Talk:RMS Lusitania
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 7, 2005, May 7, 2006, May 7, 2007, May 7, 2009, May 7, 2010, and May 7, 2011. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Conspiracy Theories"[edit]
The current section on "conspiracy theories" seems to contain evidence of these theories and I'm not sure why they are listed as "conspiracy theories" without counter evidence. 125.239.164.43 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, this is some really odd wording and I would go for something less aggressive. How about "Unanswered Questions" or "Open Debates" or something like this? I know this issue is still political today, but seriously, who benefits from presenting such a charged view of a historical event more than 100 years ago? 00:22, 25 April 2020 (CET).
- I changed the section to controversies, since the heading is an inaccurate description of the undeclared munitions, under Wikipedia's own definition of conspiracy of "an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable." The fact that there were undeclared munitions found is completely separate from whether there were sinister groups behind it. Sugaki (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The "Bombardment / destruction of the wreck" section lacks reasoning and proof. It's flat-out misinformation. Possibly it can be updated to "Rumored Bombardment / destruction of the wreck," and then reworded to be more objective and only include rock-solid sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsparks11 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Explosives?[edit]
This phrase in the lede " In 1982, the head of the Foreign Office's American department finally admitted that there is a large amount of ammunition in the wreck, some of which is highly dangerous and poses a safety risk to salvage teams.[1][2]" I checked the Guardian sources and it doesn't support the claim made, there was noted to be 5000 cases of small arms ammunition aboard but that has been known about since 1918 in the NY case. I'm loath to remove it as I don't have access to the second source. Anyone able to help? WCMemail 14:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC) WCMemail 14:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ The Guardian & 1 May 2014.
- ^ "Government papers released in 2014 confirmed the ship was carrying war material" Archived 24 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine, BBC History Magazine via History Extra; accessed 23 February 2017.
American flag Ruse de guerre Lusitania[edit]
The article Ruse de guerre says Lusitania flew an American flag without specifying when or giving a reference. The article RMS Lusitania makes no mention of American flags. These two articles need to be reconciled. Reports at the time were coloured by politics but modern assessments should be able to clarify it. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
9 Passenger Decks?[edit]
From what I can see, this is incorrect, what is the citation for this? Isz Chepewéssin (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Death toll numbers[edit]
Just noting there is a discussion about this on Talk:Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania#Actual death toll, again. We should try to adopt an uniform (and justified) pov on this throughout Wikipedia. Fangz (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Blue Ensign? Why?[edit]
Is there a good reason why the blue ensign is used in the ship infobox? As I understand it, the Titanic flew the Blue Ensign on account of Edward Smith (sea captain)'s rank in the Royal Navy Reserve. William Thomas Turner did not have such rank. As for the Lusitania herself, she was of course not flying any flags at the time of her sinking, and despite the potential for her as an auxillary cruiser she was a civilian ship. So why not a red ensign? Fangz (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2011)
- C-Class Germany articles
- Mid-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- C-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- C-Class Shipwreck articles
- Top-importance Shipwreck articles
- C-Class Scotland articles
- Mid-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages
- WikiProject Irish Maritime
- C-Class SCUBA articles
- Low-importance SCUBA articles
- WikiProject SCUBA articles
- C-Class British Empire articles
- Mid-importance British Empire articles
- All WikiProject British Empire pages