Jump to content

Talk:RMS Lusitania

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 03:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The short answer is, from the 1908 Navy List publication states, on page 417, "NB, Vessels in receipt of Annual Subvention are permitted to fly the Blue Ensign as under warrant from the Admiralty" and lists only Mauretania and Lusitania. Effectively, it was the fact she was subsidised by the government to be held as a cruiser (even if they ultimately decided both ships were too large and fuel-hungry for that use) gave her the right, irrespective of the RNR Master qualifications applicable to other British-flagged ships. Tobin Dax (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a proper reference for that? Would be good to add to the article. Fangz (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I found it. Fangz (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]