Talk:Baralong incidents

message: The section The Incident, 19 August 1915 ends with the sentence
:The four were killed by the Liverpudlians.
However, nowhere in the article is Liverpool ever mentioned. This should be clarified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianLozano (talk • contribs) 13:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. When I read the article for the first time, I was sure this was vandalism. However, the "Liverpudlians" term is in the article since the first version. It is very confusing. HagenUK (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liverpudlians 

message: I am reading this article for the first time.  It seems to me the current first paragraph and last paragraph contradict one another.
third paragraph	twelfth paragraph
On August 19, 1915, about 100 miles south of Queenstown, Ireland, U-27, commanded by Kapitänleutnant Wegener, <large>stopped the British steamer Nicosian in accordance with the rules laid down by the London Treaty.</large> A boarding party of six from the U-27 discovered that Nicosian was carrying munitions and 250 American mules intended for the use of the British army in France.  They ordered the freighter's crew and passengers into lifeboats, which soon pulled away.  They were preparing to sink the freighter.	
It should be noted submarine crews on both sides were not treated well since they did not generally take prisoners of ships they sunk either, as there were no accommodations on board a submarine for this. <large>In Unrestricted submarine warfare</large> survival would depend on other ships being around to rescue, or on occasion, if it were possible, to get into lifeboats. Poor treatment of an enemy who used what was viewed as a more cruel weapon was common, for example, the soldiers who operated flame-throwers in WWI were many times not taken prisoner, but killed, to discourage the use of it.
So, if the Germans had fully complied with international law, how could this possibly justify the British justify breaking international law themselves?
I haven't read about this incident.  But I read a book on the Lusitania, which explained that Germany had fully complied with international law in early years of the war.  It quoted correspondence between Fisher, the First Sea Lord, and a high ranking German officer, where Fisher acknowledged Germany's compliance.  Surprisingly, these two officers, who had remained friends for decades, even as tensions rose between their nations, continued to engage in a warm, cordial, personal correspondence, even as their two nations slugged it out.  Fisher expressed admiration for his opposite number forbearance, for continuing to comply with international law, when he (Fisher) would have abandoned it much earlier.
In some of the articles I work on, I find contributors inserting paragraphs that start with similar wording to the twelth paragraph here.  Last night I excised a POV paragraph of editorializing that started with: *It should be born in mind..."  If a verifiable, authoritative, reliable source noted it, by all means cite that source. quote that source, paraphrase that source, with a reference.  But, IMO, without a reliable source this paragraph does not comply with the policy of neutrality, and the the policy of no original research.
FWIW vessels like the Lusitania were routinely covertly carrying munitions, making them legitimate targets.  The Lusitania sank quickly, and it is now generally acknowledged that it was carrying munitions, and was a legitimate target to be sunk on sight.  The Germans had published a specific warning to Lusitania passengers that they knew it was covertly carrying munitions, and was a legitimate target.
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "It should be noted"

message: The link to 'London Treaty' in the article goes to this disambiguation page, and it's not clear to me which of the various treaties of London it's referring to. Anyone got an idea?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf Davis (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Treaty 

message: Is it not problematic and POV to categorize this article as a "war crime"? Some have referred to it as a war crime, but no one was ever prosecuted for the incident and certainly no one was ever convicted of a crime with regards to it. The "war crimes" categories really should be reserved for incidents that have been held by courts and tribunals to have been war crimes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Leipzig War Crimes Trial mentions 45 names but lists only three cases related to naval warfare.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "War crime" categorization

message: The linked article implies that summary execution is being killed after being captured, rather than while unarmed or attempting to escape, etc. The latter being what I would call "shot out of hand". Is it the right phrase/wikilink for lede? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  summary execution phrasing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Baralong incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119155246/http://mii.connect.ie/journal/2006.pdf to http://www.mii.connect.ie/journal/2006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On 19 August 1915, U-24 sank the White Star Liner SS Arabic with the loss of 44 lives – this included three Americans and led to a diplomatic incident between Germany and the HMS Baralong had been about 20 mi (32 km) from the scene...
:Doesn't read. Valetude (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text missing?