Jump to content

Talk:RMS Lusitania/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Please use sea terms

In the article speed is mentioned as knots ,as it should be. But distances at sea (or in the air) must not be mentioned in miles or kilometers but in nautical miles or distance minutes. For example the speed ten knots means ten nautical miles per hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPEriksson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Diving Team found Munitions

"A diving team from Cork Sub Aqua Club, under license, made the first known discovery of munitions aboard the wreck in 2006. These include 15,000 rounds of .303 bullets in cases in the bow section of the ship. The find was photographed but left in situ under the terms of the license."

No source is given - this sounds like major news and would be all over the net. I can't find any reference to it anywhere though, and it seems as though it would go against the legal fight and other things stated in the article...?

google is your friend: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/lusitania/timeline/timeline_11.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.67.158.16 (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

also: http://www.archaeology.org/0901/trenches/lusitania.html 88.69.120.178 (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html 5th February 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.31.59 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Passengers and Crew and overall organization

Ok, the passengers and crew section that was previously deleted has been restored, and certain dates have been changed back to what they really are supposed to be.

Does anyone else think that this article could benefit from an overhaul? The passenger and crew section by itself seems terribly disorganized and may warrant a separate article if we were to give other people as much attention as we gave Captain Turner and IBS Holbourn.

The last voyage section also seems a bit disorganized and we could use more sections such as "Construction" and "Political Fallout." What are other people's opinions? Pryaltonian 23:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only could it benefit from an overhaul, it needs it. It is a hodgepodge of information, poorly worded in many place, and with no citations to authorities. And it should be reorganized (perhaps a regular chronological organization, followed by analysis and discussion on how its sinking actually affected German and US policy) Have at it, if you're willing. Kablammo 02:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job so far, Pryaltonian. You may want to look at First Battle of the Atlantic-- there is a lot of overlap but the subject is better dealt with in this article devoted to the ship. Kablammo 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Wow. That article really does a good job. A lot of it will probably have to be imported here with a link to here on the First Battle of the Atlantic page. But small steps first. Pryaltonian 03:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the page has been reorganized. There's still some stuff that needs tinkering in there -- I haven't gotten around to fixing inconsistencies in style yet. We also need a section on "Inquest" after the sinking and "Contruction" as the heading that would include "Comparison with the Olympic class." Pryaltonian 07:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Image

The image, despite its title, isn't the Lusitania (The Lusitania has very flat, barrel-like vents), rather, it depicts her sister ship, the RMS Mauritania. Does anyone know where I can grab a public domain image? Punani 06:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The current image is of Lusitania. The covers of the flat hinged-top vents are open, which is why they might look like Mauritania's cowl vents. Fionnlaoch (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Coal bunkers

I have been unable to find the capacity of the ship's coal bunkers, but 100,000 tons seems somewhat unlikely! I suggest removing the figure until a true one can be found.

12" Guns and explosion after torpedo strike

Though it is very possible (and even likely) that munitions were being carried within the Lusitania's cargo holds, the ship itself was not armed with offensive weaponry of any kind, unlike many other merchant ships. In addition, the U-20's torpedo hit the starboard side roughly below the bridge, in the area of a coal bunker located between Boiler Room #1 and the ship's magazine. This, coupled with the fact that the second explosion occurred almost immediately after the first, makes a coal dust explosion far more likely than a boiler explosion (Ballard 1995, p.195).

The claim that the ship was unarmed is disputed. On a recent visit to the Shipwreck Museum in Charlestown, Cornwall, I saw items which supported this counter-claim.

Churchill

  • With regards to the comment "It has further been argued Lusitania was coldly sacrificed by 1st Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill as a maneuver to hasten America's involvement in the European conflict."

If no source can be provided for this information, I suggest that it be taken from the article - I don't believe that there is any room for conspiracy theories in historical articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

There's room for conspiracy theories, but not unsourced theories. Stan 00:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I read (somewhere) that Churchill stated in his memoirs that the plan for arming merchant ships (which was I believe against international law at the time) was done with the conscious intent of forcing German submarines to attack without surfacing (thus forfeiting their ability to tell passengers and sailors to disembark before being sunk), the ultimate goal being to induce the U.S. into the war on Britain's side (since eventually a passenger ship would be sunk with American citizens onboard-inflaming American sentiment--Churchill was half-American and he knew the American public would respond to such an event).
I don't have a specific reference to this but presumably someone with a copy of the memoirs could check?? I agree it's a little too specific (and thus conspiratorial) to say that the Lusitania per se was sacrificed, rather a general policy was put into motion which would have led eventually to something like its sinking happening.Critic9328 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Year of US entry into war

If it was sunk in 1915, why did US not enter the war until 1917? Furius 04:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furius, the Lusitania was not the sole and only cause of the Americans entry into the war. It was, however, a big reason why America declared war against Germany. There were a few more insitance's that occured after the Lusitania's sinking that furthered American resentment towards Germany.
That clears things up. Thank you very much. Furius 04:31, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The population of the United States had to be whipped up into support for US entry into this war. Remember that at this time there were a lot of first generation German immigrants living in the US. Many of these Germans were proud of their heritage the way the Mexicans in the United States of America are today. The German immigrants were seen as an obstacle to declaring war on Germany. Wilson enacted very oppressive anti-free speach policies. This included prohibition of the use of the German language in many places and imprisoning Eugene V. Debs for years for making a remark critical of the war. The US was just looking for an incident to claim that it was attacked. The US war promoters have done this throughout US history. They provoke an enemy behind the scenes until it attacks.
See Ralph Raico's Rethinking Churchill --Kalmia 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
"It was, however, a big reason why America declared war against Germany." That's a persistent myth. The fact is, the Germans promised to give back Texas & New Mexico if Mexico entered the war on the German side. The proposal was sent in the notorious (but obviously not well-enough known) Zimmerman telegram, decrypted by RN intelligence (Room 40?) & passed on to the U.S.; since neither could reveal the source, an excuse was needed, & Lusitania served. Trekphiler 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that the proposal in the Zimmermann telegram was delivered to Mexico before the U.S. declared war in direct contradiction to the telegram's instructions?Werchovsky (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Not AFAIK, but I'd guess it made no diff. The German Ambassador was instructed to offer; that was as good as actually doing it. Trekphiler (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for US going to WW1

It was nagging by the Hearst papers that helped. The ship story was old news. Over 400 civilians were killed in the US by German terrorists trying to stop shipments to the UK ... blowing up trains and cargo yards. In fact Wilson was really dragging his feet. He did not enter the war until it was quite clear who was going to win. Wilson wanted to be a part of the victor's carve-up of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.74.152 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

RMS Aquatania

I have a question for anyone. I have seen pictures of the RMS Aquatania, and her design is very similar to that of the Lusitania's. Was the Aquatania considered to be a sister ship to the Lusitania, and why was her stern section built with a large extra compartment that the Mauretania and Lusitania did not have?

A: Strictly speaking, ships are considered "sisters" if they are built from the same plans and therefore (substantially) identical such as RMS Olympic and Titanic. Aquitania was built 7 years after Lusitania and with a different economic outlook. Since Aquitania is an evolution from the Lusitania, but the two were meant to run as a team, Aquitania is properly called an "consort" ship (cf. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth). Regarding the "large extra compartment" aft, Aquitania was designed to run at a profit without the large British Government subsidy that Lusitania/Mauretania received. In order to increase her paying capacity per voyage, an extra deck was inserted into the design. This extra space allowed for a badly needed sheltered promenade deck for third class passengers. On earlier ships, third class had to spend the entire crossing in their cabins, or share open decks with baggage and docking machinery etc. This covered promenade gave third class a chance to actually get out on a spacious deck, protected from the usually inclement North Atlantic weather, play games and exercise

Schweiger

Can anyone confirm his rank? I recall it was Kapitänleutnant, not Kapitän zur See (as "Captain" implies). Trekphiler 19:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Kapitänleutnant Walther Schwieger, (not Schweiger)

promoted to KptLt in 1914,

commander of U20 since 1914-12-16

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Schwieger

http://www.uboat.net/wwi/men/?officer=322

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapitänleutnant

Conspiracy?

Where in Room 40 does Beesly say there was a conspiracy? I've read it 3x; I don't recall it. Trekphiler 19:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This is from the 1982 (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich) revised edition of Room 40, where the cover jacket says, "the author has amended his views on the sinking of the Lusitania and intimates that a British conspiracy lay behind the tragedy."
Furthermore, in Chp 7, Lusitania: Foul-up or Conspiracy?, pg 120-121 states: "The action, or absence of action, in respect of the Lusitania was spread over ten days! Can one really accept a foul-up as the complete explanation? But if it was no foul-up, then it must have been a conspiracy, and a great deal that is otherwise inexplicable would fall into place."
Also from pg 121: "one still has to answer the question why precautions to ensure Lusitania's safety, which had been taken on previous occasions and which could and should have been taken on her last voyage, were conspicious by their absence."
pg 122: "unless and until fresh information comes to light, I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy deliberately to put the Lusitania at risk in hopes that even an abortive attack on her would bring the United States into the war. Such a conspiracy could not have been put into effect without Winston Churchill's express permission and approval."
all italics in these quotes are Beesly's. Pryaltonian 31 Dec 2005
That would explain it; I've read an earlier edition. (I'd still say better evidence of conspiracy is called for; a second source, for instance.) Trekphiler 18:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent references to munitions on board

I believe that the presence of munitions on board has not yet been established conclusively. Generally the article treats the situation accordingly. Yet in two places in the article the presence of munitions is presented as established fact. This is a contradiction. Can someone please clarify? Canonblack 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Incorrect Date

"The Lusitania made her maiden voyage from Liverpool, England to New York City, NY on February 4, 1752" Huh? --64.27.12.219 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought

You this conspiracy theory kinda echoes what some believe happened to the Estonia-ship. Guess there are alot of people with too much free time on their hands...oh, like me :) 217.209.26.241 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Lusitania as Legit target?

By international law, the presence of military cargo made the Lusitania a legitimate target.

Ok I am distubed about Lusitania being a legit target. First of all did the German actually knows that lusitania actually carying forbidden cargo?

So far they did not present any convincing evidence to rebuke the Allies therfore they made a wild guess that Lusitania was carying munitions. You probably notice why they lose the propaganda war because Germans CANT PROVE IT.

Exactly, they lost the propaganda war and they deserved to (unless they had some concrete evidence but for some very, very strange reasons they didn't want to show it, which is, mildly put, unlikely). But, nevertheless, if the Lusitania did carry munitions it was a legitimate target even if Germany didn't know it at that time. 82.135.72.151 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

But, nevertheless, if the Lusitania did carry munitions it was a legitimate target even if Germany didn't know it at that time.

Germans simply had a LUCKY shot on Lusitania. Did they have sixth sesne? of maybe they have experimental tarot reading? They did not confirmed that Lusitania was carying weapon and that is why they cant prove a crap and they lose the propaganda war. Their spies was captured inside Lusitania. Yeah, imagine if I'd seen a man walking in the street, shot him, stripped him and then searched him just to eventually confirm that he happened to actually be carrying an illegal weapon after all..?
Which is exactly what the USA and Britain did in Irak, isn't it? But never mind that, who wants to think about their own actions if you can do some German-bashing instead.193.109.51.199 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Lusitania IS NOT A LEGIT TARGET if GERMANS HAD NO PRIOR KNOWLEGE THAT LUSITANIA WAS ACTUALLY CARYING WEAPONS.

The only way the Germans figure it out wheter Lusitania is carying weapons is spies (the British captured some of then inside the Lusitania).....wait

Why Germans unable to prove the Lusitania was carying weapons they argued that the only reason Lusitania was carying weapons was the second explosion -right after they torpedoed Lusitania? It took the world decades to figure it out that Lusitania is carying 20 tons of weapons (thanks to de-classified british documents and expedition to the wreck)

  • basically the Lusitania was aiding the British war effort against the Germans with the aid of the United States.(Hence the article in newspapers warning travellers about sailing on British flagged ships.) Remember the U.S. was claiming neutrality early in the war but nevertheless interned about 30 German merchantmen including the world's largest ship the SS. Vaterland(later Leviathan). The point is the U.S. while claiming neutrality was undeclaredly picking the side of the British by providing the necessary machinery for the British to fight a war against Germany ie clothing, foodstuffs, armament, you get the picture. It's been proven from one source to another that the Lusitania was carrying huge amounts of cheese, apparel, cases of fuses & guncotton of which some of the fuses may have been spotted by divers during expeditions to her wreck. The guncotton if it was on board did not ignite as the parts of the wreck where it would've been stored is still intact. This lends argument to the coal dust explosion theory.Koplimek (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I felt the section in WWI is somewhat biased....

The region around the british isles had been declared as an area of unrestricted submarine warfare, and by declaring that, the German gouvernment just did what Great Britain actually did too. EVERY ship sailing under the flag of Great Britain or one of their allies was suspicious to carry weapons. The reason why things were dealt with that way ais just a consequence of the British hunting u-boats by camouflaged destroyers as passenger liners or armed passenger liners to destroy u-boats under a neutral flag, which has been forbidden by international law as well. The German action to declare such an area of unrestricted submarine warfare had been just a reaction to those activities of the British disabling the distinguishment of neutral/ civil and millitary ships. therefore the question whether Lusitania carried weapons or not is just an academical one. Of course the Germans had to try to avoid the USA joining war. Of course, they tried to convince the US -gouvernemnt that this action had been legal and the only (internationally ) legal reason would have been if the Lusitania had been carrying weapons. Of course the Germans could not know that on that certain ship there had been weapons, but as a consequence of the illegal British actions ( masking amunition transporters etc. as neutral/ passenger ships and camouflaging destroyers as such ships ) the only possible reaction of the Germans consisted in the declaration of an area of unrestricted submarine warfare. Every ship entering that area was aware of this fact, and there have been severe warnings of submarine actions within this area. moreover, the Lusitania had been colored gray/black before her last journey and was therefore unable to be clearly identified. If Schwieger had to be condemned, the whole British admirality had to be too. Moreover, the British had exact knowledge of the position of U 20 but did nevertheless change the route of the Lusitania right to enter the operation area of U 20. (Just consider "Room 40"). See http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/7/0,1872,2097479,00.html, exspecially churchills quotation "its crucial to have passenger liners moving through our costal waters in order to make the US join the war... and should some of those ships get into troubles, the better for us." ( 1915, on the webpage above). Moreover, all German sources talk about the proofed fact of the Lusitania having carried munition. 131.173.18.59 14:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Germans only said that lusitania was carying munition as a damage control?

If germans torpedoed Lusitania based on wild guess pre-fabricated evidence I guess Lustitania is NOT A LEGIT TARGET?

Regardless of her cargo, she was listed in the 1914 edition of Brassey's as an Armed Merchant Cruiser, making her a legitimate target. Why go looking for a conspiracy when she was publicly listed as an RN Auxiliary? TDKozan 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It took several dacades to prove this allegation....from a declassified british documents and several diving.

The Germans claimed that the Lusitania sank so quickly because the torpedo hit munitions being secretly carried on board, causing the second explosion.

They kinda figure it AFTER torpedoing the Lusitania this is so funny.

Just as funny as illegally loading munition on such a ship. 131.173.18.59 14:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

British documents later confirmed the German assertion that the ship was carrying munitions. Also, after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt the secret copy of the ship's manifest that had been given to Woodrow Wilson also came to light.

Once again the article points out that the reason Lusitania was a legit target is because of these british document..yawn

The Germans point of view is just that the Lusitania did enter the prohibited area without showing a neutral flag and coloured in camouflaging colors disabling the ship to be identified. The submarines could not just emerge and ask because of the British camouflaging destroyers as passenger ships. Of course this is not a legal reason to sink a ship, but this is just what the British did when they masked their destroyers ( and this happened BEFORE declaring unrestriced submarine warfare). thats why I doubt the neutrality of that section.131.173.18.59 14:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, according to "20th Century Military Blunders" (I was listening to the audiobook, so I can't give you a page number) The Lusitania had been procured by the Admiralty and then "unprocured", but during that stop-start attempt to militarize it, the Lusitania was listed in "Jane's Fighting Ships".

"conspiracy theory" -- npov

Labelling something a "conspiracy theory" is equivalent to labeling it lunatic-fringe quackery. certainly the people that support this theory don't consider themselves conspiracy theorists.

Justforasecond 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The section deals with a theory about a conspiracy. While to me the title is no more than descriptive, Conspiracy theory may have come to have a secondary and pejorative meaning. Perhaps the offending title and text should be changed to a term without those defects. Kablammo 23:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I have made changes to the title and text. On the assumption this resolves the issue I have removed the NPOV tag. If I am in error, restore it and discuss here. Kablammo 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks a lot better, thanks. Justforasecond 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Olympic Class

The second paragraph of this section discusses whether the ship's underwater subdivision by longitudinal bulkheads contributed to the loss of life. While the discussion makes sense no authority is given for the theory and therefore it may not belong. Kablammo 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting the last three sentences of this section as they have no stated support and may be speculative. Kablammo 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have now found authority for the proposition in the testimony before the British Wreck commission investigating the Titanic disaster. In that inquiry the commission heard the following criticism of the design of Mauretania and Lusitania:
Another serious disadvantage is that, suppose some of these coal bunkers or side compartments are flooded and the doors are shut, the water is shut in to one side of the ship. That promptly produces a considerable list of the ship, and makes the lowering of the boats on the other side impracticable. It therefore practically destroys the value of half your boats.[1]
I have inserted into the article an excerpt from this testimony, which is found at question 20227 on the cited web page. It should be kept in mind that this testimony came from Edward Wilding, Naval Architect for Harland & Wolff, Ltd., which designed and built Titanic. He presumably had some incentive to defend his firm's design of the Olympic class in comparison to the Cunard ships. Nevertheless it is an accurate prognostication of what came to pass three years later. Kablammo 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate Action by the British Admiralty

The section now bearing this title has been edited to expand upon the summarization of the contentions of one or two authors about British involvement. However these edits also deleted the arguments on the other side. This seems to me to be POV. Both sides should be stated. Kablammo 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Sinking

I have a question about the destination of the Lusitania. In a german paper -not one I would consider reliable-I read the Lusitania was given an order to go to Queenstown, Ireland instead of Liverpool. R. Ballards book says the ship was headed for Liverpool and this article says it was "making for" the port of Queenstown, Ireland. My english is not that good. This means the the Lusitanina was merely sailing in the direction of Queenstown, it does not mean she did she plan to sail into the port, isn´t it? Markus Becker 80.143.102.241 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is still a great unknown in the Lusitania story. What is known is that the end destination of the Lusitania was Liverpool. We do not know if Captain Turner was under some secret Admiralty instruction to make for Queenstown.
Against: if the Lusitania were steaming in a straight course, the direction she was pointing when she was struck indicates that Turner had turned the ship away from Queenstown (see The Lusitania Disaster, by Bailey and Ryan).
For: the Captain had ordered luggage to be brought on deck just as the ship approached Ireland, and Liverpool was still a night's sail away. To have the luggage brought up that early would indicate that Turner was intending to go to Queenstown (see Lusitania: Unravelling the Mysteries, by Patrick O'Sullivan)
I hope that this has helped you somewhat. Pryaltonian 08:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The placing of the Explosive shipment, leaking it to the Germans

The placing of the Explosive shipment, leaking it to the Germans. Who gave the order yo ship this cargo and who gave tho order not to embark on this voyage. And who leek ed all of this to the Germans? Who had am interest of making this ship one of war? --Grim Reaper2 01:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Censorship of "Conspiracy Theory" Section

The portions of this article relating to possible British Admiralty involvement in the sinking of the Lusitania have been repeatedly deleted or otherwise edited in a censorship fashion. There have been multiple books published on the topic of Admiralty involvement which are heavily sourced. The current revision (14 August 2006) of the article contains no part that I can see that is not supported by published writings and censoring it because it is a "conspiracy theory" or other vague reasons is nothing other than a political attempt to cover up legitimate and serious facts regarding the sinking of the Lusitania. The intriguing of Churchill and the Amiralty regarding the possible sinking of the Lusitania is without question. In fact on the morning of the sinking of the Lusitania both Lord Grey and King George separately brought up the subject with Colonel House, President Wilson's secretary:

[on the morning of May 7, 1915]...House was with King George in Buckingham Palace. 'We fell to talking, strangely enough,' the Colonel wrote that night, 'of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner....He said, "Suppose they should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board...." (Intimate Papers of Colonel House, volume I, p. 432)

It is interesting that the King of England was so well informed of ship movements that he should name the Lusitania to House on the very morning of its sinking.

If you have a problem with "conspiracy" allegations. Fine. Disprove them with your own facts. But don't delete legitimate descriptions of the controversy.

Yet this section was censored by you, 72.74.249.69, on July 26, when you deleted the opposing point of view. You have now restored your comments, but have not restored the opposing position which you deleted on July 26. And while I have not been monitoring this article for very long, I do not believe that the recent article history bears out your belief that the section has been "repeatedly deleted" or "edited in a censorship fashion". Kablammo 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That's just a conspiracy theory. You know, IP's aren't social security numbers.

Annoying username 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Something about the Lusitania being put in danger to bring America in to the war should be in the article. It's the information I came here looking for, in order to gets views for and against it. 86.14.227.200 (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fiction. It was an excuse, because USG couldn't reveal they'd read the Zimmermann Telegram, which would have compelled it to reveal the ability to read German messages. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Sure Lusitania carries small amount of military cargo, I felt there is a bias on "contraband" section. It seems that the article "agreed" to a conspiracy nuthead Simpson, who made a number of blank firing accusation on Lusitania including being armed with guns and so on, that lusitania carries axplosives and hid them as swiss cheese... Jbrian80 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

info about Lusitania forbidden cargo issues and rebuke on simposn accusation

More on Lusitania Sinking lair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.247.155 (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The naming of Lusitania

Will anyone tell me why this ship was named "Lusitania"? Is there a particular reason or method behind the naming of this ship, and the others (Aquitania, Mauretania)?

Thanks very much. Lusitano Transmontano 07:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All three are named for provinces of the Roman Empire, specifically (roughly) Portugal, southwestern France, and northwest Africa. Cunard often named its ships with names ending in -ia, while White Star usually had -ic, probably as a way for passengers to immediately know which line a ship belonged to. PaulGS 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, Cunard chose names exclusively from Roman provinces. Trekphiler 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions moved from page

The article contains the following statement:

"Schwieger gave the order to fire, sending a single torpedo towards Lusitania. It hit cleanly under the bridge, blowing a hole in the side of the ship, and was then followed by a much larger secondary explosion that blew out the starboard bow."

On 23 August 2006 the following was added to the article, immediately following the foregoing quote, by a user at IP 82.41.40.90:

(Question by interested observer: is it possible to make this claim? The ship lies on her starboard side, concealing the damage. According to this article, the extent of the hull damage has never been verified by divers. No witness testimony is presented that the foward section of the ship suffered catastrophic failure. Nor is sound evidence presented of any mechnism for damage beyond that caused by the torpedo. It is known that the longitudinal bunkers made Lusitania vulnerable to lateral damage below the waterline (viz Higue, Aboukir and Cressey), but this is not discussed in this article. Edit me to death as you will, the question remains valid).

[[2]] This addition was immediately removed by another editor, and I then put it on this discussion page, with this reply:

It certainly would be appropriate to discuss the evidence on this point in the article. But both the original statement and the point of the interested observer should have citation to authority. As the observer appear to be well-versed in the area it should not be difficult for to bolster the observer's position with such cites.
On the last point regarding longitudinal bunkers (presumably longitudinal bulkheads), take a look at the last part of the "Comparison with the Olympic class" section. I think that addresses the point but may need clarification as well. Kablammo 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

More additions to the article were made from that same IP address 82.41.40.90 on 30 August 2006. They read as follows:

(Bit frustrated here so reader MJ Wardlaw is responding to Kablammao. I previously pointed out that this article presents no evidence that "the starboard bow was blown out" yet the claim is repeated in the article. In your response you simply referred me back to the unproven statement! It is obviously very important to someone that there was a second explosion that "blew the bow out". Well you don't make your case. The Lusitania had longitudinal coal bunkers (no, not bulkheads, I do mean bunkers; learn your naval architecture!) that rendered her vulnerable to torpedo damage. You present an article that makes unsubstantiated claims about the damage to the ship and you respond by deleting me. You denigrate the credibility of the Wiki by doing so - but you certainly are not alone! You made the claim and it is for you to make your case).

I deleted them from the article and moved them here.

Again, discussion should take place on this talk page. 82.41.40.90 wants support for the assertion on damage to the starboard bow, so I have added the appropriate tag to that, so that whoever wrote that section can provide the appropriate cite. If 82.41.40.90 believes the facts do not bear out the assertion then of course the page can be edited. As to longitudinal bunkers and bulkheads, the ship had both. And finally, the edit history shows who wrote what. (See your talk page.) Kablammo 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)



NPOV: Captain Turner

I'm changing the sentence in the Last Voyage and Sinking section that reads "except for the captain, a crusty 58-year-old salt named William "Bowler Bill" Turner" to read "except for the captain, an experienced 58-year old sailor and captain named William "Bowler Bill" Turner." While 'crusty... salt' may be accurate, I feel that it isn't really encyclopedic phrasing. I googled several sources including [3] that support him being experienced. BaikinMan 14:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


That "Medal"

Britain issued a "medal" as anti-German propaganda, and that is the "medal" illustrated in the article. The thing is very common at collectors' fairs and the like in the U.K., so obviously it was produced in large quantities. The real giveaway, however, is the English spelling of the month as May instead of Mai. Norvo 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! According to the Imperial War Museum, London there was a private German medallion. Britain had 300,000 (!) copies made as anti-German propaganda. For further information, see: http://www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/23/lusitan/index.htm Norvo 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Sinking of the Lusitania"

The short film "The Sinking of the Lusitania" by Winsor Mcay has the number of the U-boat firing the torpedos as 39 and not 20. A copy of the video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSgcuzITdD0 Coreyjdl 6 January 2007

Give me a break. U-20 has been known as the correct attacker since 1915. Obviously, McCay can't read. Trekphiler 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Dentist's used to do cigarette commercials for tons of years too, oh and DDT and PCP used to be "good" for you. (latter is a joke, former isn't).
This isn't an argument. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. And so on. There, I just saved you both some time.
Annoying username 02:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Launch date

"Q: What was the actual date that the Lusitania was launched? I've read conflicting information on this."
"A: The actual launch date of the Lusitania is confirmed as Thursday, June 7, 1906, not the frequently mentioned "June 6". The June 7 date is shown in numerous sources, including The New York Times of the following day. The June 6 error has been perpetuated from some books on the subject, and is repeated in various online encyclopedias like Wikipedia."

From atlanticliners.com, Lusitania, FAQ.[4] Other sources confirming the June 7 date:[5], [6],[7] (National Maritime Museum), and [8](copy of the invitation to the launch). Kablammo 03:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Support for June 7 in print:

Sauder, Eric and Ken Marschall. RMS Lusitania: Triumph of the Edwardian Age, Dorchester, Dorset: Waterfront Publications, 1993, pg 8: "At 12:30 p.m., Thursday, June 7, 1906, Lady Inverclyde launched Cunard's greatest creation, the Lusitania."
Preston, Diana. Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy, New York: Berkley Books, 2002, pg 439: "Appendix A."
-Pryaltonian 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Last passengers alive

Hello everybody. I've been reading somewhere that Audrey Lawson-Johnston (née Pearl), the youngest infant in first class, died in November 2006 so she should be removed from the page as a remaining passenger. 89.51.157.54 14:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you post a source?
I'd like to know that, too. After a little bit of googling I read that Audrey Lawson-Johnston died in November of 2006. Is that true? I serve the German Wikipedia site for the RMS Lusitania and wrote short biographies of the last remaining survivors Barbara McDermott and Audrey Lawson-Johnston in the section Sonstiges. Can someone give infirmation concerning Audrey's exact date of birth and (if it really happened) date of death? Regards from Germany, OfficeBoy 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Munitions rumour

It is stated in Ballard book "Exploring the Lusitania" Page 27..

"For weeks German agents had been circulating rumours that the passengers aboard the Lusitania would be accompanied by contraband:tons of high explosive destined for the war fronts. The rumourmongers had it all wrong. Although the cargo included 4,200 cases of .303 caliber rifle ammunition purchased from the Remington Company, the bullets were perfectly legal cargo. Officials had conducted a series of tests some years before the war, subjecting boxes of cartridges to rough treatment and to open fires without dangerous consequences. Thereafter the Department of Commerce and Labor in Washington had declared that small-arms ammunition might be legally transported on passenger liners. And the fact of the matter was the ship didn't have room for massive supplies of explosives"

So, there is no real denial that Lusitania was carrying ammunition, it was on the manifest and Ballards book was published in 1995, well before the 2006 dive that found the 'controversial' munitions. Douglasnicol 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Order to fire refused?

A while back I read a book Seven Days to Disaster: The Sinking of the Lusitania by Des Hickey and Gus Smith (1981, Collins, ISBN 0-00-216882-0), and was interested to see that the crewman on the U-20 who was ordered to fire the torpedo refused to shoot at civilians of a neutral country (or something to that effect). The captain then ordered someone else to fire, and the first crewman was court-martialed and imprisoned 3 years. At least, that's what I wrote down after reading the book; I don't have it any more, and don't have the crewman's name.

If this is true I would expect it to be easily confirmed on the Internet, but I don't, so I'd rather not add it to the article without the book at hand. On the other hand, it's not the sort of thing I would have expected the writers to have made up. Does anyone have a source to confirm this and supply the name? Or for that matter, to refute it?

207.176.159.90 03:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I happened to be at the library and found the book myself. The man's name was Charles Voegele, and what he actually refused to do was pass the order on to the torpedo room. Curiously, the only other book about the Lusitania on the library shelf does not mention this, and the only references to it I can find in a Google search are all either in Czech or Slovak. But when I look at "Charles Voegele, mladý elektrikár z Alsaska, protestoval proti útoku na lod, kde sú zeny a deti", I see the word "protest" in there, so I think that's a confirmation. I'll add this to the article. --[same person, posting from a different IP address]
The source itself admits that there is no record of any such court martial. It would be irresponsible to include this information without qualifying it, especially since there seems to be no corroboration from other sources. It might be prudent to remove that info altogether unless more verifiable sources can be found. Robert Ballard makes no mention of this story in his book Lusitania (ISBN-13: 978-0-7858-2207-3). Yovinedelcielo (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lusitania math

I deleted

"===Schwieger's war diary===
"Bailey (1935: 55) provides a translation of the war diary of Kommandant Kapitanleutnant Schwieger:
"Ahead and to starboard four funnels and two masts of a steamer with course perpendicular to us come into sight (coming from SSW it steered toward Galley Head). Ship is made out to be large passenger steamer. [We] submerged to a depth of eleven meters and went ahead at full speed, taking a course converging with the one of the steamer, hoping it might change its course to starboard along the Irish coast. The steamer turns to starboard, takes course to Queenstown thus making possible an approach for a shot. Until 3 P. M. we ran at high speed in order to gain position directly ahead. Clean bow shot at a distance of 700 meters (G-torpedo, three meters depth adjustment); angle 90°, estimated speed twenty-two knots. Torpedo hits starboard side right behind the bridge. An unusually heavy explosion takes place with a very strong explosion cloud (cloud reaches far beyond front funnel). The explosion of the torpedo must have been followed by a second one (boiler or coal or powder?). The superstructure right above the point of impact and the bridge are torn asunder, fire breaks out, and smoke envelops the high bridge. The ship stops immediately and heels over to starboard very quickly, immersing simultaneously at the bow. It appears as if the ship were going to capsize very shortly. Great confusion ensues on board; the boats are made clear and some of them are lowered to the water. In doing so great confusion must have reigned; some boats, full to capacity, are lowered, rushed from above, touch the water with either stem or stern first and founder immediately. On the port side fewer boats are made clear than on the starboard side on account of the ship's list. The ship blows off [steam]; painted black, no flag was set astern. Ship was running twenty knots. Since it seems as if the steamer will keep above water only a short time, we dived to a depth of twenty-four meters and ran out to sea. It would have been impossible for me, anyhow, to fire a second torpedo into this crowd of people struggling to save their lives.""

becaue it has little to do with Lusitania herself & we don't need a sensational account of her sinking, really. This isn't Fox News or the National Enquirer. I deleted this

"What he was thinking when he gave the order to fire the torpedo is a mystery, as he was killed in 1917 when the submarine he commanded at that time, U-88, hit a mine."

This is either irrelevant or stupid. He was a sub commander seeing one of the juciest targets he'd ever see; what he was thinking was, "I'm going to fire & hope I don't miss or the d*mn torpedo doesn't fail to function." (Probably not too worried about torpedo failures in WW1...) I added

"Under the "cruiser rules"...since she was carrying contraband, and would (like all British merchantmen) have reported the sighting of a German submarine, she was acting as a naval auxiliary, she was exempt from this requirement and a legitimate military target."

I deleted {{Fact}} tag here:

"would have sent the ship to the bottom without the aid of the second explosion."

because a single torpedo could perfectly well have done it, & did do the job on ships as large, in both world wars. IIRC, 3 British cruisers (Aboukir & her sisters) were sunk by 1 torpedo each. Trekphiler 08:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it didn't say anything about why? Would be interesting to know.
Annoying username 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Aboukir and her sister ships were 12,000 tons compared to Lusitania's 31,000, or 2.5 times as big. It's risky comparing their performance against torpedoes. Lusitania's watertight compartment configuration was also much different than a warship's. Yovinedelcielo (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"risky comparing their performance against torpedoes"? Yeah, Lusitania would be a far easier target to sink: no armor, so less resistance to blast in her hull; less extensive compartmentalization; less well-drilled damage control teams; less (no?) capability to fit hull patches in an emergency; less capable (if any) counter-flooding arrangements; less-disciplined crew; panicky passengers... Her size really doesn't enter into it, except in measuring how long she took to sink (2hr v 30min?). Think Titanic: 1 torpedo would've opened her up much the same, & IIRC, Lusi wasn't much better-built. Trekphiler (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's important to understand that Lusitania & Mauretania were designed circa 1902-1903(believe me there was a model built with a 3-funnelled version of the ship). Having been designed at that time the Admiralty & Cunard would've had the experience of operating liners in the Boer War which had just ended. Submarines were a new technology in 1900 but an old concept that was now practical. Albeit no submarines were used in the Boer War. So turn of the century technology and experience were built into Lusitania & Mauretania which was at the time top notch. The Lusitania's construction is often considered to have been vastly superior to Olympic & Titanics. Lusitania had transverse bulkheads across the ship with almost a dual insulation by having the coal bunkers lining the side of the ship. So they thought. A good concept by 19th century standards. Lusi & Maury also had a double bottom in addition to a 'double skin' as opposed to Olympic & Titanic's 'inch thick' steel plating. Schweiger's first torpedo(still being debated about if he fired a second)only blasted open a few plates above & below the waterline on Lusitania with the ship still maintaining her buoyancy. This initial flooding could be contained by sealing the bulkhead watertight compartments while the ship still had electrical power. It was the second more powerful explosion, of which everybody agrees, sank the ship rather than Schweiger's initial torpedo. To question Lusitania's design and construction would entail comparing the sinking of Titanic's sister ship Britannic which suffered a similar explosion similar to Lusitania'a and sank inside of sixty minutes. Britannic had been redesigned with improvements after Titanic sank yet when provided with a big enough wound she foundered faster than Titanic. The point is the naval designs of pre-war battleships as well as merchant/passenger liners like Lusitania & Olympic etc didn't take into account submarine warfare which was being used for the first time in a conflict in WW1. In the words of a retired Cunard captain..."no matter how good a ship is designed, anything with a hole in it is gonna sink.' Koplimek (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Basil W. Maturin?

I wonder if we should add a reference to Basil W. Maturin, the English theologian who perished during the incident. 68.116.112.64 02:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

RMS LUSITANIA: ENTIRE ARTICLE CLEANED UP

Used a spell checker that also checks grammar to tune the article up. Numerous errors found and corrected. Article is in "ship-shape", hehe. 65.255.130.104 06:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Survivors Update.

I was reading an article in an old magazine I'd had from November of last year. Audrey Lawson-Johnston died November of 2006 from natural causes at her home in Connecticut. She has been removed from the list. VonV 06:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial Lusitania survivors?

I read with some interest about three people who have, over the years, claimed to be survivors of the sinking of the Lusitania (i.e., Rosalie Altamore Bonsignore, Victor Hiertsford, and Deej Dot Maan) though they are not listed on the passenger list. What effort, if any, has been put out to either confirm or deny they are telling the truth? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel the need for speed

I restored, "It was sheer chance she became such a convenient target, since U-20 could hardly have caught her otherwise." Unless you're prepared to explain how a sub capable of perhaps 15 knots would catch a Blue Riband winner capable of 30 23 (oops 12:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)), leave it in. Trekphiler 05:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Other vessels named Lusitania?

I've removed from the "Construction and sea trials" section the following sentence: (*Two previous non-Cunard steamers had held the name 'Lusitania' and both of those liners were lost tragically). The info above was unsourced and thrown into the paragraph just like that.

I've managed to find references (http://stevemorse.org/swiggum/swiggum.php?fleetKind=exact&fleetMax=&fleeturlKind=exact&fleeturlMax=&shipKind=contains&shipMax=Lusitania&sailedKind=between&sailedMin=&sailedMax=&offset=1&pagesize=50) to at least six other 19th century vessels named Lusitania (most of which were wrecked). Since (IMO) these other vessels are not notable enough to have their own articles, I thought of adding a subsection briefly mentioning them. If nobody is against it, I'll do just that. --Miguel1626 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what discussing other Lusitanias in the article will accomplish. If the other vessels are notable enough to have articles, then we need to rename this article to "RMS Lusitania (1906)" or create "RMS Lusitania (disambiguation)". I think that adding discussion about other Lusitanias will stray from the topic of the article unnecessary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Since it's in there now, I've tagged it as off-topic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the off topic section on the other Lusitania's is just fine. It will give the reader some aspect into the rare issue of giving many ships the same name which can look confusing on a Lloyds of London registry. 11:33, 12 December, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.205 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If they don't get their own mentioning in the RMS Lusitania article, they ought to have their own articles and be linked to it. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nope! If they're mentioned in here, it's off-topic, and if they don't have their own articles, they are probably not notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate action by the British admiralty?

This is a joke right?

"It was well known by British, American, and German governments at the time that if the Americans entered the war, they would divert war materials and ammunition toward raising and equipping their own army for fighting, rather than toward keeping the British going in their war effort."

That's exactly why the germans wanted to put 50, FIFTY, ads in US newspapers. They figured since americans cant stand being warned they would rush to their deaths aboard the lusitania? God thoose sneaky germans. What clever psychology......... Talk about conspiracy......... /end sarcasm

OR they would have to invest more resources in both. Obviously they DID get drawn in, and they DID manage to keep the british going and they DID manage to train/supply their own army.

"Indeed, U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, while serving as Assistant to then Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, had prior to the sinking prepared a memorandum clearly outlining why American involvement in the war would be detrimental to the Allies."

Is there a source for this memorandum btw? When was it written? Was this ever presented? To whom was it presented, if presented at all? Also, IF there was to be a conspricy (I'm not saying there was), I sure as hell would have someone write a worthless memorandum that would never be used or quickly counteracted by the "conspiracy". It's a common way in TV-shows to create a fake alibi anyway, heh.

"Similarly, two days after the sinking, the British Ambassador to the United States, Sir Cecil Spring‐Rice, telegraphed London advising that it was in Britain's "main interest to preserve U.S. as a base of supplies." It would take quite some time for the United States to train and equip its army."

This doesn't necessarily mean that there would be less supplies for Britain, or less for the training US troops. It just means a higher pricetag for the american people. Just as valid argument, if not more since it is exactly what DID happen. Americans had to supply both countries, and bleed for both.

Cecil Spring-Rice's telegram, wich I haven't seen any source for, seems to be counterintuative. Also, he alledgedly sent it to Britain, not the US. Informing Britain about a descision not theirs to make seems, well.. not really an argument against or for anything.

Again, I dont give a shit about the conspiracy but this little column could have been just as half-arsed written by me - and that's defenitely not the kind of encyclopedia anyone wants.

Annoying username 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

War

"The Imperial German embassy placed this warning ad in 50 East Coast newspapers, including those in New York. This ad was prepaid and requested to be put on the paper's travel page a full week before the sailing date. However, even though the ads were sent to newspapers in time for the requested deadline, the State Department of the United States intervened by raising the specter of possible libel suits. The ads, intended by the German government to save American lives, were to appear in only one newspaper, the Des Moines Register."

(Btw I think WW1 want their lingo back, who says "raising the spectre?" No Im not a native speaker but I read/watch and listen to alot of english every day and I have been for the last 20 years and I have NEVER heard that term before. Had to decipher it on dictionary.com)

"It has been argued (without any historical evidence) the actions taken by the U.S. government were taken to ensure the U.S. would become embroiled in WWI as the killing of innocent women and children by Germany would stir popular opinion against the Central Powers."

So they threatened 50 newspapers with slander lawsuts and 49 of them fold? Is that correct? Yet there is no EVIDENCE of perhaps some foul play. American heritage dictionary has it as "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

Ah. I see. Without any historical evidence. What constitutes historical evidence? ANY is a pretty all encompassing word. It leaves NO room for anything but the absolute. I would say the US goverment blocking a German Emb. ad, warning the US populace, could be evidence.

First I would remove the word ANY. Then I would remove everything in the ( ). After that I would remove the entire final part of that paragraph since any monkey with an keyboard can "It has been argued". Who? Why? What are their credentials? Why are they arguing if there is no evidence?

I think the first part speaks plainly enough. US State dept. threatens 50 newspapers and blocks 49 German warning 'advertisements'.

Annoying username 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: Rubens painting on board?

In the "Recent developments" area it says there may have been a Rubens on board the ship. Didn't Rubens only do paintings? If there's a painting on board, unless it was sealed in a sturdy lead or thick steel box, its disintegrated by now. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Text

This reads like RMS Lusitania (Conspiracy Theory). What on earth is text like doing in this article in the References section no less?

It is objectionable on lack of citations, verifiability, original research, unencylcopedic tone, and others. 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - no citation, incorrect location, questionable notability. Deleted. Captain Crush (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wacht am Kapitänleutnant

Can somebody who knows more about it check the "tracking through wireless intercepts"? It seems to suggest crypto, but I'm guessing the Admiralty was using DF. Clarify & fix? Trekphiler (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Libel suits?

What kind of libel suits whatsoever might have followed the German warning?! --KnightMove (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Documentary

What about the notable 1998 TV documentary Lusitania - Murder on the Atlantic directed by Melissa Jo Peltier? I think it should be mentioned. I's made up like a real movie and portrayes some of the original passengers including Prof. Holbourn, Avis Dolphin, and a young rich couple, which I guess shall be Mr. and Mrs. Mason (although the man refers to his wife as 'Dorothy'). Dorothy finally drowns in the elevator. You can also see young red-haired nurse Alice Lines falling down the ship's hull with the baby in her arm. The documentary can be seen on youtube (in sections). Here is a reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976141/. It's not the kind of movie the Lusitania deserves, but at least It's something. Some scenes are pretty stunning. OfficeBoy (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Das boot

"called off unrestricted submarine warfare completely." What replaced it? Because the subwar didn't just stop, which is what's implied. (It's a very common mistake, even among university profs, who should know better...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Final Plunge

Is her stern rose out from the water before she sank completely as it did in the film The Sinking of the Lusitania: Terror at Sea?Aquitania (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Death Toll Correction

The death toll cited as 1,198 for the Lusitania is incorrect. The actual figure is 1,201 due to the fact that 3 stowaways who were German spies were found on board, locked up for the duration of the voyage and did not survive the sinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.207 (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

1,198 is actually correct. The official passenger and crew list lists 1,195, therefore, adding the 3 stowaways totals 1,198. Of course, whether the official passenger list actually mirrors how many people were on board and who they were is another matter entirely. - Pryaltonian (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Twist of fate

Captain Turner came very close to being made a scrapgoat for the Lusitania's sinking. Ironically his son [Merchant Navy Able Seaman Percy Wilfred Turner] was lost 16 September 1941 in the sinking of M.V. Jedmoor (London) by German submarine U-98 (1940)

Reference to be added

Secret of the Lusitania: Arms Find Challenges Allied Claims It was solely a passenger ship by Sam Greenhill, December 20, 2008. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html rumjal 06:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Wilson Section Revisions Needed

Hi. I was trying to tie in some info to the WW1 article and I wonder whether anyone has thought of revising the Wilson Notes section. Since munitions were found on the Lusitania, and it is documented that Wilson dismissed the German argument that munitions were on the ship, the following questions need to be answered or the Wilson Notes section amended to state that these questions need to be determined:

1) Did Wilson know there were munitions on the ship and if he did not why not?

2) If Wilson did know there were munitions on the ship a) Why did he dismiss the German argument? b) Why would Wilson expect Germany to cease unrestricted submarine warfare when he knew proof of the munitions on the ship would bolster the German argument for unrestricted submarine warfare? c) Did he intentionally prevaricate on the matter or on any other matter concerning WW1 and can we tell Wilson's true intentions or is it impossible to tell what really was his agenda?

Until these and other questions are answered, I suggest there should be a warning stating his true intentions are suspect.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, the Lusitania was acknowledged to have been carrying a quantity of small arms ammunition which was listed on the ship's manifest. Suggestions that she was carrying high explosives or similar which detonated and caused the second explosion have since been debunked; her holds have been shown to be intact with evidence of internal explosion. Salmanazar (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm using the facts in the article to substantiate my position. In the article, it states that Lusitania may be a legitimate target so if as you maintain the ship was not a legitimate target why is the legitimate target assertion allowed to remain in the article? Secondly, is "4,200,000 rounds of Remington 0.303 rifle cartridges, 1250 cases of 3 inch (76 mm) fragmentation shells, and eighteen cases of fuses" used for some other purpose besides waging war? The facts are that it does not matter that it was carrying high explosives or not; the fact it was carrying arms for Britain's war effort makes any ship bound for Britain a legitimate target. 4,200,000 rounds can be used to theoretically kill 4,200,000 people; with a 10:1 kill ratio that's 420,000 people. Also, as an analogy, if these munitions were being transported in a red-cross truck carrying wounded people, would not the enemy still have reason to blow the truck up? We are talking about war here right, not a cricket match.69.31.240.92 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)69.31.240.92 (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Spinnaker gybe (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. I have edited out that sentence re munitions in the first paragraph; the munitions discovered are those listed in the manifest, which have never been in dispute. The German statement immediately after the sinking was most likely dismissed because it claimed that the Lusitania had been carrying "large quantities of war material" and also that she had been armed. Also, it should be noted that Germany did eventually admit it was in the wrong - it conceded its liability for the sinking, and agreed to make reparations and stop sinking passenger ships without warning. Personally, I think it will be very difficult to establish Wilson's true aims or agenda. Salmanazar (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should make a viewpoints section of all the parties involved. Since you admit that Wilson's true intent is uncertain, I would hate to lead people on by making it seem that what Wilson said is free of bias and is not an attempt to manipulate the public; Wikipedia is not a soapbox according to the rules. Also, the Wilson and British quotes belong in their respective viewpoints, not under Political Consequences. I am going to investigate the matter further getting some references. Looking at the facts you have presented, any military officer today would call the Lusitania a fair target given that significant munitions were aboard, regardless of the vessel, its armourment, the people aboard or any agreements which turned out to be unworkable; this is war correct and any person with a military background should realize this and I am quite certain I can find German references to substantiate it given it is common sense in nature. It sounds like the German's realized the only way they could win the war is through unrestricted submarine warfare; if we as the allies were in their position, we would not have abided by rules (previously agreed to or not) which would handcuff our war effort either. It seems, the only reason they admitted guilt is because they were afraid the US would enter the war on Britain's side; their original objections on the sinking of Lusitania, their warning of Lusitania passengers, and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare seem to support this. As for removing the opinions regarding Lusitania's legitimate sinking from the lead, I agree. The place for these opinions should not be in the lead unless it is merely to state there is controversy over whether it was legitimate to sink her or not.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it customary for people to be allowed to edit this article without discussion? Just asking since I want to do an edit.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, knock yourself out. Anyone can edit, and if people like your edit, it stays. If people don't like your edit, others will then in turn edit your edit. Tis the spirit of the wiki. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. If children reference this article, does Wikipedia allow them to review the revision history for changes? My concern is that they might reference the article and then their teacher checks the reference, but the info is no longer there because it was deleted. May be we should only make changes once a year like a regular encyclopedia.
Also, we should nail down the organisational structure of the American, British, and German opinions at the time of the incident as well as the opinions today. For example, the American's argued at the time that the Lusitania was not a legitimate target because it was a passenger ship and that they had agreements that the ship's passengers were to be allowed to escape before the ship was sunk. However today, the UN rule is that "An armed force may not attack civilians, nor use them as a "human shield" to render a location protected from attack." - ref HowStuffWorks; I am going to find the specific UN rules from their website. Today, the American and British arguments would not be accepted. What does everyone think?Spinnaker gybe (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, lead changed to reflect the content of the article.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Political consequences

It seems to me that this section would be better titled "Aftermath" as in the Titanic article. - Salmanazar (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to move the English and American quotes in this section to their respective viewpoints at the time. Unfortunately, the "Huns" and the "Wilson" quotes are unsubstantiated and should only be allowed in the article due to historical significance. Any ideas on whether these remarks should be tagged as propaganda since they are not substantiated opinions? Also, I want to add to the intro that there is controversy as to whether the ship was a legitimate target. Is this OK?Spinnaker gybe (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I added a reference for those two quotes, which are reproduced in many sources. They're well-known examples of the heated reaction following the incident. Also, the section is in more or less chronological order, so moving them seems unnecessary. Salmanazar (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest Section on the Feasibility of the Rules of Engagement and the Resulting Investigations

Do we have a military historian working on this article? I think a section on the feasibility of the rules needs to be added. My question to them is how feasible is it for a submarine which can only travel 12 knots to warn and board a ship which can travel 20+ knots and weighs many times more? Sounds like a futile effort to me especially if these ships were given orders to ram the enemy and if the sub was in enemy waters. There must be a reference out there somewhere for this.

Also, there were investigations by the British, Americans and Germans. Should we add this info or have I missed it?Spinnaker gybe (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918). The book "Sea Power" by Potter and Fredland covers this well. The Germans were well aware that the U-boats' limited success was due to them being forced to observe the Prize Rules and were convinced that submarine warfare could not possibly succeed under the Rules.
It was unfeasible and indeed dangerous for relatively slow submarines to attempt to observe the Prize Rules in the case of large merchant ships or liners, which could just disregard the submarines' deck guns and run them down - as Olympic sank U-103 in 1918.
I don't know whether such a Section should be added to this article, however, since the Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918) is the main article on the subject. -Salmanazar (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I would think this info should be included since it is a fact that might influence people's decision as to whether the Lusitania was a legitimate target and whether the actions of the captain of the Uboat were reasonable under the circumstances.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes needed under Sinking

Even the Great Britain Admiralty now concede there was one only one torpedo fired. I saw this in a Lusitania documentary. Is it OK that I make this change?69.31.240.92 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)69.31.240.92 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for the lead?

Hi. I changed the lead to reflect the content of the article adding "New evidence that the Lusitania was carrying significant amounts of munitions destined for Great Britain has intensified the debate as to whether she was a legitimate military target.". Why is a citation needed for this when there are no citations for the rest of the info in the lead? Also, the lead usually is a summary of the contents of the article; also I can cite reference number 42. I could say in the lead instead that the new evidence bolsters the German claim she was a legitimate target instead if you like; that info is in the article reference by reference 42. Also I could state in the lead the 4,200,000 rounds and the other munitions in the lead as well, right? Spinnaker gybe (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I made the changes to the sentence to more factually describe the controversy. Reference provided as requested.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The changes I made to the lead have been removed. Maybe we should talk about these changes before they are made as I previously suggested; I don't want to get into any editing wars with anyone. I quote the final changes made for reference: "Following the sinking, the German government attempted to justify it by stating in an official communication that the Lusitania was armed with guns, and had "large quantities of war material in her cargo".[4] In actuality, while the Lusitania had been fitted with gun mounts, the guns themselves had never been fitted. While she carried 4,200 cases of rifle cartridges and 1,250 empty shell cases as part of her cargo, which were listed in her manifest, it was a relatively small quantity, and its existence was never denied. Various theories have been floated over the years that she had secretly carried high explosives in her holds that were detonated the torpedo and helped to sink her[5], but this has never been proven."
First regarding the changed edit, every fact in the statement is referenced by a British source; if an British source says that British and American officals denied it, I could consider that reliable under Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Everything stated in the previous edit is directly referenced including the significant munitions statement; if the amounts were not significant, the reporter could not make the claims he/she does. Also there is an American second source http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97350149 which claims the British and American officials denied it as well. I quote the linked article, "In his hands lie pieces of history: seven gleaming rounds of .303 ammunition, probably made by Remington in America and intended for the British Army. Ammunition that for decades British and American officials said didn't exist. Yet all around Andrews are mountains of jumbled rifle cartridges that glint like pirate's treasure in the robot's light." If you wish to refute this, you have to discredit the source as extreme, wrong or ill-informed. I'll check it out for myself by trying to contact the reporters.
Secondly, in your edit, since you consider the rifle cartridge amount to be insignificant, you need to 1) specify the number of cartridges in the case; I don't think we are talking about 20 cartridges in a case here. As well, references 42 and 43 specifically place the estimate at 4,200,000 rounds, which in my mind and the mind of the reporters is not "a relatively small quantity". Like I stated before a 100 round to 1 kill/casualty = 42,000 people dead or injured. If the Lusitania made 10 eastbound transatlantic voyages a year that is 420,000 people dead or injured a year. I say we add in brackets 4,200,000 rounds so the readers can make up their own mind how significant the amount is. Each frontline WW1 soldier according to a source carried approx. 300 rounds so the rounds the Lusitania carried could arm approx. 14,000 soldiers; Should not a military officer consider this to be significant and should this not be in the lead?
Thirdly, the gun mounts comment can stay if you wish, but it only reinforces the idea that 1) the British intended to arm her and 2)the Lusitania's cargo was always suspect. Why arm a passenger ship if you maintain it was not contributing to the war effort? Also why endanger the passengers by carrying significant arms when you could have armed the ship, transported the arms, and not allowed the passengers to embark? Also according to the rules at the time, the Lusitania crew and passengers were warned by the German government in the American papers. The warning also needs to be in the lead if you include facts like the gun mounts in the lead.
Fourthly, in actuality, the Lusitania was armed, with the ship itself; if the British admiralty instructs the captain to ram the enemy submarine especially if the submarine is less manueverable fast and less tonnage than the ship, the captain is using the ship as a weapon. The ramming orders fact should be included with the rest of the lead information presented so that the reader can make up their own mind whether the German sub captain had any other options rather than torpedoing the Lusitania.
The high explosive sentence can stay if you wish.
Really the lead should be a summary of the article's body but since others were omitting relevant facts from article sections and making changes without discussion, I took it upon myself to incrementally make these changes. I concede, it probably was not the right thing to do; the initial controversy sentence I entered before was probably appropriate for now. The article needs to be reworked from top to bottom and the lead generated from the content of the article.69.31.240.92 (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Spinnaker gybe (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Spinnaker gybe (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The NPR article (and most of the other recent articles I've seen) have apparently not bothered to do much if any research regarding the supposed denial of the ammunition carried, and just parrot whatever Greg Bemis comes out with. While 4 million rounds of rifle ammunition is indeed a large amount by modern standards, it was not considered so in 1915. See also a contemporary report from the New York Times, 9 May 1915(link):
"She had aboard 4,200 cases of cartridges, but they were cartridges for small arms, packed in separate cases... they certainly do not come under the classification of ammunition. The United States authorities would not permit us to carry ammunition, classified as such by the military authorities, on a passenger liner. For years we have been sending small-arms cartridges abroad on the Lusitania.
Agree about rounds of ammunition vs. cases.
Re gun mounts etcetera - see the War section. While Lusitania was considered for requisition as an Armed Merchant Cruiser, the idea was discarded on various grounds, but only after she'd had gun mounts installed and she'd been placed on the official list of AMCs (and she was still listed as an AMC in Janes's when the war began).
Re ramming; by the time of the sinking it was widely acknowledged that a submarine had no chance to halt a large vessel due to the speed of such ships and the comparatively slow speed of submarines. A U-boat had to either sink such a ship without warning or let it go.
Salmanazar (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
So do you consider it fact that the ammunition was .303 ammunition intended for the British army or do you dispute this as well? Also, if you agree, I will insert the ramming order and the fact that the submarine captain could only torpedo her through surprise or risk losing her. Also, since only one torpedo was fired, the captain had every expectation the passengers could escape safely since the ship would normally have taken hours to sink; will I be able to add this fact as well? Also, if you agree, I will insert in the lead that the Germans put a warning in the paper. The reference you gave does not specifically state 4,200,000 rounds, it talks about 4,200 cases so the source is obfuscating the issue; is he talking about 10 round cases or is he talking about 1,000,000 round cases? The source you have referenced is weak. I dispute the "relatively small quantity" comment in the lead on the grounds I gave above and I doubt anyone in 1915 would call it a small quantity back then either since its killing power is significant. Like I said before, I am tracking down the denial source, but if there is a dispute about the denials, both views should be removed until the truth is determined.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend against overloading the lead too much, since it should be concise; see my proposed version below, incorporating some of your points including a source for the 4,200,000 rounds total. What say we mess with it here on the talk page until we arrive at a compromise?
It seems to me that the source of the "denial" is the Allies and the US classing the rifle cartridges as technically not munitions (i.e. that quote that "they certainly do not come under the classification of ammunition") and consequently to rightly (as they considered) deny that any munitions were aboard, while the Germans understandably classed the cartridges as munitions. The 1919 "History of the World War" says "the nearest approach to munitions was a consignment of 1,250 empty shell cases and 4,200 cases of cartridges for small arms".[9] Interestingly, it seems that "the fact that the Lusitania was carrying shells and cartridges was never made known to the British public".[10]
Salmanazar (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. I agree with that. I'm busy at work though so please give me a few weeks to get back to you. Thanks. Spinnaker gybe (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry I took so long. I have been busy at work and am trying to read other WW1 books to get a hand on the subject. I have purchased a book called "The Lusitania - Unravelling the Mysteries". It states on page 28 that in February 1915 Winston Churchill ordered all merchant ships to fly flags of other nations and ram the U-boats at full speed. The Cruiser rules are also stated on page 29 which state that merchant vessels could not fly other flags and could not ram the U-boats once challenged if they are to be protected by these rules. Given this info, it is obvious that Churchill had no intention of abiding by the Cruiser rules. How is it that people keep bringing up the Cruiser rules as the rule Germany violated when it is clear Great Britain had no intention of abiding by them and violated the spirit of the rules first? I am not critising Churchill for doing this since this is war is it not. I am just saying that the WW1 German's should not be blamed for a decision made by the Entente/Allies which puts their own citizens in jeopardy. I think these facts should also be presented in the article. Also the ramming orders and the Cruiser rules should be present in the lead.
Also, the book on page 101-102 states that 144 cases and 50 barrels (1190 cubic feet) of aluminium (presumably in powder form given the packaging method) were also on the manifest. Aluminium powder was destined for the British Army and was used for nitrate-based explosives in WW1. Should we add this info to the article?
I am still trying to get iron-clad sources as to what the Americans and British knew; it seems the British Government was up to omission of facts. I think we need to come up with some rules which are not covered by the Wikipedia guidelines concerning history articles. For example, opinions in the article (See Woodrow Wilson quote in the article) which have been referenced but are not substantiated by the facts should be either classified as propaganda given for historical significance or not allowed. Unreferenced opinions which are substantiated by the facts, such as my personal opinion that Churchill was a sneaky guy should also not be allowed; in these cases, the facts should speak for themselves. Unfortunately, the wiki rules as they are now allow 1)referenced unsubstantiated opinions and 2)opinions which are unreferenced but substantiated by the facts. I agree, the article should be presented in chronological order as previously suggested. What do you think about these rules for starters? I am going to read the article in its entirety again to ensure the facts are presented appropriately. Really I think we should only do modifications once a year so that changes have been peer reviewed properly unless there are obvious rule violations?? Do we have a sandbox somewhere so we can work on these changes?Spinnaker gybe (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revision to article lead

The sinking of the Lusitania caused great controversy, which persists to this day. Following the incident, the German government attempted to justify it by stating officially that she had been armed with guns, and had "large quantities of war material in her cargo".[1] It was also stated that since "she was classed as an auxiliary cruiser" Germany had had a right to destroy her regardless of any passengers aboard, and that the warnings issued by the German Embassy prior to her sailing plus the 18 February note declaring the existence of "war zones" relieved Germany of any responsibility for the deaths of American citizens aboard.[2] The Lusitania had been fitted with gun mounts as part of an aborted conversion into an Armed Merchant Cruiser (AMC), but the guns themselves had never been fitted, however she was still listed officially as an AMC.[3] While she had carried an estimated 4,200,000 rounds of rifle cartridges, 1,250 empty shell cases, and 18 cases of non-explosive fuses[4] as part of her cargo, which were listed in her manifest, the rifle cartridges were not officially classed as ammunition by the Assistant Manager of the Cunard Line.[5] Various theories have been floated over the years that she had an undeclared cargo high explosives in her holds that were detonated by the torpedo and helped to sink her[6], but this has never been proven.

Who wrote this and when was it written? Please provide this info.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is getting too long

does anyone agree that the article is getting too long and with too much focus on the Lusitania's sinking? While the torpedoing of the ship is very important, that's only a part of her story. The ship had a very successful 7 years which the article doesn't focus enough on. The sinking has been well covered in this article and should not expand to the point where it's a book. If people want to read the indept focus on the Lusitania sinking they can seek out a number of excellent books that cover just the sinking: I recommend for starters Colin Simpson's book which should be listed at the bottom of the article. Diane Preston's book is a good read also. I have on order from my library "Lusitania: An illustrated Biography of the Ship of Splendor" by J. Kent Layton. I want to know more info, in addition to what I already know, about the ship's successful years of operation. What was it like on those Christmas voyages in 1910, etc. The article should be concise, accurate & to the point but not an online book. So is the article being overwritten on info about the sinking? Koplimek (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would almost suggest the sinking needs its own article, since it was a highly significant event due to its effects on world affairs at the time. Salmanazar (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: there's some precedence for this, since I see Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse and Sinking of HMS York are their own articles. I'd like to hear what the other regular editors think about the idea. -Salmanazar (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be worthwhile, though I'm a little concerned about how much article would be left over. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Im not familiar with the article or its length, but in general people should never stop expanding wikipedia just because a particular article is getting long. There is a trend for articles to be longer nowadays (because wiki is getting better and more ambitious!), but if one is too long, then the proper course is to split it at some natural point. Thus always split rather than cutting, but at first glance I dont find it unmanageably long. Carry on adding until you have to split. Sandpiper (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir Hugh Percy Lane

According to www.1911encyclopedia.org/Sir_Hugh_Percy_Lane, Sir Hugh Percy Lane drowned in the sinking of the Lusitania, one of his last acts having been to secure by telegram for 10,000GBP the blank canvas contributed by J.S. Sargent to a Red Cross sale at Christie's. Lane was an art collector and critic and the director of the National Gallery of Ireland. He was a nephew of Lady Gregory, a leading figure in the Irish Renaissance. See The Life and Achievements of Hugh Lane: with some account of the Dublin Galleries, by Lady Gregory (1920).98.98.103.70 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Adam Lowe Martin

Black funneled Lusitania

All images serve as the supporting material to the sinking were done by the artists of that time. But they didn't realize that the Lusitania at the time of the sinking were sporting black funnels, not red with three narrow black bands and black top. Because this'll confuse readers, so I suggest that uploading a new image would be better (and those images would be copyrighted). 66.75.254.88 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You hit the nail right on the head when you said that such images would be copyrighted - thus why we don't have any, and why we can't use one. But you are correct - Lusitania, at the time of sinking, sported a paint job different from normal as a form of disguise, with all-black funnels and the ship's name painted out. Ken Marschall has published illustrations of Lusitania in her wartime colors, but Marschall will not release any of his paintings under the GFDL or another free license (others have asked in the past, without success). Likely, our best bet for showing Lusitania in wartime colors would be to include an original illustration, preferably computer-generated. I, unfortunately, am not talented enough in the area of artwork to make such a thing happen, either by hand-drawing and then scanning, or with CG artwork. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a guy on the internet(I can't remember where I saw) who's devoted a considerable amount of time to deciphering if the Lusitania's funnels were black at such a point, or red at such a point or painted and re-painted in the early months of the war. He makes a great point at coming to terms with the black & white photography used at the time which didn't register red or orange good. What looks black could've possibly been red(the Cunard red). All the motion picture footage that survives of the ship has been gone over, at what date the ship is in New York when the footage was taken and that kind of thing. Also passenger accounts of what the ship looked like at the times of their voyages(crews were seen painting the funnels en route to Liverpool). I don't know if the guy is aware or even posts on Wikipedia but he certainly put a lot of time into this issue and makes great points. Koplimek (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Board of Trade Investigation - F. E. Smith / Solicitor General for England and Wales

In the text of the second paragraph of "Board of Trade Investigation," describing the Wreck Commissioner Lord Mersey's reaction to the reading of Admiralty memoranda in closed session, separate references are made to " 'prosecuting' barrister F. E. Smith" and "the Solicitor General for England and Wales." The text as written creates the distinct impression that these were two separate people, when in fact they are one and the same: Sir F. E. Smith served as Solicitor General for England and Wales from 2 June 1915 to 8 November 1915, a period that encompassed the reported dates of the investigation, 15 June to 1 July 1915.

It is not clear whether the problem is a result of unclear text needing cleanup or an error of fact in the events as described; perhaps a contributor with more knowledge can provide insight on this turning point in the investigation, so colorfully described by Lord Mersey as a "damned, dirty business." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.51.98 (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we start a sandbox?

I was thinking that we should start a sandbox for this article so that changes can be made without constantly changing the official article. Could an administrator set one up? I want to go through the article as it is now, peer reviewing it to make sure it meets wiki guidelines, placing events in chronological order, adding new facts in their appropriate place, and finally editing the lead. I talked in an earlier entry about adding an additional rule for history articles which would require opinions to be both referenced and substantiated by the facts. Right now weak references are allowed even though they are not substantiated by the facts and opinions substantiated by the facts but not referenced are allowed as well. What does everyone think?Spinnaker gybe (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're a registered and autoconfirmed user, so you can set one up without admin assistance. I recommend you set one up in your userspace, like at User:Spinnaker gybe/RMS Lusitania. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have created the sandbox. What protocol do you guys use to peer review; once the suggested edits are complete in entirety or edits section by section? Also, I have decided to hold my edits to the higher rule that opinions need to be both referenced and substantiated by the facts. Opinions by noted persons presented for historical significance only will be declared unsubstantiated unless the facts are presented to substatiate the opinion.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I prefer that changes be made incrementally if possible. They are easier to review that way. Rees11 (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. No problem. I need to read all of the referenced material. In reading the Dr. Bernhard Dernburg reference [7], I noticed that his full position is not in the article; for example the statement that the British were using the Americans as "shields" and also the fact that the captains of British ships were ordered to ram the enemy in order to deny the German's access to search and seizure as outlined in the Crusier Rules is also missing - ref "The Lusitania: Unravelling the Mysteries pg 91". Are these facts in dispute? Do we need to have a fact finding mission for each section before it is written? Also in reading the discussion entries, someone suggested the article was too long; we could reduce by placing trivial facts in a link? Also, Eric Sauder's book "RMS Lusitania: The Ship & Her Record" is a book I would like to read before doing major edits; according to Chapters it is due in Oct 2009.Spinnaker gybe (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great you're doing this. I don't have the time but I'd like to see the article improved. Rees11 (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

About the picture of the drowned boy

The caption below the pic of the drowned boy says that he was on the Lusitania, but when you click on the picture the caption at the top says: File:Youngboydrownedontitanic.jpg Note the "titanic" at the end of the file name. So was he on the Lusitania or the Titanic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.1 (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know but I think it's in poor taste and should be removed. Rees11 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is in poor taste. Indeed, Wikpeadia shouldn't be censored, but this article has far too many pictures in the first place - and that's ignoring the fact things like surivour lists and heavy conspircy theory sections have little place in an encylcopedia article.194.165.183.149 (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Really, it comes down to this: even though we can use it doesn't mean we should use it. I tend to agree it's in poor taste, and really, what does it add to the article? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

UK vs British Isles

The actual warning from the German Embassy says, "the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles." Not the UK. There is a picture of it in the article. Rees11 (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Passenger Numbers

It says in the header: "[...]killing 1,198 of the 1,959 people aboard."

That must have been an awfully destructive torpedo... --R. Rehor (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you hit a large passenger liner with a torpedo and fatally damage it, and it sinks in 20 minutes, you're going to have a large loss of life. The torpedo itself didn't cause the deaths, but the sinking caused by the torpedo took these people to their watery grave. So yeah, the numbers are right. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain and the Lusitania

On file KV 6/47 at The National Archives is a manuscript letter by Neville Chamberlain stating that he had received information from "a reliable source" that there was a plan to blow up the Lusitania. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a question re which I welcome answers or suggestions. I am a writer and working on my third novel. The gist of the story concerns a young girl in love with an officer on board the Lusitania. I researched the final voyage fairly well but have come to a spot in the story where I need help. My hero, the naval officer, stays on board the ship until the last moment. His last act is to give a young child his life vest and then, as the ship is sinking, he dives overboard. He hits his head on an object in the water and is knocked unconscious. From hereon he disappears until some months later. I want him to be lost and nobody find him until he eventually turns up on the doorstep (more or less) of his girlfriend. To have this happen, I plan to explain it thus - ---As the Lusitania goes down,Ben dives off the ship's rail into the sea, hitting his head on some debris as he reaches the water. The last thing he could recall with any clarity was diving from the ship. The sea was calm and must have been assumed dead as he lay draped across some debris. This had to be the reason the British didn't pick him up when they searched for survivors. Their orders were to pick up only the living. Would it be feasible for him to drift away from the scene and the current carry him even farther away. He was still unconscious when a German ship picked him up.He was only half alive, both in body and mind and when he awoke was in a dark world where it didn't matter what happened to him. He stayed in this state for at least 18 months. When he was rescued by the Germans he wore only his underclothes making identification difficult. The prison camp he was taken to was apparently one of the worst. They never cared about him or tried to find out who he was. When finally rescued he coulodn't recall whether he even saw a doctor. And then, more than a year later, he was taken to another camp. It was here, his mind clicked back into the real world.---

This is all very rough and my main question is - does it sound feasible? I mean could Ben drift away from others in the water and finally be picked up by a German ship? If anybody can help with this, my email is drnbeatty@yahoo.com . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.24.106 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Halsey, Francis Whiting (1919). The Literary Digest History of the World War. Funk & Wagnalls. p. 255. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |nopp= and |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ "SINKING JUSTIFIED, SAYS DR. DERNBURG; Lusitania a "War Vessel," Known to be Carrying Contraband, Hence Search Was Not Necessary.", New York Times, p. 4, 9 May 1915
  3. ^ Watson, Bruce (2006). Atlantic convoys and Nazi raiders. Greenwood. p. 9. ISBN 0275988279. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |nopp= and |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Doswald-Beck, Louise (1995). San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. Cambridge University Press. p. 124. ISBN 0521558646. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |nopp= and |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ "LUSITANIA WAS UNARMED", New York Times, 10 May 1915
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference daily mail was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RMS_Lusitania/Archive_1&oldid=1074822381"