Talk:RMS Lusitania/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

1930's Deep-Sea Diving & the RMS Lusitania

In writing an article on American deep-sea diver John D. Craig, I found a reference in Popular Science (October, 1937 -- | Online Goggle archive of Teale, Edwin "New Worlds Beneath the Sea", page 29) of a dive to the RMS Lusitania planned for 1938. The article mentions that one diver had actually walked the decks in 1935. Also, in a website of the rememberances of a Lusitania survivor, Tom Whiteley(| "The Lusitania and John D. Craig"), Tom mentions that he had been hired to help with a magazine article on the planned dive, and that the planned dive never happened. Is this information detailed and sufficient enough be added to this article?

GlennRay77GlennRay77 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Improvement

Shouldn't the quality of this article be improved as it is top-importance in the shipwreck project and mid-importance in many other related projects, and is only a C?

Pekayer11 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain and the Lusitania 2

(As this page is due for an archive)

Here is a transcript of the letter and memo by Neville Chamberlain mentioned above. [1]. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

change in the 2nd to last paragraph in recent developments

I am not sure if my reference(It's the 75th Reference) I looked at it and I don't think it's actually showing the website. The address was http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html?ITO=1490# I changed the sentence that said they found four million rounds, in this article it says the dive team estimated there were 4 million rounds. If you can fix this that would be helpful, thank you. Aaronp2098 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

last successful eastern passage, and sundry article discrepancies

I notice the article says Lusitania avoided the british destroyers sent to escort her, referencing beesly p.95. Beesly actually says the destroyers did not have the merchant ship codes and Lusitania did not have naval codes, and lusitania's master refused to transmit her position in clear. He doesnt say Lusitania 'evaded' the destroyers. He incidentally also notes that on 27 March the admiralty confirmed that Germans were able to read signals sent in the merchant navy code. That devenport and cruiser force G (Hood, patrolling the western approach to southern Ireland) were told not to give merchant ships route directions as it would simply inform Germans of their position. Queenstown may not have been sent this message and continued using the compromised code.

changed.Sandpiper (talk)

Beesly P97 also makes a note that Cunard did not have permanent captains for its major ships, but instead rotated them as convenient. This seems at odds with comments in the article about 'regular captains'.

P104 he comments on the sinking by U20 of a three masted schooner 'the earl of lathom'. The article mentions a schooner called 'Miss Morris', which was added here [2].

changedSandpiper (talk)

p106 he comments that at 11.15 on the 7th, the admiralty sent out a warning about uboats active in 'southern part of irish channel'. He notes that news of the sinking of centurion and candidate at this location was that morning known throughout liverpool, and the message was probably sent at the request of Cunards chairman alfred Booth who was in liverpool, who had specifically requested of the senior naval official in liverpool whether any warning had been sent to Lusitania. There is a discrepancy between this message and the article, which may occur elsewhere because beesly points it out, that the message did not warn of uboats off S Ireland coast, but in the southern Irish channel. This imformation had been available to the admiralty at least 8 hours earlier (when the ships crew were rescued).

Beesly observes that at the time Lusitania sank 4 destroyers which had been used to escort important ships were doing nothing in Milford haven rather than hunting U20 known to have been sinking ships just 20 miles away, or indeed escorting Lusitania. Also 2 Q ships.

Re the citation needed on u20 allowing the crew of a vessel to escape, he did indeed allow the 5 crew from the 'earl of lathom' schooner to escape on 5 may (p102)(seems to be the vessel referred to here as Miss morris'). Says he also allowed the crew of 'candidate' to abandon ship (afternoon of 6 may) after using his gun against her (p103). She was then sunk by 1 torpedoe and gunfire. Says 'Centurion' was sunk with 2 torpedoes afternoon of 7 may, doesnt comment on abandonimg ship first but id guess not. The inference from the article is that his behaviour was different. beesly stresses that schweiger was a very cautious man, and theres a whole world of difference with allowing 5 men in a rowing boat to get away than 1000 from a presumably armed ship moving at high speed.

Beesly p.105 comments on an exchange of (now missing) telegrams between the amiralty and Lusitania, which he says probably requested her to divert north around ireland rather than approaching from the south.

I am struck by the contradiction between Schweigers log entry that lusitania stopped, and the comments that she continued making 18 knots.

changed. seems lusitania lost all power but continued to move through momentum.Sandpiper (talk)

Shortly after 11 on 7 may U20 was dived to avoid a fishing boat which she had misidentified as a patrol boat and heading west to round Ireland and head north back to germany. Schweiger records having 3 torpedoes left, not 1 as the article states but he says he was reserving 2 for the journey home so only one left he intended to fire if a target presented (P108). He notes a ship passing overhead, which was HMS Juno, which had been specifically warned of submarine activity at 7.45 am and was returning to port at high speed, zig-zagging. In general the admiralty knew that U20 had been orderd to go to the Irish Sea, knew when it left, tracked its own position reports crossing the north sea and knew when it ought to arrive (p.98).

Beesly also comments that the reason for the increase in German U boat activity in the channel and irish sea at that time was because of false intelligence fed to Germany by British intelligence intended to give the impression of an attack on the German coast. This ruse was successful in that Germany moved troops entirely uselessly to counter it. Another consequence was that the German Uboat fleet was despatched to intercept anticipated troop transports and warships taking part in this operation. One of them found Lusitania. Never mind warning merchant ships at the time, most of this information seems to have remained secret for 50 years. Sandpiper (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

mentionedSandpiper (talk)

But on the other hand he also comments that German radio at Norddeich gave location reports on Lusitania to submarines. When U20 reported the sinking on 12 may, the response was 'My highest appreciation of commander and crew for success achieved of which Hochseeflotte is proud and my congratulations on their return'. British intercept stations were ordered to get signed statements that this message had been recorded accurately after news of it got back to the admiralty. Sandpiper (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The article staes:'In 1993, Dr. Robert Ballard, the famous explorer who discovered Titanic and Bismarck, conducted an in-depth exploration of the wreck of Lusitania. Ballard found Light had been mistaken in his identification of a gaping hole in the ship's side. ' I have no idea what light found, but the reference to ballards statement makes it clear he found no gaping hole in the port side. The starboard side, where a hole might be expected, is buried since that side is on the sea bed. Ballard does state the wreck is torn in two with the bow nearly separated, which does not sound to me evidence of an intact hull. He does not state exactly where the tear is (for example, inline with the torpedo hit?) He also says the whole ship is flattened, whatever you make of that. Anyone know if depth charges could do that? Anyway, the article is misleading since it implies Ballard demonstrated no holes, which he states he did not. Sandpiper (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to dig out my Ballard book on Lusitania and see what it can enlighten us on. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

4th funnel addition

im not quite clear from the article what was going on about the fourth funnel. My guess would be that turbines were more efficient so it was worthwhile having extra boilers, possibly the turbines were physically smaller so there was space for extra boilers, but they then needed an extra funnell? More boilers must mean more steam and hence faster...or maybe the working pressure was different so a greater volume was needed...hey, anyway, the point puzzles me and maybe should be expanded on.Sandpiper (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just read something which said one of the funnels was in fact a dummy, because it looked better to have more. So would that be the extra one, or one of the original three which was a dummy? Sandpiper (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which funnel was the dummy, but four funnels was the fad back then, as many liners of the early 20th century had four funnels. In most cases, there were 2-3 working funnels and at least one dummy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lusitania had three working funnels, and a fourth dummy one. It was usually the aft-most funnel that was the dummy, as was the case with the Olympic-class. Four funnels seemed to imply greater speed, power, etc to the passengers. The British liners started adding extra funnels despite there being no physical need for them in response to the German liners doing so. There was an incident with German passengers complaining that the ship to carry them, the Imperator, one of the newest and fastest liners available, had only three funnels. They would have preferred the four funnelled Deutschland, despite her actually being older and slower! In Lusitania the dummy was used to ventilate the engine rooms. Normandie used her dummy third funnel as kennels for passengers' cats and dogs, while I remember reading that the Olympic class' dummy was used to store deckchairs. Benea (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Theres a picture here [3] which looks a lot like smoke from all four funnels. Similarly our page pictures look that way. Then, the actual boiler layout is in four equal sections, which kinda suggests four working funnels? Whichever it was, at least one would not have been working in war time as they only used 3 boiler roooms. Sandpiper (talk)

FWIW, warships of the time commonly had 4 working funnels; for example, check Wiki article on German Roon class armored cruisers. Seems to me that a dummy funnel would have a meaningful weight and wind resistance penalty leading to slightly increased fuel consumption coming out of the owners pockets. Can someone supply links to documentation of dummy funnels on the large liners of this time frame? Seki1949 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Obscurely sourced opinion stated as fact

The article previously stated "The sinking ... was instrumental in bringing the United States into World War I." The sole source for this is an anonymous entry in an obscure webzine. Hence, some one unknown person's opinion is dressed up as a fact. Whether or not the sinking was instrumental has been subject to considerable debate for decades, so certainly some creditable historians could be cited as the source for this statement. This is an example of how Wikipedia can be extremely problematic, because simply slapping any-old anonymous source on an opinion does not make it a verified fact. Souring means context, not just slapdash application of footnotes. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

hmm. As a matter of policy, wiki tends to report accepted truth rather than objective truth. I remember quite plainly being told the sinking of lusitania brought the US into the war. Surprising then, to find it took the US nearly 2 years to actually sort out the paperwork and get on with it. The website referenced appears to be a review of diane preston's book about the lusitania (or one of them, Lusitania, an epic tragedy), which is referenced elsewhere in the article directly. I cant say whether 'instrumental in bringing the US into the war is a direct quote from the book, or not. In my opinion, most history is opinion. Sandpiper (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Preston says, 'the myth grew, and still exists today, that the united states entered the war as an immediate consequence of the sinking of the lusitania' (wilful murder, p.498). so if its a myth, then it isnt true. on the other hand, wikipedia reports consensus, so if the consensus is that it is believed to have done this, then we say so. Paradox? stupid policy?

Preston also says, (well, several pages and i'm not going to write them all out), 'not only was it a propaganda disaster but in the weeks and months that followed it disrupted and distracted the German high command and government at a critical stage of the war'. ie, the damage done was not simply in bringing the US into the war (or not), but in the divisions the argument about it caused within Germany. which is a rather different take on the events benefits for Britain than the usual.

And, 'the sinking of the Lusitania and germanys response to the worlds outrage hardened american attitudes and exacerbated the tensions between the two countries.' (p.500)

But also, 'Germanys great mistake after sinking the Lusitania was to edge slowly away from unrestricted submarine war.'(p500)...Von Tirpitz was probably right. Fishers extraordinary mid-war letter of consolation to von Tirpitz on his resignation underlines that naval strategists recognised an inevitability in the unrestricted use of the submarine weapon.'(p.501)

But also, '"Remember the Lusitania"! became a talismanic reminder for America of what she was fighting for. Images of the sinking ship and of drowning women...were used on recruitment posters and to sell war bonds.' so actually not only was it instrumental in bringing the united states into the war, it was instrumental literally in bringing individual us soldiers into the war.

Some nice hard hitting chapters towards the end of the book. Sandpiper (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone (perhaps you) re-edited with much better language and a stronger source. Well done. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

false statements in section, engineering consequences

Ive taken this section out of the article:

Engineering consequences

How multiple emergency control valves could be used to stop an out-of-control steamship. (Popular Science, Dec 1918, p33)

One of the major causes of death to passengers after the ship was hit by the torpedo was that the captain had no way to slow or stop the ship, and consequently the lifeboats were battered on the sides of the fast-moving ship and the lifeboats overturned when they touched the ocean at high speed. The torpedo strike had either killed the ship's engineers or cut off contact with them, and there was no means for anyone else to shut down the engines.

In December 1918, [Popular Science] Monthly reported that this problem had occurred so many times to other ships after the sinking of Lusitania that the British Board of Trade suggested that every passenger-carrying ship be provided with some means of stopping the engines from the deck or skylight hatchway. The magazine illustrated several such possible remote valve control methods to cut off engine steam from multiple locations. refThe Problem of Stopping a Torpedoed Ship, [Popular Science] monthly, December 1918, page 23, Scanned by Google Books ref

The reference is a 1918 book, so im not a bit surprised it might not be reliable. The accounts I have read seem pretty consistent that there was a total loss of steam pressure very quickly after the explosion which meant no machinery was working. The ship continued forward under its own momentum. Engines would normally be used reversed to stop such a ship, which would be impossible without steam. Any one got any further info? The comment about the ships speed being too great to launch boats is fair enough and needs to go back somewhere, though it is already touched upon in the description of the sinking (which is also inadequate, but heh, we'll get there). Sandpiper (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

diana preston

Anyone know whether Diana Preston's two books published in 2002, 'Wilful Murder, the sinking of the Lusitania', and 'Lusitania, an epic tragedy' are one and the same? They seem to have different pagination but possibly identical content. I suspect they are the US and Uk versions of nearly the same thing. Sandpiper (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

peculiar legal proceedings

The article contained the paragraph below from 'board of trade investigation':

When "prosecuting" barrister, F. E. Smith (Solicitor General for England and Wales), began by reading from Admiralty memoranda that had not been submitted to the court, Lord Mersey halted the proceedings and summoned all the lawyers to the bench, where he demanded an explanation of the memoranda from Smith, who was at a loss to explain. Lord Mersey and Smith immediately realised that the evidence had been falsified by the Admiralty and refused to proceed. The inquiry was adjourned, and Lord Mersey asked all the assessors to give him their separate opinions in sealed envelopes, only Admiral Sir Frederick Inglefield returning a guilty verdict against Captain Turner. Inglefield had previously been briefed by the Board of the Admiralty and instructed to find Turner guilty of "treasonable behaviour".

From the information I have, this is plainly wrong. On the other hand, it might be based upon some description of events. The core of it seems correct, that the prosecution had different versions of certain papers to the rest of the court, but the case was not instantly stopped. It sort of makes sense up to 'the inquiry was adjourned', but then lots of other stuff plainly happened before any final verdict was reached. 'Inglefield had been briefed...' is quite a strong statement without specific citation. Sandpiper (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

German public opinion

Article says: The German public was shocked by the news of the sinking, and only a minority believed that it was a proper action. When it was revealed that passengers had been warned not to travel on the ship, this information removed any doubt that Lusitania had been singled out for attack, and caused a loss of confidence in the German government

As far as I can see from Preston, the German public fully supported the U-boat campaign? Sandpiper (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

blind stowaways?

anyone know anything about the three stowaways being blind as we allege? Possibly after they had drowned they were unable to see?Sandpiper (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

inserted by an anon here [4]Sandpiper (talk)

No one is able to see after they have drowned. :-) SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

thats what I was thinking, so we got it right.Sandpiper (talk)

images and lifeboats

We have lots of pictures but most are of the maiden voyage. Apparently the layout of lifeboats was revised from the 8 either side initially to 11 either side plus collapsibles. All the pics seem to show 8. Which is all very well except that the explosion blew number 5 to pieces. But where was it? Sandpiper (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

to answer my own question, it would seem starboard were odd numbers and port even, starting from the front. Two additional boats were added each side in the gap between the original four front and four rear, plus one additional one either side further astern. I am not clear whether all the additions were rigid boats, since the picture I added clearly shows one station containing three stacked collapsibles rather than a rigid boat. Collapsibles were added resting on the deck underneath each of the original rigid boats. Makes you think, that they more than doubled the number of lifeboats. Absolute maximum in a boat near to sinking seems to be about 100, perhaps 50 comfortable. Sandpiper (talk)

Cunard Line

The Cunard line has been making ships way longer than the white star line (64.229.40.197 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)).

cool

Kind of neat how it has a copy of the article that the Imperial German Embassey put in the papers in 1915. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.40.197 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

reduced speed from shutting down boiler rooms, mentioned twice

Redundant information from "War" section:

"One of these was the shutting down of her No. 4 boiler room to conserve coal and crew costs; this reduced her maximum speed from over 25 knots (46 km/h) to 21 knots (39 km/h)."

Duplicated in "Departure" section:

"However, Cunard shut down one of the ship's four boiler rooms to reduce costs on sparsely-subscribed wartime voyages, reducing her top speed from 25.5 to around 22 knots.[24]"

184.37.111.224 (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Date keel laid

The article states the keel was laid 16 June 1904. Unfortunately, it also carries a website reference about the launch date which also disputes the keel date. Apparently both dates have been the subject of some confusion, and the website, by an author of a book on the subject, retracts his published keel date in favour of a new one, 17 August 1904. The website also suggests that her construction contract was not in fact signed until after she had commenced building. Any offers? Sandpiper (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Fifty Famous Liners, it couldn't have been 1904, because they indicate that a decision was made on powering the ships "by 1905". Recall that before deciding on the power plants for Lusitania and Mauretania, they first experimented with two otherwise-identical ships. Caronia had reciprocating engines, and Carmania had turbines. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont know recall the detail but it is lodged in my head that they started building before settling the engine choice. If the contract depended on exactly what was to be built and assuming everyone trusted each other, they might have started before they had a contract. Or maybee the source is only part right, and they had an initial contract which got updated to a final one in2005? Sandpiper (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding a new book to the references.

I have found an interesting book about the Lusitania that has collections from news articles and press releases soon after the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and presents them in a fascinating dialogue. The book is called The Lusitania Case by C.L. Droste. ISBN 0850590973

Morrowind1984 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pressure on newspapers

It is absolutely essential that the article should mention the fact that many US newspapers were pressured not to print the warning from the German embassy. The vast majority of passengers had no idea that the Lusitania would be a target, or that there might be any weapons or ammunition aboard. (92.7.16.187 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Bring reliable references and than can be included in the text of the article. Have a look to WP:VERIFY and WP:NOT. And maybe you'll even decide to joint Wikipedia and contribute to other articles! Wikipedia:Introduction. ;0) --Dia^ (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There were newspapers who 'rubbbished' the warnings. for example: The Kerryman 13 February 1915 page 6:

German Threat Fails to Impress

London, Friday

No importance is attached in London shipping circles to the German threat to blockade Great Britian. It is regarded generally as a paper blockade made in Germany, intended to frighten. Similar views are held in Liverpool shipping circles.

having quoted that I must add that wikipedia is not the place for original research Lugnad (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

the newspapers were filled with stories of German (surface raider) attacks on merchant ships, and uboat attacks on warships --an international traveler would have to be isolated indeed if he did not read the press nor have friends & relatives who read the papers. Fact is warnings are a legality that people ignore: civilians continued to sail after May 1915 (as seen in the sinking of the Arabic and the Sussex) Rjensen (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

But still nonetheless doesn't verify the point in contention. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Embassy also sent out agents to wealthier passengers, my great great grandparents (who died in the sinking) received one of these visits. So passengers did know of the threat, they were just assured when they reported the visits that there was no danger. Joyfulkitten (talk)

Why is it essential? The actual warning printed shortly before the sailing was intended to be printed much earlier and I dont think there is any evidence of a specific plan to sink the Lusitania (by either side!). It was just bad luck she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, though obviously the Germans were trying to intercept as many ships as possible. The Germans were both giving warning and trying to cause difficulties by disrupting passenger traffic, but equally the allies were publicly downplaying risks which privately they took seriously and were trying to protect against. The logic remains sound that as a fast ship Lusitania should have been safer than most.

Time and Speed information is incorrect

Hello, the clock times are wrong for comparisons. We have three time bases, Greenwich Mean Time, Dublin Mean Time and Central European Time. To make them comparable, they must correctly (incorrectly and contradictory in the literature often) be converted to a common basis. Or the time base must be specified.

Additionally, could the time data in the war diary of SM U 20 here http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/eyewitness/html.php?section=18 and here http://germannavalwarfare.info/indexbr.html be distorted by removing numbers. Its format differs from all other time information on it.

The specified maximum speed of 21 knots is misleading. The maximum continuous speed was only 18 knots. Source: Collin Sompson, The Lusitania, or here http://books.google.com/books?id=yFYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=true, page 88. RöntgenTechniker (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, times ought to be consistent if they are not. As to the maximum speed, Simpson would be on the side of the conspiracy rather than cockup arguments about the sinking. Not that he is automatically wrong, but he does stand on one side of a debate. This would need to be checked in more than his magazine article. Sandpiper (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

C. Vögele

Karl Voegele was never on board of any German submarine. He is not shown of the U20-Crewlist ( March/April 1915) (BA-MA Freiburg) According to his “Stammrolle” ( Deutsche Dienststelle Berlin) he was from 1914 - 1917 at the II.Seefliegerabteilung Wilhelmshaven ( Seeplane-station , ground-electrician ) and later untill cease-fire at the Torpedoschule Eckernförde ( Torpedotraing.school for T- and U-bootsoffiziers) on borad of an old torpedoboat.. So he spent the complete war in the navy safety on land. He was not arrested in Kiel…and so on. Furthermore, the sailor Ulbricht , who have pointed his handgun on Schwieger is also pure fiction.Everything about the Vögele tall-story ( with documents) can seen in Nr.8 , Marine Nachrichtenblatt (Febr.2012) http://www.seekrieg14-18.de/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.59.22 (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible split

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to split this article, and have one article for the ship, detailing the history and design of the ship etc, and another main article for the sinking and reaction and aftermath. Rather like has been done for the Titanic (see RMS Titanic and Sinking of the RMS Titanic)?

Only, like the Titanic, the sinking of the ship was a major historical event in its own right and in my opinion probably deserves its own focussed article, perhaps Sinking of the RMS Lusitania. Any thoughts? G-13114 (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done - G-13114 (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

On the whole I think the split was a good idea on the grounds of article length, but there is a problem with the short summary left behind here. I appreciate that much of the text was lifted from the original longer version, but it is now highlighting some contentious points. The difficulty has probably arisen because different authors have severely disagreed on what really happened and at the time, in the middle of a war, really only propaganda reports were issued.

The whole starboard bow was NOT blown out by a secondary explosion. The bow, as such, seems to have been completely unaffected. The explosions appear to have occurred in the most forward boiler room, which was behind a coal bunker and then behind the hold space. It remains unclear what caused the second explosion (though suggestions exist and the one considered most likely now is that it was a boiler/steam explosion) and exactly what it did. hitting 'cleanly under the bridge' is also a matter of argument. The problems encountered when trying to launch boats seem to have had more to do with incompetent handling than rivets, since some of the boats were simply dropped and launching was halted. Ships motion causing problems is again debatable, since the ship stopped. I don't think there were definite reports of boats crashing onto the deck due to mishandling, merely into the water. I doubt a lot of bodies remained within the wreck, they were just washed away. These issues, of course, also apply to the new article.Sandpiper (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Turbines and explosions

Although turbines can give much higher powers and were used to propel large fast ships, they were very uneconomical compared to piston engines. The nick name for turbines was "steam eaters". The vast majority of the worlds merchant fleets stayed with the far more economical triple expansion steam piston engine until the wide spread use of diesel engines.

No. or, at least, you miss the point. If turbines were so bad, who would have used them at all, and why are ships today not still using steam pistons? Turbines are more efficient at higher speeds, and in particular at high shaft speeds. It was necessary to create gearboxes sufficiently huge to transmit the necessary power from a high speed turbine to a low speed propeller shaft to make them efficient for all shipping. Early turbines were designed to operate at the fastest speed possible for a propeller to rotate without cavitating and losing its grip on the water, but this was still slow for a turbine to be efficient. If your ship needed to be fast, then a turbine was more efficient than pistons, but if speed didnt matter then a piston could be more cost efficient. Hence cargo would go by piston steamer. The other first adopter of turbines were navy ships, which needed the ability to go fast with maximum endurance.Sandpiper (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the causes of the second much larger explosion? Brass cased ammuniton doesn't readily explode and Ballard reckoned that the ship was sunk by a massive coal bunker explosion right down the series of nearly empty coal bunkers along the side of the ship.AT Kunene (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont know what the article says but there is now a second article all about the sinking. It ought only to get a brief mention here. Sandpiper (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Depth-charging the wreck

It makes little sense to me that anybody would depth-charge a wreck "for target practice". Firstly a depth-charge is supposed to detonate in the water column, not on the sea-bed, and the whole trick is to judge the depth-setting correctly. Laying charges onto the sea-bed is not useful practice, its a waste of munitions. Secondly, why would the Irish bomb an Allied war grave at all, far less for practice? And third, if the assumption is that the Irish Navy was run by the IRA, why did Britain not protest at this desecration? Does anybody have a reliable source which clarifies this confounding story please? Wdford (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont know that I agree. If your job is attacking underwater vessels, surely you need a target underwater vessel to practice on and a wreck sitting on the sea bed might be quite useful?Sandpiper (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the major trick is in judging the depth, and practicing on a target sitting stable at a known depth would thus be counter-productive. Second, how would they know if they hit it? What feedback would they be able to gather from such an exercise? Third, there are plenty of rock formations in that part of the sea, and lots of other wrecks that do not contain graves, which could have served the purposes as well or better. Fourth, its a high-profile war-grave, which today is so sensitive that apparently the owner is not allowed to touch anything - how was this allowed to be used for target practice? Can you imagine the uproar if the Germans or the Russians had used American children's graves for target practice? I am asking for references that mention target practice please - we have seen undisputed sources mentioning the presence of the depth-charges, but not yet an explanation from an RS as to how they got there. Wdford (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrying munitions?

Someone has inserted this in the last section of the lede: '...recent underwater explorations have proved that the ship was carrying war munitions, and was thus a legitimate military target in terms of the laws of the day.'

This is not supported by the copy in the main article concerning the wreckage. The lede is meant to summarise the article. Can you insert your evidence in the appropriate section, preferably with citations? 109.154.20.25 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely uncontroversial that the ship was carrying what by ordinary standards was a vast amount of rife bullets. These were declared in the manifest. Under US rules they did not count as munitions, but I dont see who in ordinary life would agree they were not? Explorations have not discovered explosives, so I'm not sure why the two facts of investigating the wreck and carrying war materials are linked. Sandpiper (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two different definitions here. The US rules referred to here banned the carrying of any substances which would directly endanger the safety of the passengers. Bombs obviously would, while rifle bullets would not. However the second definition is about the ship being a harmless civilian transport vs a war-supply vessel. The British government has lied for a hundred years that the Lusitania was a harmless civilian transport, but the cargo manifest proved that the Lusitania was carrying a variety of war materials, and the recent wreck visits have proved the presence of war materials as well. Since the propaganda about the dastardly sinking of a "harmless vessel" is a big part of what makes the Lusitania notable to begin with, I think the findings of the divers rates a mention too? Wdford (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

• I think that the remote underwater vehicle Jason was used to explore the wreck of the Lusitania. Do you know any sources for this? Wikispaghetti (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

'Outdated' tag: Recent developments section

This section was tagged because info in future-tense has already occurred, and some info is obsolete. E.g.: the lead tubes have been found to be empty (no paintings). ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Running mate"

The term running mate is confusing to nautical lay-persons (such as me). There is an archived discussion (here) explaining the distinction between "consort" and "sister ship" where "running mate" is mentioned as being synonymous. Note that Running mate links to the common usage (a person running on a joint ticket in an election) and Running mate (disambiguation) does not include anything relevant to ships. I'm sure that I am not the only reader who would appreciate a clarification, either in the article, or a link to an appropriate article, or redirect to a section [e.g.: Running mate (ship)].  —Thanks in advance,  71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Conflict between lead and infobox

Hello. I've just noticed that the second sentence of the lead states 'She was launched by the Cunard Line in 1907' while the infobox states 'Launched: 7 June 1906'. Is 1907 the year the ship was 'launched' commercially, and 1906 the year the ship went down its slipway? Could someone clarify? --IxK85 (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Mines, explosives dropped on wreck site

So does anyone else remember the article mentioning this? Because I sure do. There was a TV special around 2008 that covered exploration of the wreck, and at least one unexploded mine was seen in clear view sitting on the wreck. It also correlates with people on the mainland witnessing ships testing explosives over the general area of the wreck, i.e. making it harder to explore. Someone completely re-wrote the article about the sinking so now that segment can't be viewed in the history. Yet another reason why Jimmy Whales (or whatever the fuck is name is) will never get a cent of my money. --67.171.164.195 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy of this statement.

"In firing on a non-military ship without warning, the Germans had breached the international laws known as the Cruiser Rules." Now that it has been confirmed the ship was carrying significant quantities of ammunition, it seems to me this statement is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.124.19 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Frank Bridge

In 1915 English composer Frank Bridge wrote his Lament (for Catherine, aged 9 "Lusitania" 1915), for string orchestra, as a memorial to the sinking. The piece was first performed at the 1915 Proms [5], curiously as part of a programme of "Popular Italian music", conducted by Henry Wood. So that was 15 September, barely four months after the tragedy. The little girl and her family were family friends of Bridge. It's described by Naxos as "a masterpiece" here, and is also described here and here. The Sydney Herald seems a useful source, but it doesn't say exactly when it was composed. Perhaps no-one knows for certain. A very good source for the article might be this, but it's at blogspot. What do other editors think, particularly about placement in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So any objections if I add, as part of chronology in the main body? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like this is something that is just too minor to warrant space in the article. But I will defer to consensus from other editors if they disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess other tragedies at sea have received more attention in terms of a musical treatment. I just thought that it offered an added perspective on how deeply the loss was felt across the country, although obviously it was inspired by a personal loss for Bridge. I see that we have a "Artefacts and museum exhibits" section, but no "In Popular culture". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's a good point. An "in popular culture" section exists in many other articles, including the one on the Titanic. In that context, I think I'd be OK with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you agree with moving the "Artefacts and museum exhibits" material into a new "In Popular culture" section? I'd be surprised if there wasn't more that could be added there. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now added material on this and other contemporary music. More regular editors here may wish to trim or condense to avoid any WP:UNDUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Carrying war munitions" in "Conspiracies" section?

The evidence seems to be conclusive that the Lusitania was, in fact, carrying a lot of munitions so why is it in the "Conspiracies" section? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

because the Germans did not know that. In any case it's irrelevant: merchant ships full of munitions had the same rights to safety for their crews. More exactly, it's sloppy pro-German propaganda. Rjensen (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If something has NPOV issues then it should be rewritten irrespective of where it is in the article. But if it is factually accurate it does not belong in a section dedicated to conspiracy theories. The issue here is what do we know with reasonable certainty and what is conjecture? Whatever can be established as factual and backed by RS sources can and probably should be included somewhere else in the article. But an awful lot of the munitions issue remains speculative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an overlap here. Some of the stuff was being carried officially - the machine-gun bullets and the artillery shell casings were carried openly, and were never a secret. The ship had carried such stuff before as well, on previous voyages. Ships carrying contraband were allowed to be sunk provided the crews were safely evacuated first, but this was waived if the ship tried to escape or to ram the submarine, which British ships had been ordered to do. Again, this was not a secret. As US Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan complained afterward, the British government was using civilians - including American civilians - as human shields. The "conspiracy" part includes the possibility that the ship was also carrying a large amount of explosives, which were not openly listed on the cargo lists. The USA was still neutral at that time, so the US laws allowed passenger ships to carry bullets in their cargo. However they were not permitted to carry explosives, as this would endanger the passengers. If the ship was carrying explosives then it was violating US law. The presence of such explosives has not yet been determined beyond doubt, so its still a "conspiracy". I agree that we should split these two issues - the "known" munitions to be reported in a separate paragraph from the "conspiracy" explosives. Wdford (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No disagreement with with your points from me. Again, what we know beyond reasonable doubt to be factual can, and probably should be placed somewhere other than in a section dedicated to conspiracy theories. Conjecture can stay where it is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Equipment in the lead

What is a "wireless telegraph"? Rumiton (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wireless telegraphy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely that must be an error? It must have been intended to be a reference to Engine order telegraph, but I am not sure how "wireless" fits in? --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I think wireless telegraphy is definitely the intended reference. In the context of Lusitania being equipped for 'speed, capacity and luxury', and 'Equipped with lifts, wireless telegraph and electric light' - i.e. things installed for the comfort and convenience of passengers, such as the ability to send and receive wireless messages at sea. Benea (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Goetz Medallion

The story of the Goetz "Musitania Medallion", first cast in August 1915, and the British reaction to it, is quite fascinating: [6] I think it should be included in the article, but not sure where. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Trial data

[7] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Some Facts Left Out

After the sinking, a large quantity of furs which had been carried in the cargo hold washed ashore in Ireland. This is proof that something caused a breach in the cargo hold, supporting the theory that the second explosion was caused by part of the cargo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.57.150.68 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about the photo of the German warning and the Lusitania's sailing schedule

I have been researching the Lusitania's sinking and have found several references to the German warning sent to several newspapers, that have no mention of the Lusitania, but the photo in the article here shows the warning paired with the Lusitania's schedule as if they are a single document. Can anyone identify the origin of the photo in this article? Or identify the newspaper in which it appeared? I have a copy of The New York Times from May 1, 1915 and the warning and the schedule both appear in it, but on different pages. 2601:2:5A80:56D3:E4FA:2201:BD8D:ACF6 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)austinnene

See The Age of Cunard, page 217, appearing as ref 53 in article. It mentions The Sun (New York) as having the warning and schedule appearing "adjacent" to each other. It appears to have been printed in at least 50 newspapers, with a dozen being NY titles. The picture certainly looks genuine, in the sense that this appears to have been the advertisements' original format. Maybe Robert Hunt Library would be worth approaching, as this is the source for the article pic. Irondome (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What is "Template:Ciment"

In the section on the Aftermath, the words "Template:Ciment", in red, appear between two sentences. What does this mean? There is no entry for Template:Ciment. Ileanadu (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation list

Needs one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.61.167 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Description of turning performance is not possible

In the 'Construction and trials' section it says: "At 180 revolutions a turning test was conducted and the ship performed a complete circle of diameter 1000 yards in 50 seconds. "

That is not possible. A circle with a diameter of 1,000 yards has a circumference of 9,424 feet, or about 1.8 miles. For a ship to go that distance in 50 seconds means it would be moving at 128 miles per hour, or about 100 miles per hour faster than the Lusitania's maximum speed.

Steve P (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Bombing of wreck

The article needs to mention in detail the alleged bombing of the wreck by the Royal Navy in the 1950s. (109.159.10.50 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC))

I have no objection provided that a proper citation to a WP:RS source is provided. This has not happened so far. Untril a reliable source can be cited it should not be added. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on RMS Lusitania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090324220419/http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/lusitania/lusitania.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/lusitania/lusitania.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090518052914/http://tv.yahoo.com:80/treasure-quest/show/43096 to http://tv.yahoo.com/treasure-quest/show/43096

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

How was there any controversy?

As the ship was carrying munitions for the British war effort I don't see what the Germans did wrong in sinking her? (213.122.144.241 (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

Whether she was or not is part of the controversy. Some argue she was and the British government covered it up. Britmax (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Tons of machine-gun ammunition and some inert munitions-components were openly listed as cargo on the ship's cargo manifest, and those bullets were also found on the wreck by divers. That fact is not controversial, and it makes the ship a naval blockade runner and thus a combat target, as the Germans noted at the time. The controversy is about whether she was ALSO carrying undisclosed explosives, which might have caused the secondary explosion which sank the ship faster than the passengers could safely evacuate. Bullets were a legal cargo in terms of American laws, but explosives would have been illegal, because of the direct risk to the safety of the civilian passengers. If there had been undisclosed explosives on board, then the British would have been jointly responsible for the deaths of all the civilians. This might have altered the American decision on joining the war and thus the outcome of World War One, and might perhaps have hastened the collapse of the British Empire. Controversial stuff indeed. Wdford (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

We know from explorations of the wreck site that the ship was carrying munitions and arms, as all passenger ships were by 1915. I don't understand what the Germans did wrong? Hastening the collapse of the British Empire was a good thing as it would have heralded a new era of self-determination. (213.122.144.241 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

@213.122.144.241: "I don't understand what the Germans did wrong? Hastening the collapse of the British Empire was a good thing as it would have heralded a new era of self-determination." -- you are entitled to your opinions, offensively worded as they are, but why you are using this encyclopaedia as some kind of blog where your personal and political feelings and textual exegeses matter is unclear. Maybe Stormfront.org would be a more appropriate and welcoming venue for you. Quis separabit? 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What did the Germans do wrong? Not allow the passengers to reach the life boats. That’s drowning 1000+ civilians and a very dramatic rejection of international law. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What that's exactly the issue of the controversy. The Germans did NOT stop the passengers from reaching the lifeboats. A single WW1 torpedo into a ship that size should have given the ship hours to sink, if indeed it sank at all. The passengers should all have made it away safely - and the ship might even have reached land in time to disembark them all. However a huge secondary explosion then occurred, which sent the ship down in record time, and this is what caused the huge loss of life. Some have theorized that it was coal-dust or something, but if it was military explosive being smuggled through the blockade using USA citizens as human shields - as alleged by the then US Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan - then the British were committing crimes of their own. Britain won the propaganda war, but may have done so by deliberately sacrificing American women and children. That the wreck - a mass grave - has subsequently been deliberately damaged so as to make it impossible to determine the true cause of the secondary explosion, adds fuel to the conspiracy theory. Wdford (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"should have given the ship hours to sink"!! or maybe not--Tough luck for Germany--its mistake cost it the war. Rjensen (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wdford: I assume you have valid sources for your claims, not just hyperbolic conspiracy theories. "Britain won the propaganda war, but may have done so by deliberately sacrificing American women and children" -- er, 1,198 people were killed in total. Are American lives worth more than those of other countries? Quis separabit? 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen It would not have been Germany's "mistake" if Britain had illegally and secretly loaded tons of explosive aboard and turned the ship into a floating bomb, now would it?

@Quis separabit? I am drawing this from the reaction of the US Secretary of State, who resigned in disgust because his supposedly-neutral president white-washed Britain's apparent complicity in the killing of American civilians. All lives are equal in my opinion, including the millions of German children who died as a result of the British blockade, but one can understand that an American politician would be more concerned about American lives. Wdford (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The British did nothing illegal. The munitions were not high explosives--more like machine gun bullets. The attacking ship had an explicit legal responsibility to see that crew & passengers are safe, Rjensen (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There are two different issues here. Firstly, openly carrying millions of machine-gun bullets intended for the trenches of France makes the ship a combatant, and liable to be sunk. The Cruiser Rules were being openly flouted by the British, and if one party ignores the rules when it suits them to do so, they cannot reasonably demand that the other party remain bound. Demanding that the submariners obey the rules to the letter while your own ships are ordered to cheat wherever possible, and to ram the submariners if they try to follow the rules, is patent hypocrisy. This British disregard for the Cruiser Rules was significant in sealing the fate of the Lusitania. Naval officers who are trained to sink large ships with torpedoes, know what they are doing. This was one of the biggest ships ever, and the Germans would have known how long it would take to sink - plenty of time for the passengers to evacuate, with plenty of time to radio for rescue, and with friendly land and ships nearby. Considering that the passengers would have been quite safe in the absence of secondary explosions, it was a reasonable assumption that the passengers were not being placed in immediate danger by a single torpedo. In the event, the ship only sank quickly because of the secondary explosion.

The second, separate issue is the undeclared explosives, which is the subject of the "controversy." Carrying explosives on a passenger ship was illegal in terms of US law as well as the Rules of War, and it may well have lead directly to the tragedy. There is no clear proof that the ship was carrying undeclared explosives, but there is no clear explanation yet for what caused the secondary explosion either. There is however evidence that the British have subsequently bombed the wreck, which is bizarre considering that it is such a significant wreck, the site of a history-changing tragedy and a multinational mass grave. There is also the fact that the paperwork continues to be kept secret, a century later. And then we have the issues about many tons of butter etc being delivered to British weapons factories. Not conclusive, but all very suspicious. Wdford (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

To everyone: It feels like people are debating for the sake of debate (as opposed to for the sake of consensus seeking). Am I missing something here? Because I'm confused about why no one has chimed in to say WP:NOTAFORUM and collapsed/archived this conversation already. I'm in the middle of reading Dead Wake: The Last Crossing of the Lusitania, so I was looking at this article the other day and added it to my watchlist out of habit, expecting it to be fairly static. I didn't expected this kind of heated debate! If we're talking about changing something in the article, can people start making it clear which specific statements they want changed and what sources they're looking at? Otherwise, let's shut this thread down. PermStrump(talk) 01:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to amend the article, so it needs to stay as is. Wdford (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What did the Germans actually do wrong?

The British naval blockade of Germany was illegal under international law. I don't see how the Germans did anything wrong in sinking RMS Lusitania as it was being used to carry arms to the UK. (81.159.7.253 (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC))

That is the subject of a lot of debate among historians and lawyers. Alas this is not the place for that debate. As stated at the top of the talk page "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RMS Lusitania article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." We don't do discussions of the actual subjects on their talk pages because in many cases it could lead to endless debate and walls of text that do nothing to build an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Cruiser rules

The British had violated the rules first by allowing ships to sail with neutral flags and by adding swivel guns so the German U-boats could not surface to give warning before firing. (86.133.254.41 (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

Removing forum discussions

Would anyone object if I remove the unproductive forum discussions from this talkpage? I think it just attracts more. —PermStrump(talk) 15:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What's unproductive? The article makes it sound as though the Germans had broken the Cruiser Rules first, when in reality it was the British. (86.137.48.125 (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

These discussions become forum discussions when people don't cite sources or make specific suggestions for changes. —PermStrump(talk) 17:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The article in its current form is too biased against Germany. The ship was illegally carrying munitions to be used on the Western front and was therefore a 100% legitimate target. (86.137.48.125 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

Non-military?

As the ship was carrying weapons and munitions for the British war effort it cannot be called a non-military ship. (5.81.223.59 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC))

Why not? A lot of munitions and explosives are transported by Merchant ships. Britmax (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It was illegal under international law and it made the ship a military target. (5.81.223.59 (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC))

Source? —PermStrump(talk) 17:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Hague Convention of 1907 which the UK had signed was very specific on this point. (5.81.223.59 (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC))

Blockade

I'm moving this recent addition to the talkpage because it was unsourced: The British Royal Navy had blockaded Germany at the beginning of World War I. With a reliable source that directly connects that blockade to this event, I wouldn't oppose adding this back in. Just mentioning the fact that it happened without a source directly making the connection is WP:SYNTH. —PermStrump(talk) 16:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Royal Navy imposed a blockade of Germany in August 1914. The US government had already rejected German complaints that the blockade was illegal under international law. (5.81.223.59 (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC))

5.81.223.59 The fact that the blockade happened doesn't mean it's relevant to this article. I see you've reinserted once again without adding a source, so it's still WP:OR at this point. If you want to connect the blockade to this topic, you need to add a source that explicitly connects it to the sinking of the Lusitania. Until then, it doesn't belong in the article. —PermStrump(talk) 17:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The blockade forced Germany to engage in submarine warfare as it meant they could not use their warships. The Germans were only sinking ships carrying munitions to the UK, whereas the British were deliberately starving Germany's civilian population. (5.81.223.59 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC))

Source? —PermStrump(talk) 17:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Catholic Centre Party newspaper, the Kölnische Volkszeitung, reported it at the time. (5.81.223.59 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC))

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• U-boat Campaign (World War I) (dispute going on)

And that's just the first page of Google results from "blockade lucitania". The blockades were highly relevant. Now the task is to go through these links, figure out which are usable, and use them as appropriate. - Denimadept (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Lusitania was sunk as a direct result of Britain's illegal blockade. (5.81.223.59 (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC))

I'm arguing for your position, Anonymous. - Denimadept (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Cruiser Rules again

We have a mention of the British orders to their civilian ships to ignore the Cruiser Rules, and indeed to ram U-boats where the opportunity presented itself. We also have mention of the British ships flying neutral flags to avoid interception. But where do Q-boats / Q-ships fit in - since their purpose was to lure U-boats to the surface by deception so that they could be sunk, are Q-boats a breach of the Cruiser Rules too? Wdford (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and so was the British fitting passenger ships with swivel guns so their cargoes could not be searched for weapons and ammunition. (217.35.237.50 (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC))

Non-military ship?

Can it be described as non-military if the Lusitania was carrying war material to be used against German forces in France and Belgium? (217.35.237.225 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

Yes. It was not a commissioned naval vessel of the Royal Navy. It was privately owned. It was commanded by a member of a private enterprise. Llammakey (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If it was carrying weapons for the war effort it was no longer just a passenger ship. (217.35.237.225 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

The merchant ships that carried war supplies in any war are not considered military ships. Military targets yes, but not military ships. Lusitania could not fight back. You are mistaking her for an armed merchant cruiser. Llammakey (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Lusitania had been fitted with guns before the war. (217.35.237.225 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

From what I can see, there is no mention of that in the article. It was placed on a list, but that does not mean it was actually converted. If it were carrying guns, it would've had a military presence on board to man the guns. However, since that does not seem to be the case (at the very least you'd need citations demonstrating this) you can not definitely say she was a military ship. It then slips into original research. Llammakey (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Schwieger said he could not stop the ship to search for weapons for fear of being fired at by deck guns. Multiple sources online describe the Lusitania as a military ship. (213.122.144.59 (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC))

Those internet sources have to be reliable sources. Unsourced claims will not cut it here. As for Schweiger, he is one man and the Admiralty would claim the exact opposite. You need reliable sources to show that the ship carried guns. Llammakey (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The Lusitania was also listed as an auxiliary cruiser. Many of the passengers were Canadian officers traveling in mufti, some escorted by their wives. By that standard it was also a troop ship. (213.122.144.59 (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC))

Listed does not mean it was armed. Just like Utah at Pearl Harbor which looked like a battleship and the Japanese pilots claimed they had sunk an extra battleship, does not mean it was a battleship. The ship had to be capable of defending itself and you need to show proof of that. Those Canadian officers purchased tickets, which means the ship was not a troopship as soldiers do not usually need to buy tickets in order to board one. Llammakey (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

British captains were told to violate the Cruiser Rules

The British admiralty had given instructions to the Lusitania (as well as other British merchant ships) to:

- fly false flags; the Lusitania had previously flown a US flag in a war zone. This is a violation of international treaties - to fly the flag of a neutral country on your vessel which is properly flagged as belonging to a combatant.

- ram U-boats

- refuse orders to stop and be boarded for inspection, as treaties of the day allowed military ships to do to merchant ships.

The British Admiralty effectively made merchant and cruise ships lose their non-combatant status as a result of these instructions. (213.122.144.59 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC))

That is original research. Provide reliable sources to back up your claim and then you can insert it into the article. Llammakey (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The ship's funnels were painted black to disguise its identity. (217.35.237.63 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC))

Legality

Was it even legal for passenger ships to carry munitions and explosives to be used on the Western Front? (217.35.237.63 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC))

It was actually a violation of the Geneva Convention. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:DDA5:7D80:4101:B8A2 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC))

Germans knew ship was carrying war munitions

The wireless towers, one in Tuckerton, NJ, and the other in Eilvese, Germany, which could transmit a message the full distance from the U.S. to Eilvese, directly without a relay, could have informed the Germans that the ship was carrying weapons. The Tuckerton station was owned and managed directly by the German government, and staffed by German civilians and military personnel. (5.81.223.50 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC))

You need reliable sources to insert anything along this line into the article. Otherwise we are dealing with speculation and WP:OR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

German U-Boats also attacked and sank neutral ships bearing humanitarian cargo to try to stave France and Britain into defeat (think Siege of Leningrad many years later and millions of deaths). Quis separabit? 15:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The siege of Leningrad is irrelevant as it was during World War II. Nazi Germany was very different from the German Empire. In both wars Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare was in direct response to the Royal Navy's blockade. (5.81.223.50 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC))

War munitions

The ship was actually carrying 2,500 tons of war material. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:4061:4E64:45B6:2C2 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC))

The Lusitania was armed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Royal Navy recovered her guns after the war. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:B006:861B:9EB1:6A83 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC))

Citation needed. - Denimadept (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

At the start of World War II Royal Navy salvage divers were sent to the Lusitania wreck to recover the gun tubes to see if they were in good enough shape to use. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:EDD2:358D:9890:2991 (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC))

Carrying gun tubes as cargo does not make her armed. Where did you see this? Britmax (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There are various articles online saying Lusitania was fitted with guns. Surely sending the ship to sea without guns when it was carrying war munitions would be criminal? (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:EDD2:358D:9890:2991 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC))

Reliable source articles? Perhaps you have a link to at least one? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, reliable sources would be helpful. Britmax (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I will look for more sources. The ship had its funnels painted black to disguise its identity and was flying false flags so I would not be surprised if it had been fitted with concealed deck guns in 1915. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:EDD2:358D:9890:2991 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC))

More than none, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was it really a passenger ship?

This source says the ship was built for the Royal Navy during wartime: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9366985/British-not-to-blame-for-rapid-sinking-and-loss-of-life-on-liner-RMS-Lusitania-find-underwater-researchers.html (86.160.141.197 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC))

She was built partly using a government grant as long as she could be converted into an armed cruiser if needed; as your source says, "built with the help of British government loan on condition it could be used by the Royal Navy during wartime". This does not make her a warship. Britmax (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Comparison with the Olympic class

There is currently a discussion regarding this section on the talk page of RMS Mauretania which can be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Germans did not violate the Cruiser Rules

They could not give warning as the British had already introduced Q-ships fitted with concealed guns. Merchant captains were ordered to open fire or try to ram submarines that surfaced. By 1915 passenger ships had been fitted with six-inch guns. (213.122.144.59 (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC))

We need citations for such things. Without citations, it doesn't exist. - Denimadept (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This question should be added to an existing section rather than being the start of a new one on this topic. Britmax (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that the Germans did not break any of the Cruiser Rules. When ships are fitted with guns and carrying munitions for the war effort they are clearly a legitimate target. The British were guilty of war crimes by allowing guns and ammunition to be transported on civilian ships. (213.122.144.102 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC))

"Germans did not break any of the Cruiser Rules" -- that's bullcrap. German U-Boats also attacked and sank neutral ships bearing humanitarian cargo to try to stave France and Britain into defeat (think Siege of Leningrad many years later and millions of deaths). Quis separabit? 15:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The Royal Navy had blockaded Germany in August 1914 to try to starve the civilian population into submission. Unrestricted submarine warfare was in response to the blockade. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:EDD2:358D:9890:2991 (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC))

The Royal Navy blockade was of a country (Germany) with a whole continent through-which it could import food and other supplies over land by road and rail. So Germany was in no way dependant on shipping for essential supplies such as food and fuel.

Britain OTOH, had to import all her supplies by ship.

The fact that Germany so antagonised her continental neighbours such that many of the latter preferred not to do business with her was no fault of either Britain or France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability is missing from first paragraph

Sorry. I don't have the interest in doing this myself, but the event that makes this ship so notable — its sinking — is missing from the first sentence. Thanks for your attention. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the lead. There is no need to shoehorn it into the first sentence: this is not a Hollywood film credits list. Britmax (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Improvements

External links

I hid all the excess "External links" and removed the tag. I didn't delete them as someone "may" want to integrate some of them into the article. Otr500 (talk)

Bibliography

I converted the "Bibliography" section to a subsection. The first item in the appendices is either a bibliography section (biography) or named "Works or publications", "Discography", or "Filmography" per MOS:BIB, so as a section is misplaced. Otr500 (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Lusitania was armed

Lusitania was fitted with deck guns in 1914. The guns were removed from the wreck by British divers at the beginning of World War II. (109.145.27.108 (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

Provide a reliable source for this and we'll find a place for it. Please note that "a never used mounting under the deck that would have been used to fit a gun had her conversion to an AMC been undertaken" is not "fitted with a gun". Britmax (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The actual gun tubes were removed in September 1939 so they could be used again. The Royal Navy also bombed the wreck to destroy evidence. (109.145.27.108 (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

Can't see your source yet. Britmax (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It was mentioned in a documentary. Even hospital ships were transporting war munitions for the Western Front. (109.145.27.108 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC))

Sorry, "I think I saw it on the telly" is not a source. Let us know when you have one. Britmax (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned as a hopeless dead-end tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory? Which "documentary" was that exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Why so aggressive Martin?

Why no mention of . . .

the 2011 dive/expedition by Bemis

and

the 2012 National Geographic documentary "Dark Secrets of the Lusitania" of that dive/expedition?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Duplicated content

The article header says that the article is about the ship, and points to a separate article for details of its sinking. Yet there’s a substantial, detailed, section on the sinking here, without a heading and before even describing construction. The material needs to be largely removed from this page and any additional detail merged into the separate article on the sinking. SLR Ellison (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Lusitania Class Ocean Liner link

It seems odd that there is no linking article on Wikipedia for 'Lusitania Class Ocean Liner', in the General Characteristics: Type field, both for the Lusitania and the Mauretania pages. The ships were both built to the same design plans and only had minor variations between them. The Olympic, Titanic and Britannic pages all have a common Olympic Class Ocean Liner linking article despite the alterations between those three ships being far more drastic than the two Cunard greyhounds. The same is true with other major contemporary liners such as the Imperator, Vaterland and Bismark all having a shared Imperator Class Ocean Liner page too. Conversely would use the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth as a good example of two sister ships that differed in design so much in that case both should indeed be considered entirely separate classes. Lusitania and Mauretania though are both definitely Lusitania Class Ocean Liners SomethingAboutShips (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)