Talk:Japanese battleship Kongō

"She was one of only three British-built battleships sunk by submarine attack during World War II."

Odd phrasing, since those were the only three battleships sunk by submarine during WW2, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.106.180 (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC Siemens Vickers Scandal revolving around Kongo
I've attempted to add a short section about documented corruption involving the attribution of the Kongo contract to Vickers and Mitsui. This addition has been removed twice. The second time I posted it I added citations and removed an 'apparently offending' link to another Wikipedia article.

Here's my attempted addition: Siemens-Vickers Scandal Main article: Siemens scandal In January 1914, a telegram leaked from Siemens' Tokyo office to Reuters along with further reporting by the New York Times and Asahi Shimbun led to an investigation by Japanese authorities which revealed a pattern of bribery and kickbacks by German and English armaments corporations. Siemens had been paying senior Japanese officials a secret 15% kickback, until Vickers had outbid them by offering 25%. Vickers had paid 210,000 yen to Admiral Fuji of the Imperial Japanese Navy procurement in 1911 and 1912, and 40,000 yen to Vice Admiral Kazu, related to obtaining the contract for building the Kongō. Kazu was court-martialed in May 1914, fined 400,000 yen and sentenced to 3 years in prison. As a result of the Siemens-Vickers Scandal revolving around the contracts of building the Kongo, the government of Prime Minister Yamamoto resigned March 23, 1914. Senior executives of the Mitsui corporation, Japanese partners of Vickers, also resigned [9][10]

How can I improve this contribution? What are (is) the issue? Should it be placed in a different section, or placed in the article about the 'Kongo Class of battlecruisers'?

A request for arbitration will be submitted if a consensus cannot be arrived at. Guerre1859 (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I first reverted your addition because of 2 issues: it was unsourced material; and the added heading included a link, violating MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS. Your subsequent re-addition of the material, resolving those issues, seemed pretty good me. I assume reverted your re-addition of the material under the assumption that it was simply a reverted revert. It was probably a mistaken quick action, is all. I made some copyedits to your fixed addition, formatted the citations, etc. It seems like a good addition to me.
 * Thank you for reaching out on my user page. In the future, before initiating RfC, open up a conversation on the article's talk page (WP:RFCBEFORE). It is possible there are very good reasons why editors make certain reversions or edits – such as, perhaps the issue had reached earlier consensus to be removed from the article (purely hypothetically speaking). Also, please remember to sign your edits at Talk pages by typing  at the end. Thank you. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 17:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying A request for arbitration will be submitted if a consensus cannot be arrived at. is like threatening to use a nuclear weapon if the person who keeps on parking too close to your car doesn't stop. Even if you do [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=edit&section=new&preload=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/preload&nosummary=yes&editintro=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header/Warning file an arbitration request] (read the notices carefully), they will throw it out as a content dispute, per WP:ARBGUIDE. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I assume that there is no RfC dispute now? Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no dispute with the content. But probably the person to ask is Cléééston, who unfortunately didn't leave a edit comment on their revert of the re-addition of the (now sourced and non-sectionlinked) material. But considering they have made a subsequent, different, non-reverting edit to the article... yeah, probably no RfC dispute. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 18:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the process of Wikipedia, I'm sorry if I breached the protocols/etiquette, no need for arbitration, and thanks for your understanding.
 * I'm busy teaching history at College, I contribute financially to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is a beneficiary in my will. These are my bonafides and qualifications.  Naturally the editors have no means of knowing these, but I'm just explaining them. Guerre1859 (talk) 14:38:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC) 18 May 2021
 * No worries. WP policies, standards, mores, and common practices are fairly obtuse to learn and know. I completely understand. However, if you take away anything, please remember to sign your Talk page comments with 4 tildes . Thanks! ;-) &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Don’t think you need more, but content looks like a good add to me. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Battleship or Battlecruiser?
Why does the article about the class define the ships as battlecruisers, while the specific articles about each ship define them as Battleship? Thanks, Utzli (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Because the ships of the class, as designed and originally built, were as battlecruisers. Each ship was subsequently overhauled and rebuilt as a battleship (1st sentence 2nd paragraph of each of the ship articles). &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 20:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * sbb, Thanks! Utzli (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As built, the turrets were limited to 25 degrees of elevation (see Naval Weapons of the World or Naval Weapons of World War I (Friedman) or Naval Weapons of World War II (Campbell). The maximum ballistic range with the 1,400 lbs Type 3 AP shell did not exceed 27,000 yds. During the first rebuilding, gun elevation was increased to 33 degrees, extending range with the Type 91 1,485 lbs AP shell to 33,000 yds. The range in the article is with the Type 91 AP shell at the gun elevation of 43 degrees, when the turrets were modified yet again in the second cycle of rebuilds.207.132.224.130 (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Kongo 1936.jpg

"Talk:Japanese battleship Kong?" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_battleship_Kong%3F&redirect=no Talk:Japanese battleship Kong?] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)