This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.
It is the preexisting ideological bias I am correcting. Alleged is not a valid acceptable form of proof. It is conjecture and speculation. The purpose of the passage I edited is to strongly suggest there was racial bias or prejudice involved. However, there is not one shred of actual evidence presented in the passage to suggest racial bias.
Somehow I don't believe that. An actual historian would understand that history is simply a set of arguments - you do nothing to advance your cause by trying to pretend the other side does not exist. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prinz Eugen
I would love the chance to correspond with you regarding the Prinz Eugen. I grew up on Kwajalein island and have dived on the wreck many times (fantastic dive site). I'm also an eager student of German naval history (and therefore love Gröner's work), I've tried to change the date of the propeller removal to 1978 (as I was a witness to the removal) and had it reverted back. From my interpretation of Gröner, he states that the installation was made in Germany in 1979, which would make sense as it was removed in 1978, stayed on our dock for a few weeks, then was shipped to Germany and installed the following summer. I have stories from our local paper dated from 1978 that I can post to the article (pictures of the removal as well). I just don't want to make the changes just to see another reversion. Would you care to discuss this in more depth? Choppes (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than a little jealous of you ;) I doubt I'll ever have the opportunity to dive a wreck like Prinz Eugen. If you can post the details from the newspaper, along with info for the citation, I'd be happy to help with formatting, or if you just want to post it here, I'll make the change. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graf Spee
Thank you for your comments: but I do not know how to Ref a fact that I know only from photos:
Seaplanes
30th May 2007, 10:45
On its sortie to the South Atlantic in the autumn of 1939, the "Admiral Graf Spee" carried only one aircraft which also was the normal equipment for this cruiser. This was Ar 196A-1 W.Nr. 0014 (code not known) of Bordfliegerstaffel 1./196. The aircraft was destroyed during the battle with British naval forces off Montevideo on 13.12.1939. During this action, the pilot, Uffz. Bongards, was killed. The "Admiral Graf Spee" was scuttled in the River Plate estuary on 17.12.1939, and the remaining crew interned. The observer of W.Nr. 0014, Oblt.z.See Detlef Spiering, was interned in Argentina but returned to Germany on 05.06.1940.
The unit code of 1./196 was T3+-H. The code L2+X-- was used by the 10.(See)/Lehrgeschwader 2 which was a kind of test unit equipped with a variety of seaplanes.
If this is true. the photos show it was impossible that the seaplane was discarded overboard before the Battle, whatever the reference claims.
@Parsecboy: If you have the time, would you mind looking at the recent edits to the Mahan-class destroyer (about fictional ships) to see whether or not, in your view, these additions are appropriate for this article. And at the method used for recording citations to see whether they are consistent with those used in the article. Thank you. Pendright (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and cut it - the book isn't all that significant (nor is the upcoming movie - I often wonder if these sorts of additions are part if a viral marketing campaign). There are some cases where fictional depictions make sense (like with Yamato), but the run of the mill "it was in book X" sort of additions don't pass muster. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made the correct call- thanks for doing the heavy lifting. Hopefully, all is well in your real life. Best wishes - Pendright (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the German Navy's official document RM 20/1913, the belt thickness of Scharnhorst-class battleship is actually 320mm, not 350mm. Please approve my edits. Schlachtschiff Bismarck (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, primary sources are not acceptable. We're writing an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source that should be quarried more or less exclusively from secondary sources. Parsecboy (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a long time, the belt armor thickness of the Scharnhorst-class battleships in many secondary sources was incorrect. It is necessary to use primary sources to solve this problem. I don't want anyone to be misled.
Do you have the page number for Whitley? And what year of the book are you looking at? There are multiple editions and pagination may vary. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
