. We could leave it as it is since there are other articles as well where the same format is used. If you still think this is incorrect maybe we could work things out by further discussion, otherwise I don't see it much of a hindrance. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 08:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to using title here and it seems like there's a preference towards it and based on @Super Goku V's assessment that it's the preferable option here. Since it doesn't seem like anyone is opposed to using title here I'll go ahead and change it. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 09:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Khiikiat undid this in [6]; inviting them here to discuss the change. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, when I did that, I was unaware of this discussion. I don't mind if you revert my edit. Khiikiat (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for! Just wanted to let you know about the conversation and see if you had an opinion on this. Thanks for replying! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I honestly believe that listing co-founder of OceanGate as an occupation is incorrect. That's not a job for which one receives an income. CEO is that should remain in that field. I also don't understand why only his last occupation is there. He was also a flight test engineer with McDonnell Douglas during his lifetime and that should also be listed. I also feel that years should be added to them to properly reflect the timeline.Tvx1 16:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe it's pretty normal for an infobox to list the jobs a person is known for, rather than just every job they've ever had. The career section covers other jobs he's had in more depth. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The field isn’t named notable occupations so it’s unreasonable to expect the lay reader to make that distinction. At the same time, almost all major news sources mention his occupation as engineer, so I’d say he was kown for it. Tvx1 18:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an example of any biography in which a person is listed with every occupation they've ever had inside of their infobox, instead of the infobox only stating the one(s) they're notable for? I think the reader expectation is definitely not to find a long CV inside of an infobox, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) (edited 21:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC))

I think you are making much more of a problem of this here than it really. This man didn't hold many different occupations and the one discussed is mentioned by almost every major news outlet. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no risk of overloading the infobox here. Tvx1 22:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not making a "problem" out of it, I just disagree with you. In case it's not clear, the underlines above are from me editing my comment after making it and not meant as an emphasis. Anyways, I think I've made my point, so I'm not going to belabor it. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the first half of this, the article currently says it was his title and not his occupation, so I think we are fine there. Regarding the second half, is it that important that we list the McDonnell Douglas work? Finally, I can try to set the term field. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, almost every major news outlet thinks it is. Tvx1 12:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted to amended the article based on this. I am not fully satisficed with my edit, but it at least seems to work. If you would look into it and amend it, I would appreciate it. (I still omitted the occupation field and would like to double check here if you are okay with it. I don't think it is needed, but will add it if you wish.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Lengthy Quote in Career Section

Since this language was restored after being removed, bringing to talk page. In the career section, we have this sentence currently:

He thought "being in a sub, and being nice and cozy, and having a hot chocolate with you, beats the heck out of freezing and going through a two-hour decompression hanging in deep water", but when he tried to purchase a submarine, he learned there were fewer than 100 privately-owned submarines worldwide and was unable to purchase one.

This strikes me as an overly lengthy quote that doesn't scan easily when reading the rest of the prose. I also think it reads a bit like promotional copy for Rush. My proposed alternative language for this would be something like:

Rush attempted to purchase his own submarine as an alternative to diving, but was unable and found that there were less than 100 privately-owned submarines worldwide.

Curious what other editors prefer here. I'm fine leaving the quote in if consensus is that it's adding value to this section of the article. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dylnuge: Oh, whoops. I already modified that a bit thanks to this line: As he started to explore the idea of launching his own submarine company, he tried to buy daredevil businessman Steve Fossett’s submersible, after the adventurer died in a 2007 plane crash. When that didn’t work out, he struck out on his own. (Is it okay to leave it as it or should it be changed further?) Regardless, sorry if I caused you any trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for; that seems relatively reasonable to me. I'd drop "daredevil businessman" but it looks like that's been removed from the language currently on the page, which seems fine to me Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that was directly from the source I used. Here is how the article currently reads: [...] He began diving in Puget Sound, which required significant time and technical gear. He thought "being in a sub, and being nice and cozy, and having a hot chocolate with you, beats the heck out of freezing and going through a two-hour decompression hanging in deep water." Rush first looked into buying Steve Fossett's submersible vehicle following Fossett's 2007 death, but when he tried to purchase it, he learned there were fewer than 100 privately-owned submarines worldwide and was unable to purchase one. He instead constructed a miniature submersible using blueprints provided to him by a retired U.S. Navy submarine commander. [...] Basically I just split the sentence in two and partly modified the second half of it. (Also, thank you.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V I wound up making some substantial changes here after noticing there's a source contradiction with the new timeline here (emphasis added):

• From Smithsonian source ([7]): He then tried unsuccessfully to buy [a submarine]. Instead, a London company offered to sell him parts for a mini-sub that could be built using blueprints created by a retired U.S. Navy submarine commander. He completed it in 2006
• From FastCompany source ([8]): As he started to explore the idea of launching his own submarine company, he tried to buy daredevil businessman Steve Fossett’s submersible, after the adventurer died in a 2007 plane crash.

It appears that Rush's early interest in forming a submarine company came in '06/'07 and that his attempt to buy a sub did not strictly proceed his self-constructed vessel, so I've reframed the timeline to reflect that. I think the new language establishes a clearer timeline and better avoids promotional language (to me, "Rush was interested in exploration from a young age" type stuff seems non-encyclopedic and just reads like Connor Roy's campaign catchphrase). I also expanded the details on Rush's attitude towards safety regulations; it doesn't strike me as undue weight to give them a paragraph in an article about a person who ran a company responsible for and best known for a safety accident. Let me know if the new text scans cleanly to you and seems appropriate. Thanks! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that reads much better and does remove the problems with the text. Thank you for fixing things and sorry for the confusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Date of dissapearance

The titan lost contact with the mother ship on June 19 2023 2601:202:181:19C0:F1C8:75C3:B1AF:BC89 (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done It depends on timezones. Locally, the time was around 11:15am Newfoundland Daylight Time on the 18th when contact was lost. "The submersible was launched at 8 a.m. EDT and expected to resurface at 3 p.m., but one hour and 45 minutes into their dive, they lost contact with the Polar Prince." "1.45pm GMT/9.45am ET: Communications between the submersible and the surface vessel are lost 1 hour and 45 minutes after starting its descent." (Converted from EDT, Converted from GMT) Thus, for most of the world and for the local area, it was on the 18th. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Commercial Pilot's "license"

The FAA did not issue Mr. Rush a commercial pilot's "license". The FAA issues Certificates. Mr. Rush held earned a "Commercial Pilot Certificate". 24.26.236.132 (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I guess you are questioning the claim that he ".. earned a commercial pilot's license at 18 years old"? I checked the four sources given at the end of that sentence and, as far as I can see, none of them support this claim. So some other reliable source may be needed anyway. 86.187.166.157 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the claim that he earned a "DC-8 Type/Captain's rating" is a misnomer because the FAA does not issue "Captain's Rating". The FAA issued a "DC-8 Type Rating". 24.26.236.132 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Surely the company would issue a "Captain's rating", not the FAA? 86.187.166.157 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This one is pretty much exactly what's stated in the source ([9]): When he was 19, Rush was the youngest person to become a jet transport-rated pilot when he earned a DC-8 Type/Captain's rating at the United Airlines Jet Training Institute, according to his biography at OceanGate (emphasis added). Since that article cites a non-independent primary source (Rush's OceanGate biography) it seems insufficient for supporting the "youngest person" claim, but the rest of it seems fine. Note also that the United Airlines Jet Training Institute is as far as I can tell not the FAA, and the current sentence in the article does not claim the "Captains rating" was issued by the FAA. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I also question the veracity of the "United Airlines Jet Training Institute." In any event, Mr. Rush could not have become a type-rated DC-8 captain at age 19 without an Airline Transport Certificate, which – without military flying experience – requires an applicant to be at least 23 years of age. See 14 CFR § 61.153. Garpct (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Since it would be original research to combine FAA regulations with the wording in the source to try and figure out what part of this claim applies, I've gone ahead and removed the entire thing. It's a WP:ABOUTSELF issue since CBS News says it came directly from his OceanGate bio. If anyone has a better independent source on this, feel free to add it back. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted the language to say "became a commercial pilot" since that's supported by the Smithsonian article. Note that his commercial piloting was in Saudi Arabia, and it's unclear if the FAA would have been the licensing agency in any case. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see General Authority of Civil Aviation and e.g. here. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Past safety concerns

[10] is a blog but it has interesting sources and quotes, for example McCallum gave the BBC emails he exchanged with Rush in 2018, where he tells the CEO that he is “placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic.” and Rush defends himself by saying “I have grown tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation and new entrants from entering their small existing market. Since Guillermo and I started OceanGate we have heard the baseless cries of “you are going to kill someone” way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult.” --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is well covered in the Titan submersible implosion article. Perhaps some could be copied over to here? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a whole paragraph of "Career" right now covering Rush's safety attitude, as well as part of the "Personality and personal life" section describing his attitude towards risk. I'm with you that it's due coverage given the Titan implosion, but I'm not sure we need more detail on Titan-specific concerns here when there's a separate article covering the accident. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 13:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Also just to be clear that's not a reliable source (I think that's already stated above, just wanna be sure) Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 13:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There have been multiple reports in reliable sources about the safety concerns of Oceangate's submersibles. It's appropriate for the Oceangate and the Titan articles, rather then needlessly repeating them here. Sionk (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that adding more information about Rush's public and private statements regarding safety would be appropriate as it has been widely covered in reliable sources about Rush. One way to do this would be to add a section about his time at OceanGate and include some of this information. Key points seem to be that he made the submersibles, people told him it was a bad idea, he made a bunch of comments about that. Including an example or two of each would be adequate. Anybar (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately blogs are simply not a reliable source. If you have similar content to be added from some other independent publication, that could work. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

blogs are simply not a reliable source That was what I was implying when I wrote is a blog but it has interesting sources. People who feel the need to tell me that blogs are not RS, which I have known for decades, can you please stop doing that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If that was what you were implying, I don't understand why the need to share it here considering it's a blog? I don't see it help the article in any way. Talk pages are spaces created to help discuss and improve an article. In this case, it seems to be borderline WP:NOTFORUM. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 03:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I repeat: it has interesting sources. Meaning: maybe some of the sources Watson cited can be used in the article.

I repeat: can you please stop doing that? If you think there is nothing there, don't use it. If you do, use it. There is no need to blow it out of proportion like this. EOD as far as I am concerned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There was only three sources that I could find in that blog that would be potentially useable: BBC: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show, The New Republic (TNR): Missing Titanic Sub Once Faced Massive Lawsuit Over Depths It Could Safely Travel To, and TNR: The Media Cares More About the Titanic Sub Than Drowned Migrants. That is it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

F-15 Eagle

The New York Times says this: "The year he graduated, he joined the McDonnell Douglas Corporation as a flight test engineer on the F-15 program and was named the company’s representative at Edwards Air Force Base on the APG-63 radar test protocol." here. The article currently has two "cn" tags for this claim. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the Independent also corroborates this; I've put a cite by the claim in the body and removed both {{cn}} tags Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice one. Many thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

2021

The article says: "In 2021, After a year of delay because warning of "cracking" from Karl Stanley and other in community, Rush finally started his deep submergence business. To achieve this, he took financial shortcut, skipped certification before carry passengers, also split his company into different entities and issued a waiver before risky dive." I think a rewrite might be needed to improve this. Also the reference to support this text is this YouTube video, which might not be the most appropriate source? Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I completely redid this portion as a travel blogger interview isn't a reliable source. The details would be better in Titan or Oceangate article anyways, once combined with reliable sources. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for cutting that down. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Estate

Presumably Rush's estate, including all financial liabilities, will have has passed to his wife Wendy. I think this might be a valid detail to be added to the article. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

A source mentioned would be appreciated, otherwise I see this as only WP:OR. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 19:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Collapsed off-topic chat per WP:NOTFORUM

Perhaps this information is not (yet) in the public domain. In any case, a large part of Rush's wealth was his share of the OceanGate company. It's the company that might be sued by the families of the deceased, as reported here. But this also looks partly like speculation: "Dr Nick Oberheiden, of US firm Federal-lawyer.com, told i: "If it can be established that the implosion was caused by inherent defects in the mechanics or engineering of the submarine, the responsible party may be held liable, even if a waiver was signed"." 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Note the if!Tvx1 10:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Ah yes, that's the first word, isn't it. I guess any personal wealth, which might pass from the estate of the late Stockton Rush to his wife, or to named beneficiaries, would be immune to any legal challenge. But I don't know how things happen in the US. In the UK I think the estate of the deceased would have to remain in probate until any legal challenges had been settled. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Any legel challenges pertaining to the inheritance that is. Not legal persecutions for a potential crime. Anyway, I think any legal actions regarding the loss of the Titan and the death of its occupants have to be directed against OceanGate. I guess even Stockton’s family could sue them if another employee’s negligence would be determined to be the cause. Tvx1 13:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Agreed, the company would be liable. That last eventuality sounds like a possible scenario that might be impossible to determine. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"Expert opinion" seems to be that the families may still be able to sue, despite the signing of liability waivers: ""Generally speaking, when you have these liability waivers, you can waive liability for general things," said Patrick Luff, founding partner of Luff Law Firm. "You generally can't waive claims for gross negligence, extreme risk of harm, reckless disregard for safety." But then lawyers are always pretty keen on saying that people can be used, aren't they. 86.187.168.79 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but they would sue OceanGate, not Stockton Rush since he’s dead. You can’t put a dead person on trial. This is thus all not relevant to the article and a thread that should not continue, per Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. Tvx1 01:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Both the above external link and the one in the collapsed part are about legal action against OceanGate as a company, not about Rush's personal estate. So maybe they should be moved to a new thread or this one should be re-named? The law suit by Marc and Sharon Hagle against OceanGate is already mentioned in the article, so this seems to be a valid topic for discussion here. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The Hagles had sued Rush, not OceanGate. That’s why its mention is valid for this article. All the rest regarding potential legal actions after his death isn’t. Tvx1 11:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so a valid thread at OceanGate, but not here. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC) p.s. why didn't the Hagles sue OceanGate?

No idea. You’d have to ask them. Tvx1 13:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I suspect I'd have to ask their lawyer 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Image

I have another image which is almost exactly like the current one except it looks better and its not copyrighted. Can I upload it? Dappy373 (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The image you've uploaded has been tagged for deletion because of possible copyright violation. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 18:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

But its the same image as the current one? Dappy373 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Needs New Profile pic

Find a good profile pic for Stockton, the current one is unprofessional. There are so many good pictures to choose from of him that you can add. 2A00:23EE:12E8:42FF:DDC6:6DD0:A3E8:E717 (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It's true that many better pictures exist online, but most of those are copyrighted and therefore cannot be used on Wikipedia. If you can find an image with an acceptable license (see c:Commons:Licensing for an explanation), please feel free to upload it yourself and add it to the article. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to upload uncopyrighted pictures of Stockton Rush here but it is still not working. unsure why since the picture is better than the current one. Can you try uploading a picture of him? Dappy373 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373: If you're referring to this edit, it looks like you copied and pasted the image's source code into the article, which won't work. I recommend using the Upload Wizard on Wikimedia Commons, although you should read the licensing policy for Commons first if you haven't already. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to the pictures I tried to upload today but for some reason wouldn't accept them. I think its important that the victims of this tragedy get appropriate profile pictures and Stockton Rush needs his changing. if you can find any good pictures of him, please upload it as I'm continuing to look for some that will be accepted. 86.17.231.129 (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Profile Pics

I uploaded some new profile pics of Stockton. I think the current one looks good and I hope you like it. Dappy373 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373: Just to note, you have already been told about WP:NFCC at Talk:Titan submersible implosion by myself hours ago. So, let's go through things before we use those images.

For the first question, where did you get those images?

For the second question, what is the copyright status of those images?

For the third question, are you prepared to note how the images follow WP:NFCCP should they be images taken by others?

I recommend answering these questions within the next 48 hours per WP:NFCCE, A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. As I have reverted your edits and removed the image, you might have seven days, but I still will recommend the shorter deadline in case it doesn't matter that I removed the images from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The images are not copyrighted and I have not just taken them from the internet. These images have permission to be on the article and I uploaded 2 for anyone who wants to use it. Dappy373 (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373: The images are not copyrighted and I have not just taken them from the internet. Uh huh. Let me be brief then. That is a clear falsehood. The fact that you would attempted to deceive anyone about the copyright is very problematic, not to mention that you are violating on policies regarding copyright. You are also engaging in edit warring on the article over the image as I am seeing at least nine edits in a 24-hour period in four groups that are just edits to revert the image back to one of your preferred options over the objections of others. There is also the matter of deleting talk page discussions for unclear reasons. (The only good thing that inadvertently might be coming out of this is that we might need to review File:Stockton Rush (cropped).png and have it be deleted due to the YouTube video going private. That does not excuse any of this, Dappy373.) Pinging Materialscientist, Midori No Sora, Moons of Io, and SamX for their input on this matter. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the current image should be removed and replaced as it is does not belong to you (and whats worse) it is a still from OceanGate's YouTube video and therefore stealing their content. If the image is not removed soon, there will be a problem as it is illegal to use images that do not belong to you. Do not steal other peoples content. Dappy373 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373 On the contrary, the video that the image was taken from was uploaded to YouTube under a Creative Commons license, so as long as credit for the source of the image is maintained, it is permissible to reuse the image. Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, so even though the video is now private, the license is still valid. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373, what you said here against Super Goku V clearly shows that you are WP:NOTHERE. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 18:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Tried to co-operate, wont tolerate needless rude behaviour towards community members. Dappy373 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373: Giving you warnings about behavior that you have concretely demonstrated is not "rude". I see nothing wrong with their comment. Wikipedia has many policies and you are required to follow them; warnings will almost always link the ones you need to read.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It was the way of approach that some would consider rude. I suggest he rethink how we communicates to people in a way that is abiding and friendly. Dappy373 (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373: So you thought it fit to resort to the childish insult of "silly ass"? Warnings are always issued with a serious tone, all while still being WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia is not the site for you if you cannot handle that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Silly ass is childish to you is it? Wow. Lets get back on topic. Dappy373 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you really going to continue that sort of WP:IDNHT attitude here? One more and you'll be sent to the admins. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 19:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Tried to co-operate", Super Goku V literally asked you to stop removing sections from the talk page and you replied that you "didn't care". 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not care of his idiotic approach. There was no need to change the image, or if there was which is fair, a brand new one should be uploaded. Dappy373 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Although it may be permissible, it is still an unsuitable image to use for such a serious Wikipedia page. Moreover, it is still *taken* from a video that does not belong to us and never will, the content belongs to OceanGate. Dappy373 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373: We will always prefer free content over non-free, as one of the WP:NFCC is that no free replacement exists. That's not the case here. The image still belongs to them, but the license they released it under is irrevocable and is valid. You clearly do not understand how image licensing works, so please stop trying to tell us what to do about them, and cut out the personal attacks like Midori mentioned.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Teaming up on eachother is a poor way of communication, co-operate with me in an orderly fashion. I know what Im talking about, but the main point is that Im pointing out the fact that this image was taken from a video in the first place. You cannot go on videos and use their images and say its tolerable. Dappy373 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373: Yes we can, as explained numerous times here. You have no clue what you are talking about and this is getting to the point where you are refusing to listen.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I know what Im on about, and Im aware that its under a permissible licensing but thats not the point. Wikipedia is a place to express views and make articles better, please talk sense. Dappy373 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373: So you have just conceded that your argument that the image is illegal to use, or is a violation of copyright, is wrong. I'm talking perfect sense here. Also, no one is required to satisfy you personally about the reasoning behind our consensus, which you are required to abide by.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I have observed the licensing, which I still find unusual and therefore Im allowed to suspect. The main pont is that it was taken from somewhere else when it really didnt need to be. Dappy373 (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dappy373: The way we select among free images is not dependent on how that free licensing has come about, so you're not going to get anywhere with that. If you can find another free image that better illustrates the article subject, we can discuss; otherwise there is nothing more to discuss here as the existing image will stay.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It depends who "us" is. The image belongs to OceanGate, creator/owner of the video, and to lxfd64, who edited the image, as well as to MinerbNosk, who cropped the image. The last two arguably made explicit donations of their work to Wikimedia Commons. OceanGate placed their work under a license that permits Wikipedia to use it. No further ownership is needed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Ah, gotcha. Given that the video that we were sourcing from was taken down, I didn't know if the image needed to be removed or not. Thank you for the clarification. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Image

I've noticed the main image of Rush is not the best, so how do I find a better one that is not copyrighted/unlicensed? Where can I go to find a suitable image ot him for this article ? Seems the current one is taken from a YouTube video, so does that mean I can take an image of him from a YouTube video that is under a CC license ? Thanks. Cameron373 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It means that you are blocked again as a sockpuppet of User:Dappy7373. Please find better use of your time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Floundered? Did you mean ‘foundered’?

Well? Which? 124.170.235.228 (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe floundered makes more sense. To give two examples using substitution:

Floundered: While conducting market research for OceanGate, Rush determined that the private market for underwater exploration had struggle[d] financially due to a public reputation for danger and increased regulatory requirements on the operation of tourist submarines and submersibles.

Foundered: While conducting market research for OceanGate, Rush determined that the private market for underwater exploration had lack[ed] success due to a public reputation for danger and increased regulatory requirements on the operation of tourist submarines and submersibles.

Both can fit, but the second sentence would imply that success never occurred, while the first sentence implies that the issue was financial. I believe this seems to line up with the source. The Navy pumped millions into manned submersibles with names like Alvin, Turtle and Mystic, with research fueled by secret Cold War missions such as the 1974 recovery of a sunken Russian ballistic-missile sub from the Pacific floor. But in the post-Vietnam recession, government funds dried up. [...] (New paragraph) Soon after, the private market died too, Rush found, for two reasons that were “understandable but illogical.”

But to be sure, what are your thoughts, Dylnuge? Is that what you intended? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You read my intent on the original wording correctly, but I agree that either term could fit here. It's potentially worth noting that foundered also means sunk (as in literally, applied to a vessel). I wonder if the original question came from confusion over the verb being applied to "the private market" and not any specific vessel. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 06:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Protected

It is not as if the page for Stockton Rush is to any notoriety anymore and I believe this should be free for all to edit. 86.17.54.133 (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You can Request unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

Make “Titan expedition and death” a subsection of the “Career” section. It’s part of his career as CEO and founder of that company. Water Bottle Lvr (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

I beg to differ. The section explicitly outlines the implosion of the submersible and his death, two subjects of which do not inherently relate to career.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

One might reasonably argue that the Titan explosion was far more notable than his career. So it deserves its own section. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)