Talk:SMS Königsberg (1905)

Photos

Please click on the photo of the wreck to see remarks about the photo... Engr105th 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to the Wreck?

Is the wreck still there? Did it have to be removed piece by piece so that the river was navigable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Nkosi (talk • contribs) 03:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945, the wreck was dismantled in 1963-65. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am doubtful about Groeners information. I cannoz access his book - does he give sources? When working in Tanzania in the early 1990s I was told by people who had flown over the Rufiji delta few years ago that they could see the body from the small plane they were in. I remember some older travel guides mentioning the wreck being visible at low tide from a boat but no more in the 90ies. Besides I am more than doubtful that anybody had the technical means in the 1960s to get the body of a large ship out from the mud of a river bed in this up to now remote corner of Tanzania! Kipala (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Gröner's book is based on material from the German Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv, and updated in 1990 by a pair of editors. Do you have reliable sources that support this claim? If not, then we cannot add a conflicting report to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

City of Winchester

I feel pretty certain that the ship[ illustrated is a much later City of Winchester than the one on the narrative.

Roger French 3 March 2012

The City of Winchester was located lying in 30 metres just off the shore line of Hallaniyat Island (Kuria Muria group) in the 1980s. I had the opportunity to dive the wreck in the 1990s which had totally collapsed on itself leaving the triple expansion engine and boilers as the high point in the wreck. It is now considered a heritage site by the Oman government. Kevin Patience - Kuzama (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun photo

Picture Konigsbergcannon.jpg in media category is not from German ship, but from HMS Pegasus. There are two guns beside the fort gate in Mombasa, German is the left one. Kiselev_d (talk) 6:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

For future reference this isn't the right place to bring up your concern, as we here on Wikipedia don't have control of the content on Commons. But you're right, it's clearly not a 10.5 cm SK L/45 gun. I fixed the description of the page on Commons and have requested it be renamed. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Konigsberg wreck

The wreck of the Konigsberg was sold in 1923 to Captain John Ingles former Captain of HMS Pegasus for £200. Some time in the late 20s early 30s he sold it again. It was worked on until 1965 when what was left of the hull disappeared into the river bed. There is nothing to see on site other than broken pottery, bottles etc alongside the wreck site in the bushes. Having visited the site four times over the years I have carried out a detailed survey of the area looking for steel debris from the ship. However nothing was located. The collier SOMALI now enguled in mangrove has been cut up for scrap by locals living in the delta. Quite how much is left at present is unknown however an expedition hopes to visit the site before long.. Ref. Dar es Salaam Archival material and survey. Kuzama (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires that we use secondary sources to write our articles. Despite your experience surveying the wreck site, we can't use it directly here. Do you know of a secondary source we can use? Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

KONIGSBERG research.

Thank you for your comments on sources. It would appear that some of the sources for this article are in fact questionable.. Hoyt's book 'The Germans who never lost' when it appeared was considered by many in East Africa who had first hand knowledge of the Konigsberg and its history to be incorrect. I can state that the wreck was NOT removed or scrapped in 1963 as I have pictures taken in 1965 when the wreck was still visible. My corrections which I added are based on 40 years of research in German, UK and East African archives all of which are proven which resulted in a book 'Konigsberg - A German East African Raider' that was read and approved by the Looff family. Perhaps you might like to read the true version of events based on the Konigsberg crew diaries of which I have copies translated from the German or read a copy of my book.. Having lectured on and written up the ship's history for some time, I wondered if perhaps we might put our skills together and set the record straight once and for all. Kuzama (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, and I don't have a problem with replacing Hoyt with a better source, but the one problem is, I can't seem to find a copy of your book anywhere - it's not available on Amazon, and the only copy I can find in Worldcat is in a library in the UK - can't exactly get that through inter-library loan ;) If you want to make the necessary changes with page numbers from your book, I can help with the formatting and such. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/SMS Königsberg (1905) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Gendered Pronouns

I see that throughout the article, the vessel is referred to as "she" and "her". While I realise this is common in maritime culture, I'm not personally convinced it's appropriate encyclopaedic tone / style. So far as I was aware, it's almost always discouraged on Wikipedia with inanimate objects; I would have assumed this applied to ships as well, but was a bit surprised to learn that the Manual of Style allows an exception for military vessels and merchant ships. I suppose, after looking through comparable articles (where the non-gendered "it" seems to be slightly more favoured), I'm wondering whether other users think it's appropriate to import and use wording that's for the most part only used within naval / maritime culture itself. It seems to be a bit of a departure. I realise that this is something better put to the Village Pump, but I thought I would just see what others thought, since this page is likely to get a bit of traffic, and it was the first such article where I had seen gendered pronouns used for a ship. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You will not be surprised to learn that this subject has been oft discussed. In reality there is no consensus for a change from the present (neuter and feminine are acceptable, though articles must be internally consistent), to mandatory neuter, as some advocate. Recently discussed here (including talk page), here and here, and maybe other places. Davidships (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Davidships: Thank you for your prompt response! I was having a bit of trouble finding prior discussion on the matter, to be honest. That's exactly what I was looking for, as far as "taking the temperature" of other users and wondering whether there was even a rough consensus. It looks like as if this is one of those discussions that should probably be shelved until there's a decent influx of new blood on Wikipedia, and some time has passed, relative to the last time it was debated. My curiosity is satisfied.Quinto Simmaco (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of feminine pronouns to refer to ships and other means of transport is a long standing quirk of the English language. As an example I recently heard a female space shuttle pilot refer to the shuttle as 'she' on TV. I do not think Wikipedia has the right or power to change the English language. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A bit after the fact, but I'll respond. You've actually illustrated the point I was making, Martin, albeit unintentionally. It's not "a quirk of the English language", but rather a niche usage, that isn't prevalent in mainstream English. The usage of feminine pronouns for vessels is regularly (though not uniformly) used by those involved in maritime pursuits, and military and paramilitary organisations. Even in the latter case, while it might be common parlance, most official usage (in the form of internal documentation, for example) shows a preference for neuter pronouns. Usage in the general population seems to be mostly among maritime and military enthusiasts, who are emulating this linguistic peculiarity (effectively, an in-group usage within and/or on the periphery of a certain subculture). I would suspect this is why the Manual of Style makes an allowance for it, as these would be the people who would be regularly editing articles on such subjects.

It's a complete non-sequitur to say that Wikipedia doesn't have a "right" to make a self-determination as to their own usage, as the Manual of Style doesn't "dictate" or "change" the English language, as you inferred, Martin. It's meant to reinforce a more professional, neutral, global, and encyclopaedic style within Wikipedia. That's all. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I can only say that I think you are trying to solve a non-existent problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

...I never said that there was a "problem". Or that I wanted to solve anything. I would personally prefer neuter pronouns, because I think it looks a bit unprofessional and uncyclopaedic, as I said. To say it's an issue (not a problem) that is "non-existent" is also clearly false, as is evidenced by the numerous discussions about it. With all due respect, I'm starting to think you're just really married to the idea and are using non-sequiturs to defend it left and right: I see nothing but logical fallacies to dispute points I never raised, and responses to things I've never said. I know we're not supposed to comment on editors, but I honestly expected a bit more from someone with your number of edits. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I am just giving my opinion, as you are giving yours. It is unlikely that either will change the mind of the other so I will stop discussing the subject now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Quinto, sure, you never said the words "problem" or "solve", but the fact that you see a problem with the use of "she/her" and are trying to fix it is obviously implicit - anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension can figure that out, so why you bother trying to pretend otherwise is beyond me. In any event, Martin's initial point, essentially that Wikipedia's standard practice is to follow usage, not prescribe it, is rather a valid one.

But, to your original point about the use of feminine pronouns being obsolete, that is quite incorrect. While some major style guides recommend against using it, there are others that permit either feminine and neuter pronouns, and ships are still routinely referred to with she/her in a wide variety of places, regardless of specialty. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Though I might not have said so outright or implicitly, I'll be a bit more clear: I don't see any problem generally with the usage. Point of fact, as an anthropologist, I actually find such linguistic 'quirks' interesting, and even "charming", for lack of a better word. And certainly not obsolete. I'm not sure where you're getting that it "being obsolete" was "my original point", or seeing that in my original comment. I feels like there's a protest not to something I've said, or implied, but rather to something inferred. While I generally am not a fan of being ascribed a motive where there is none, or to holding to ideas that I don't have... I understand people could feel strongly about it given their interest in the subject matter, so I don't take really take offense. Especially given the recent hoopla with the Gamer Gate related articles (I think people are seeing nascent attempts at activism, or righting great wrongs here, though I could be mistaken. I assure you that there isn't any such intention, implicit or otherwise).

For clarity, my objection (and yes, it is an objection) is two-fold:

• (1) It's more or less quintessentially a niche usage, and that it thus fails the general litmus of common usage. As I said previously, it's essentially a sub-cultural usage, that's confined to use by those in maritime pursuits and military fields, and those with an interest in such subjects. An in-group, by association, and reinforced by a normative tradition of such usage. And that's fine. But that usage is mitigated, point of fact, by my second concern:
• (2) I don't think it's an appropriate tone / style for a general encyclopaedia. Were it, say, a book of naval history, I think it would be very appropriate. But, as I did state rather unequivocally, this is just my personal opinion. I've just honestly never seen such styling in comparable literature, nor do I see any other usage so singularly spelled out for any other subject in the Manual of Style- so I'd daresay that it constitutes a rather explicit departure from our general styling.

It might very well be that one singular exception that we'd choose to make, for one reason or another. And perhaps justifiably so, and not simply on the basis of personal preference(s). In my original comment, and my first reply, I stated that I wanted to "take the temperature" of the issue and see where others stand. Mission accomplished, both in the archived discussions provided, and now from two other users. So, thank you. But... I'd be hard-pressed to deny that I'm not ever-so-slightly annoyed in that I've had to spend so much time restating myself, ad nauseam, in response to apparent confirmation bias by those visiting my intentions. But acting in good faith, if you'd like me to clarify my reasoning a fourth time, or have any concerns based on what I said rather than 'unsaid', I'll happily do so. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)