Talk:Ernst Lindemann/Archive 1

Untitled
I am going mainly by Ludovic Kennedy's account. The external link given here is clearly a partly fictionalised account of the Battle of the Denmark Strait, it gets the names of some of the ships wrong, and I am sceptical of whether we have such a detailed account of what happened on the bridge of Bismarck, we cannot treat it as a reliable source. There are reports of a serious row between Lindemann and Lutjens after the sinking of Hood (which Kennedy is sceptical about) but not before. Lutjens may have made mistakes but he was not a complete fool. PatGallacher (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Marine Hitler.jpg
The image Image:Marine Hitler.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Excellent work on this article. I made a few edits for typos and the like, but nothing major. One thing that struck me was that you use the current names for the Baltic islands assaulted during Operation Albion (with the contemporary names in parentheses) but you use Gotenhafen (now Gdynia). These should be parallel (I prefer always using the contemporary names, but it's up to you). Also, you have Blohm & Voß - I don't know that the company ever used the eszett (see for instance this photo from 1877). The only major content issue I would suggest is a somewhat more thorough account of the chase between the sinking of Hood and the destruction of Bismarck - right now, the article jumps from the sinking of Hood to Lindemann possibly having been killed by a shell hit on Bismarck's bridge. There are also some uncited sentences, which will need to be addressed for GA-class and higher. Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I appreciate this. Missing in the article at this point is Lindemann's involvement in the Spanish Civil War and as you rightly mentioned event between 24 May and his death on 27 May. I also want to add something about Hitler visiting Bismarck in early May 1941. According to Grützner Lindemann was convinced that the USA would eventually enter the war while Hitler expressed that the US would not. I am also unsure how to best add the dispute between Lütjens and Lindemann, the two were of different opinions on a couple of occasions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one other thing I just noticed, it jumps from him being head of the construction department and being promoted to KzS in 1938 to being the commander of the Naval Artillery School. When was he assigned to this post? Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ♠"task force's first major engagement" I'm not clear two heavies qualifies as a "task force". What was the German term, if there was one used?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ♠"ear-witness" I've come across it, but it's always struck me as an affectation.
 * ♠"sea of German" I don't see it. It's about a German sailor in a German force; what would you expect?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are fairly old criticisms, most issues have been addressed since then. MisterBee has retired and asked me to look after issues that come up. Unfortunately I don't have his sources, but the term I have seen used is Sondereinheit, lit. special unit. I agree that Task Force implies a larger undertaking, but I can't think of any other English term that means "two ships under the command of an admiral." Can you? Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC) I would also point out that the original plan was to involve four battleships and battlecruisers, which would definitely be a "force." Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Where was Prinz Eugen when Bismarck was sunk?


 * On the evening of 24 May, Admiral Lutjens aboard Bismark ordered Prinz Eugen to alter course to the southward to escape the British cruisers, while Bismark kept them at bay. She was ordered to continue the original task of sinking merchant ships in the Central Atlantic. Rumiton (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

duplication
There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck, the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both the Bismarck and Ernst Lindemann articles went through a number of reviews including FAC. I wonder if a talk page inquiry is sufficient to make a major change to the article as proposed here. Until the process question is addressed I am not supportive. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the duplication as a problem. These are stand-alone articles, not chapters from a book. As they are, they allow a reader interested in the construction of Bismark, or in HMS Hood, or the sinkings, or in the main characters involved, to get a good sense of what happened without jumping to other articles. Rumiton (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The precise point of wiki-linking is to make it easy to jump back and forth between related articles, so that we don't have to duplicate material extensively. Its especially useful in cases like this, where multiple articles address multiple aspects of a common issue, and extensive duplication would be unavoidable without the wiki-link facility. Please see discussion at . Wdford (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have commented there. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed a problem
Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen—under the command of Admiral Günther Lütjens- gives the impression that Lütjens was in command of the Prinz Eugen, when in fact he commanded the entire task force. I will think of how to best remedy this, if no on else does. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen—under the task force command of Admiral Günther Lütjens- okay MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How about Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen formed a task force which was commanded by...? Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * sounds good MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article
1) "evangelisch" in German is not the same as Evangelism in English. Lindemann was most likely baptised into the Church of the Prussian Union, or more generally speaking into the Protestant Church.

2) "German Navy" is the proper English name of the naval force of the Federal Republic of Germany and has been for the past 20 years. Imprecise and misleading terminology should have no place in an encyclopedia.

3) There is no mention of any of this on the FAC review pages. Nor seems there to be a preference for English over German terms in the article, rather there seems to be no systematic approach to this at all.

4) The article was reviewed three years ago. I am half-minded to nominate it for de-listing, as it is largely based on a single source which misses RS-requirements by a mile. It even gives a Wikipedia-clon as reference. I will have to think about it over the summer. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed article cleanup
Although FA (as of 2011), it appears that this article could stand a copy edit to remove excessive detail, overlinking, piping, et. I've done two edits to remove excessive intricate detail: one and two (please see edit summaries for rationale). My initial impression is that the article appears to have a readability problem due to too much information being presented.

Would there be any objections to proceeding further? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)