Talk:Channel Dash

Sources used for section "Norway hypothesis"

I have concerns about the sources used for the section titled "Norway hypothesis". These consist of:
* Martienssen, Anthony K. (1949). Hitler and his Admirals. New York: E. P. Dutton.
* Richards, Denis (1974) [1953]. "VI The Struggle at Sea: The First Battle of the Convoy Routes, the Anti-Shipping Offensive and the Escape of the 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau'" (used twice)
* Roskill, S. W. (1962) [1957]. The War at Sea 1939–1945: The Period of Balance. History of the Second World War United Kingdom Military Series. II (3rd impr. ed.). London: HMSO.
All of these are particularly dated sources, written in, respectively, 1949, 1953 and 1957. A lot of additional historical study has been done in the 60+ years since these books were written, and historians have also had the advantage of knowing the Enigma code-breaking side of the story since then to assist in their interpretation of events. These sources also pre-date Raeder's autobiography, written in 1960.

One more recent source, written in 2012, is Hellwinkel, Lars (2014 - that's the English language version date). Hitler's Gateway to the Atlantic: German Naval Bases in France 1940–1945 Seaforth Publishing. Here you find that the German Naval staff had come to the conclusion that Brest was untenable as a base for the 3 heavy ships. This coincided with Hitler's ambition to have his naval forces defending Norway. So the need to remove the ships from Brest was, according to this source, not totally Hitler's idea.

What other recent sources are there out there to help improve this part of the article?
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I like the new section and I hope that it "sticks" here. Before someone 'reverts' it, I hope this potential action is discussed on here on this Talk Page. In some respects, older sources that pre-date the reveal of Enigma are better for understanding the German decision making in this period.Seki1949 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the remark about the "new section" - it has been in the article in (broadly) this form since before July 2018 (the date I went back to for a side-by-side comparison). I would also point out WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:HISTRH. Particularly relevant when the questioned sources were written before Raeder's memoirs were published. Also Hellwinkel had access to a lot of records that no historian had looked at seriously before - his work is properly referenced.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

My mistake referring to the section as "New". As to the use of new vs old historical sources, opinions vary based on a number of editorial judgements. Seki1949 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look at what is cited to older sources you'll find that most of it is narrative of events. In the analysis the verdicts are chronological which can bring out changes due to the later analyses you mention (and crass regurgitations of the older sources). Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The point about Hellwinkel as a source is that this author has done a lot of work in German archives. This seems to have found material not accessed by others (on the basis that other writers have not mentioned it). That is why newer sources can be preferred – because they usually capture a broader spread of material, including information which has recently come to light. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Sadly not as often as we'd like. Newer publications can be new in a chronological sense and old in the sense of being unambitious commercial pot-boilers. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

"Hitler's Gateway to the Atlantic: German Naval Bases in France 1940-1945 Reporting from the Front: War Reporters during the Great War" the subtitle implies that the data comes from censored wartime sources, is this true? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where you get the Reporting from the front.... bit. Looks like some stray text from somewhere. Hellwinkel's book is an expansion of a PhD thesis on the Kriegsmarine base at Brest. The introduction explains the problems in finding sources for any subject on the Kriegsmarine, not least of which is the destruction of so much of their records in the bombing of Berlin. What Hellwinkel has done is take the few German records and accounts that are available and add to that the records of the French Navy dockyards, which were not destroyed. The key thing we learn from the whole book is the extent to which Germany relied on French workers to carry out essential work. That is everything from the fire brigades who put out fires caused by RAF raids, to the skilled dockyard workers who made and fitted Scharnhorst's troublesome superheater tubes to a standard "better than anything that the yards at Kiel and Wilhelmshaven could have been able to do at this time." (p. 63, quoting Kurt-Caesar Hoffmann) Whilst the Germans did import some workers with the necessary skills from Germany, they were in very short supply and the Atlantic coast bases would have ceased to function without French workers making up the very substantial gaps in the workforce. In addition to this central point of the book, there is a lot of material from German sources that we do not seem to see elsewhere (with the possible exception of Koop and Schmolke). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Order of battle

I note the infobox gives a brief list of total numbers of unit types involved in the episode, but that the article does not have an easy-to-find orbat for either side. I understand that the composition of the German convoy may have changed during the course of its transit, while the British forces were arrayed along the route of transit, but I am unclear on which units were involved overall, without having to read the full narrative. This is a rather long article (appropriately, as one would expect this for a significant episode); does anyone feel that it perhaps deserves a clearly-marked orbat section? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:3063:2CFA:2CBB:6B4C (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It won't do any harm but the data will be hard to find. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

How is linking to a fully referenced article OR

Looking at this edit[1], I wonder how linking to a fully referenced article can be considered OR if that article explains exactly the relevance of the link? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You decided that it was notable here not a RS. Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

(1) The issue of notability is dealt with by the existence of an article on the pilot of the aircraft that dropped the torpedo in question. If the pilot or his VC were not notable, there would be no article on him.
(2) Linking is actively encouraged in Wikipedia – see, for instance, MOS:LINK which starts with Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole.
(3) It is relatively easy to find sources on this torpedo attack that support the idea that the link is notable. For instance Garzke and Dulin put some detail on the raid by 4 Beauforts, saying that the aircraft that obtained the hit was shot down. (pg 143). General histories of WW2 cover this: Early in April the Gneisenau was hit by a Coastal Command torpedo bomber in Brest harbour (a daring attack for which the British pilot was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross). (Mawdsley, Evan. The War for the Seas: A Maritime History of World War II (p. 193).) Note that this is a source that covers all of naval warfare in WW2, yet within the confines of the space available, the noted WW2 historian takes the trouble to mention the VC. There are, of course, other references available on this point, not least in the article on Kenneth Campbell. There is a full account of the attack in Ralph Barker's Ship Busters. This also explains why Gneisenau was not protected by torpedo nets (again, something that is touched on in other sources).
(4) There is a relatively obvious question in the mind of the encyclopaedia user if there is no link: how did this torpedo attack get through?

Will you reinstate the link or shall I? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn't notice this edit. Keith-264 (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired, please have a look at WP:EASTEREGG. I can't say as Keith-264 did that this is OR, since I've only just looked at this edit, but it is certainly the kind of link we'd like to avoid. It's best to rework a sentence to add the link in this case, or to put the relevant article title in parentheses with a link if that's appropriate. -- asilvering (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I later added the full story of this raid. Guessing at the route by which you came here, the minimalist start to adding this material was an attempt to get some relevant material into the article without it being regarded as irrelevant by the predominant editor. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't looked into the broader dispute and don't have any comment on that as yet. Just wanted to point out the relevant guidance on linking. The revert may well have been done for the wrong reasons, but the reversion of the edit itself was appropriate. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

inadvertent plagiarism

I find the edit summary I can't plagiarise a source I don't have and working up is a common phrase in this context to be quite strange. The issue is whether or not the Wikipedia article plagiarises Hellwinkel's book. The article cites Hellwinkel, so it is clear that the sentence is based on his work.

Given that much of the problem sentence is the names of ships, there is not much else that we can rephrase so as to avoid excessive similarity to the cited source. When one editor has gone to the trouble to paraphrase the source, with an edit summary that explains what is going on, it is particularly unhelpful to have it reverted back to the original problem.

I have therefore reverted back to the paraphrased version.

I have also reinstated the separate paragraph for this part. This shorter paragraph content is a summary of the whole situation at this point in the bombing campaign. It is beyond belief that this was not crystal clear to the Kriegsmarine and to Hitler (though, of course, we do not need to say as much in the article.) It is not helpful to the reader to have this tagged onto an already long paragraph when it is much clearer on its own. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You really need to stop accusing me of plagiarism, keep your OR to yourself and stop leaving dangling sentences. Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal that you do not understand or choose not to understand. This is all about the article (not you personally) using the same words as appear in a cited source. Wikipedia editors are expected to use their own words. You have had pointed out to you that your copy edit of the original article text inadvertently changed the it to something that copied the source's precise words. I can only presume that it is just sheer obstinacy on your part that keeps you changing the article back to an unacceptable form. You admit that you do not have the source to hand. Therefore it would be wise to be guided by an editor who does have it available.

This sort of obstinacy does not appear to be unusual behaviour for you. Look at [2]. You appear to be completely unaware that the word is one that exists in the English language ([3]). Yes, it is a loan word, but in French its use is much more closely related to the verb, so is much more likely to refer to the break-up of ice on a river. You seem to reject the advice of another editor without hesitation – even though a bit of research would show that they are right.
Similarly, you have reverted another correction with this[4], so leaving a spelling error in the article. See [5] for the OED entry.
You also rebuffed an improvement of the lead by User:Thomas Blomberg with this edit[6]. Their version seemed better to me.
Overall this behaviour is unhelpful for the article. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism can't be inadvertent you fatuous ignoramus. Associate me with that term again and I will take steps to have you barred from editing. Keith-264 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that you would see sense in the cold light of dawn and remove the playground name-calling. If you choose to deliberately misunderstand the situation, that is entirely down to you. All I am trying to do is make sure that Wikipedia does not have text where an independent reader, armed with this article and the source in question, will not see a large similarity in word choice in describing this point. You admit that you have not read the source. Therefore a reasonable editor would take the advice of an editor who does have access to it.

I note that you have no reply to the other cases where you have altered the work of other editors to the detriment of the article. Just take a moment to consider what this looks like. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Judge and jury in your own cause? very poor but I grant you the last word. Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Tonnage question

Garzke and Dulin state the Gneisenau sank 22 ships totalling 115,622 tons and Scharnhorst sank 11 ships, of which one was 6,000 tons and seven totalled 27,277 tons. pp. 143, 158. Alternatively, Koop and Schmolke say that the two Scharnhorst class ships sank 22 ships totalling 115,622 tons, with Gneisenau's score 14 ships totalling 66,300 tons and Scharnhorst's 8 ships totalling 49,300 tons. (Yes, there appears to be some rounding error in there.) pp 51, 110. Neither of these conflicting sources assign this tonnage to Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Hipper.|date=October 2024}}

• This should be on the talk page for greater visibility and be signed. Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

debacle

I have altered this to the unaccented English word for the following reasons:

• The OED shows that this is an English word which is a loan-word from French. We have plenty of loan-words in English and these do not need to be referred back to the language from which they originate, as we have dictionary entries in English. Note that meanings may shift somewhat when a loan word is adopted.
• The wiktionary entry for debacle states "The older spelling with accents is no longer listed at all or only mentioned as an alternative in the online versions of most major British and American dictionaries."
• According to Wiktionary, the primary meaning of this word in English is "fiasco" whilst in French the primary meaning is a break-up of ice or some other natural dam. This fits with my understanding that the French noun is more closely related to the verb, which only refers to the "natural dam" meaning. There is no corresponding related verb in English, so allowing the meaning to shift to more commonly refer to a fiasco, rather than the geographical phenomenon.

ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your latest addition rather overdoes things, it needs to be pruned severely. Keith-264 (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly does User:Keith-264 think that readers are so ignorant as to need a dictionary link to understand a common English word? If you genuinely don't think people can understand a word without help, then use a better word. 87.242.222.53 (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)