Talk:German battleship Bismarck/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Scuttling is not an empirical absolute;

There is no after the fact empirical evidence to support scuttling. There is anecdotal testimony by surviving crew, a lot of which is hearsay. The ship is too deep in the mud to ascertain for sure whether scuttling happened AND sunk the ship or torpedoes breeched the hull or some combination of both. It lacks empirical integrity to say it was definitely scuttled as it also is not empirically proven the torpedoes definitely sunk the ship. If you are going to show empirical or scientific integrity you must state the known knowns AND the known unknowns. The "talk" here has become poisoned with fanboy mystique and emotions, but what facts are clear and what facts are unclear is very clear. There are credible reports of scuttling, but no empirical proof. There are very credible reports of the derelict ship being torpedoed, but no empirical proof that caused Bismarck to sink. Why is this level of scientific inquiry and empirical integrity so difficult for to accept? I can accept there reasonable probabilities that the ship was scuttled, but there are just as reasonable probabilities for the scuttling either not being executed, or ineffectual. I also accept the reasonable probabilities that it was the torpedoes that did the coup de grace. I applaud the apparent consensus that scuttling was functionally moot to Bismarck sinking, and that gets to be repeated as forcefully as the subject of scuttling. Some, including Ballard, are quoted as saying even if scuttling did happen it would have only added minutes to the time Bismarck would have stayed afloat. Rational decency and scholastic integrity dictate that until we know for sure, we must state we don't know for sure. Bismarck sank because of the battle damage. Scuttling, if it was done, was done only because of the mortal damage. The mortal damage is empirically verified. Neither the scuttling nor the effect of the final torpedo hits are empirically verified. TheRealForrest (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The first order of business is for you to provide a consensus of historians who agree with you. But they don’t, so as I told you on your talk page, you are wasting your time here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The consensus of scholastically vetted, peer-reviewed historians is that we cannot know for sure at this point without more empirical evidence. Even historians, in order to be peer reviewed, must use guidelines of empirical evidence. "It seems that" is just that: seems. TheRealForrest (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Your pronouncements aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on (nor are mine, to be clear); provide sources or stop wasting your time. It really is that simple. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Page 20 of Cameron's Forensic analysis: "There were hundreds of hits ... The devastation of caused by the shellfire combined with effects of several torpedo hits to overwhelm and defeat the Bismarck, causing the ship to begin sinking due to uncontrollable progressive flooding. The German crew sped the inevitable demise of their ship by initiating scuttling measures." The ship WAS already sinking, scuttling did NOT cause her demise, it merely hastened it. TheRealForrest (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed; now tell me where in the article we contradict that. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You contradict it repeatedly by definitively and without appropriate and empirically warranted qualification saying Bismarck was sunk by scuttling. Bismarck was sunk by gunfire and torpedoes and MAY have had its sinking accelerated by scuttling. I can agree that the preponderance of testimony by survivors provides convincing, but not absolute, evidence that scuttling occurred. But did it cause Bismarck's sinking? Absolutely not. TheRealForrest (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think there is no empirical evidence for scuttling, I suggest you go and re-read Ballard's findings. Again, you are wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon ami. All of Ballard's support for scuttling is based on testimony, and some of that testimony is hearsay. In repeated trips to Bismarck's wreck, there has been no discernable physical evidence of scuttling. In a court of law, and in intellectual debate, that is not enough for a firm conclusion. It contributes to conjecture and increases the probability of a thing happening, but there are no pictures and no observations by third parties corroborating the scuttling. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

And we've reached the part of the show where you make clear that you haven't even read this article, let alone Ballard himself. If this is the level of discussion we're having, why are we wasting our time? Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You have failed so far, in your illicit ad-hominem attack, to list where any historians of scholastic and/or institutional rank have stated that scuttling definitely sank the Bismarck. You have a lot of significant witness testimony, some of which is hearsay, yes, but no physical evidence. Even Ballard says while he is inclined to believe it is scuttled, he cannot be sure and the evidence is hidden. TheRealForrest (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Read the archives, as I have already told you, there is extensive discussion of the relevant sources. More or less only Mearns (and even he has softened his position on this) has argued that the scuttling either didn't happen or was irrelevant. You are badly mischaracterizing Ballard's position. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Instead of trying to arrogantly state other people's mindsets, YOU ought to re-read the archives with a proper scholastic attitude of empiricism and not a fan-boy mentality of "She was too great a ship to sink without being scuttled". TheRealForrest (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is it always the person who complains about ad hominems who immediately starts insulting the other person? If you have nothing but insults, then I suggest you move along before you're banned. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You get what you started. In wiping the mud off my face you threw at me, some of it will inevitably splash back on you. TheRealForrest (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't insulted you once. That you don't take kindly to having your position rejected is not my problem. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"you are wasting your time here"

"Your pronouncements aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on"

"If you do not stop edit-warring at the above article, you will be blocked ... if you still think you have something new to add, start a discussion there. But you won't, because there isn't anything new to add."

"I strongly doubt you have read all of the discussions...nothing you say will cause any of this to change... You are wasting your time with this; find something more productive to do."

All of that is insulting. You could have taken the time to be more gracious and civil to begin with and we could have avoided a lot of emotional BS. TheRealForrest (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that you have nothing new to add to a discussion that's been going on for a decade and a half is not an insult, but a statement of fact. We've heard all of this before. Pointing out that continuing to edit-war will get you blocked is also a simple statement of fact. Read the policy on edit-warring. That me pointing out that neither of our opinions matter (interesting that you omitted the fact that I included myself in that statement - again, how convenient for you) is merely a reflection that Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not what you think is true. And exactly what evidence do I have that you have read through the literally tens of thousands of words that have been scrawled on this very topic for the last 17 years? You repeat some of the same tired arguments, and seemingly have no knowledge of the number of sources we have consulted over the years. That literally any of this bothered you is, again, your problem alone. If you feel yourself to be too emotional to respond to simple statements, then go cool off. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Your denial is palpable. I will gladly buy you a beverage of your choice (just one, I'm not rich, and please keep it under $20) at the drinking establishment of your choice to get you off your horse. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

And in hindsight, I will apologize if my comments concerning "fan-boys" was insulting to you. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Man, I just love when someone "apologizes" for an insult a breath after another insult. Amazing. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Again again from Cameron, page 32: "The inevitable sinking process was accelerated [emphasis added - note it does NOT say 'caused'] by the detonation of scuttling charges by Germans. (This is our conviction ... Certainly, Bismarck would have sunk even if not scuttled by her crew.)" Conviction is a very critical word choice. It is not 'conclusion'. Cameron was swayed, understandably, by testimony of survivors (as indeed I am too), and STILL Cameron does NOT go all in by 'concluding' Bismarck was even definitely scuttled AND that the presumed scuttling had material causual impact on Bismarck's sinking. SO again, saying the sinking was caused by scuttling is NOT empirically accurate. TheRealForrest (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I will go to a library 45 miles from me and read the Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History by William H. Garzke, Robert O. Dulin , et al. While I assume I may be wrong, I presume the empirical facts and intellectual discussions in that book will agree with my premise: Bismarck was not sunk by scuttling. She was sunk by gunfire and torpedoes and scuttling only slightly accelerated that. It is empirically disingenuous to state Bismarck was sunk by scuttling. Graf Spee most certainly was, but Bismarck was not. TheRealForrest (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me save you the trip: in their foreword, they state "Using the principles of marine forensics analysis, the authors have finally solved some of the major questions, such as 'Who sank the Bismarck, British or Germans?' It is worth noting that the answer to this question is 'Both!'". You are wrong, accept it and move on. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, maybe. But really not. I read that too. It is too vague and lacks the forensic specificity of what Cameron says. It is clearly an opinion. I get to see what their list of facts are for that. And with all due respect, you show partiality that I do not find empirically trustworthy.

BUT, if that is THE MOST definitive "proof" you have for 'scuttling sunk the Bismarck', it FAILS for your purpose. You are attempting to state that scuttling was the only immediate cause of Bismarck's sinking. Even by this, what I presume is your most beneficial source, that exclusive cause of yours has its exclusivity blown out of the water. TheRealForrest (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so Cameron's judgement is empirical fact but Garzke's & Dulin's are "just opinions"? How convenient.

That's not what anyone here is claiming. Have you actually read this article? Or are you tilting at windmills? Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

1.The reference you provide from G & D is opinion. I don't have access to the rest of the 683 page text to see their empirical context.

2. Cameron et al's is more contextually empirical and I can look at it (again - I read it way back then too) in full right now .

3. False, you DO claim it. You list the sinking as exclusively caused by the scuttling, numerous times, and in the "table brief" for Bismarck's fate. Bismarck's fate ought to be listed as "Sunk due to gunfire and torpedoes possibly [probably might be acceptable] slightly accelerated by scuttling." Every single edit of mine (not just the qualifying of the scuttling) that mentioned the sinking that was already occurring due to progressive flooding - caused by gunfire and torpedoes - you have removed. It gets to be fixed.

4. Just because a stipulation has been "accepted" somewhere for 17 years is not a reason to ignore the falsity of that stipulation. It was "accepted" for well on 40 years that scuttling was not a factor at all. I can accept that scuttling procedures were executed, but not that it was the sole, or primary cause of Bismarck's sinking. Your time of acceptance rationale is not a valid argument for maintaining an incorrect stipulation. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You do know that Garzke & Dulin were among the authors of the Cameron paper, right? And you are aware that the report includes the line "The German crew sped the inevitable demise of their ship by initiating scuttling measures". Where, exactly, is there literally any support for your contention that the scuttling didn't happen, or that it was immaterial to the fate of the ship?

And no, neither is "more contextually empirical"; you are cherry-picking, plain and simple.

No, your suggesting wording takes Mearns' position, which is more or less out on a limb by itself. It does not reflect the scholarly consensus on the matter. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I did know that, which makes the references I reverenced from Cameron et al to be even more pertinent and so yes maybe I don't need to read that book too. You are now seeming to scuttle your own boat. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it is indeed probable that scuttling charges were detonated, but empirical evidence is lacking. Please let's focus here.

1. Bismarck's fate ought to be listed as "Sunk due to gunfire and torpedoes possibly [probably might be acceptable] slightly accelerated by scuttling."
2. The rest of the article gets to have most of my edits restored that reference the primacy of gunfire and torpedoes for Bismarck's sinking. Existing references and footnotes already support that.
3. Scuttling gets to be listed as a probable event based on testimony of survivors, but that empirical evidence is not obtainable due to position and condition of the wreck.

TheRealForrest (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"inevitably sped the demise" NOT caused the demise. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

AND on page 50 of Cameron et. al. "Scuttling of Bismarck to speed an inevitable sinking was likely and emminently probable". Likely and probable, not definite nor absolutely. Speed an inevitable sinking not cause the sinking. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The last page (53) of Cameron et al has some very pertinent statements regarding the limitations of empirical evidence that are wise and ought to be appropriately humbling to anyone trying to say how a thing certainly happened. The context and the spirit of these statements are inappropriately ignored in this Wikipedia article on the Bismarck in a way the detracts from the scholastic integrity of this article and unfortunately reinforces the public perception that Wikipedia is an intellectually invalid source. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You are a riot, aren't you? Garzke & Dulin can't be trusted because their statements in their book (which you haven't read) are just opinions. But their statements in the Cameron et. al. piece are empirical evidence. Except when they plainly speculate with language like "eminently probable". To be clear, I'm not questioning their judgement on whether Bismarck would have eventually foundered, I'm just pointing out your hypocritical argumentation. Garzke & Dulin are unreliable, except when they agree with you. Do you really think you're fooling anyone with this?

I find it interesting that you point to statements like those of Cameron et. al. to cast doubt on the position taken in this article, and ignore the rather obvious fact that they implicate your position just as much (if not moreso!) Yet more tendentious argumentation here. I think I'm done wasting my time entertaining this nonsense. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

you don't know what the consensus is, since no poll has ever been taken HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

indeed. He is engaging in semantic virtue spewing to defend his war editing. TheRealForrest (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems we must request a dispute resolution through the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution noticeboard. I do not see where Parsecboy is engaging in honest debate that shows sincere desire for empirical consensus. TheRealForrest (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The scuttling procedure was allegedly carried out, but could not have had any significant effect by the time Bismarck sank about twenty minutes later. The procedure involved placing charges on the engine-room seawater coolant pipe, and the propshaft seals, and was intended to sink the ship in a controlled manner over a period of some hours to ensure that the crew had time to escape. Not twenty minutes. People tend to misunderstand this because of the Graf Spee, which was scuttled by a special one-off procedure that took a whole day to organise, the crew distributing all the ship's remaining ammunition around the hull and wiring it up to detonators and timers, which blew the bottom out and sank the ship immediately. The ship had sailed with only a small skeleton crew who took to the boats once the timers were set. That's not what happened to Bismarck. Bismarck was sunk by Royal Navy gunfire, and no other scenario is even physically possible. (And advocates of the scuttling theory have shown no knowledge whatever of the actual scuttling procedure.) The article is also wrong to claim that all Rodney's torpedoes missed, since there is an extant torpedo hole in the wreck too big to have been made by any British torpedo except the special 24.5-inch models carried by Nelson and Rodney. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent comment. Parsecboy IS ENGAGING in war editing to promote his view of personal preference which is not supported by the references he lists. TheRealForrest (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you do indeed know my personal views on the matter. As for references I've cited, I don't think we can take the word of Mr. "I don't need to read that book" to understand what they do and don't say. Moreover, have you cited any sources beyond the Cameron paper? Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

everything you said and cited from that book, as also quoted by Cameron, specifically refutes your war editing defended language. I have detailed this in this discussion already. If what YOU, Parsecboy, say about the book supports my position, why do I even need to read it to correct the false language on this Wikipedia page? TheRealForrest (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You are not a native English speaker, are you? I suspect that may be part of your problem here. Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I guess those of us here in America don't speak English. Concurrent to your conclusions that I don't speak English, I am forced to realize you have no idea what the concept of empiricism means. For whatever reason you want to believe Bismarck only sunk due to scuttling and you are engaging in war editing to promulgate your personal faith in this hypothesis. That's great for church, but this is supposed to be an arena of intellectual discussion and empirical science. TheRealForrest (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Phrases like "war editing to promulgate your personal faith in this hypothesis" are word salad; either you aren't a native speaker or you're using words you don't fully understand. Either way, it's difficult to parse what you say. Combined with the fact that your arguments don't reflect the reality of the article, again, either you aren't a native speaker, or you have not read this article very closely.

In any event, please quote the article where it states that "Bismarck only sunk due to scuttling". Until then, I'll expect you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Word salad", eh? English is apparently a challenge for you as well. There is no scientific article saying the Bismarck only sunk by scuttling which is why this Wikipedia article on the Bismarck as you have been forcefully editing is incorrect. And the horse that is dead is your insistence that the Bismarck only sunk due to scuttling. TheRealForrest (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it sounds like you fed your sentence through an online translator or a thesaurus - it's not how a native speaker would phrase something.

Again, quote me the passage in this article that supposedly says Bismarck was sunk by scuttling alone. You are wasting both of our time until you do. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated and offered neutral language on the subject which you blithely undo. That ought to clue you in to your falsehoods. You are constantly engaging in ad hominem attacks as justification for your bad behavior. Telling me that I'm doing word salad just because you can't understand a more scholastic/empirical use of English (or you just refuse to acknowledge a valid point) is just one example of this. If you really want to prove you are open, accept my edits and then suggest changes to me. Just undo-ing what you don't like (and then paradoxically accusing others of war editing) is the very definition of inappropriate war-editing. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you haven't; please read WP:BRD. The onus is on you to justify the changes you want to make, which you have thus far failed to do. You have cited (and misrepresented) one source; as you will see if you look through the archives of this talk page, there are many that do not agree with your position. Again, the onus is on you to support your position.

Word to the wise: the phrase is "edit-war", not "war edit" - see WP:EW. This is just one example of what makes me suspect you aren't a native English speaker. "War edit" makes little sense in English. It is not an ad hominem attack to point out your non-fluent language use, merely an observation (and perhaps an explanation as to why you seem to be arguing against strawmen - in other words, you seem to be arguing against claims that this article doesn't make, which could be easily explained if you are misinterpreting the article based on a language barrier issue). But since you insist you are a native speaker, I ask again, where in this article does it state that the ship sank only due to scuttling? Your refusal to answer this very simple question is why I think you aren't discussing this in good faith. If you were, it would be very easy for you to point to a passage that says "Bismarck only sank because the Germans scuttled her, and the Brits are just being whiny". Since you can't do that, you obfuscate and pettifog. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have repeatedly given you point by point justification for my edits which you flippantly dismiss with ad hominem attacks, if you acknowledge them at all. I have had others more scholastically credentialed friends of mine look at this and they all emphatically agree with me while pointing to your behavior as why they refuse to have anything to do with Wikipedia. I am sorry you are unable to grasp the nuances of what I say. Maybe use an AI to translate what I'm saying into language you can understand? TheRealForrest (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, your imaginary friends have all looked at the article and they agree with you. What a load of nonsense.

Since you refuse to provide quotes, let me quote the article at you:

"Some near misses alongside the port side, and the fact that the ship was no longer able to fight back, caused Oels to decide at around 09:30 to scuttle Bismarck[147][148] to prevent the ship being boarded by the British, and to allow the crew to abandon ship so as to reduce casualties.[149] Bismarck was also slowly sinking due to an increasing list that allowed water to enter the ship via damage to the main deck,[150] although the ship's very large metacentric height kept her afloat.[151]" - in other words, the article states (and has for probably a decade by now) that Bismarck was already sinking when the scuttle order was given.

"The Cameron report stated that "The devastation caused by the shellfire combined with the effects of several torpedo hits to overwhelm and defeat the Bismarck, causing the ship to begin sinking due to uncontrollable progressive flooding. The German crew sped the inevitable demise of their ship by initiating scuttling measures."[186] It suggests the torpedoes may have increased the subsequent extensive damage to the ship when it hit the ocean floor. [187] In some cases the torpedo blasts had failed to shatter the torpedo bulkheads.[180] and some hits claimed may have been torpedoes that exploded prematurely due to the heavy seas.[188] However the locations of other hits were buried in mud or were impossible to distinguish due to the extent of overall damage to the ship.[187] Overall the report disputed Mearns' claim that scuttling was irrelevant to the timing of the sinking.[181]" - direct quote from Cameron et. al. that state that the ship was already sinking, but the scuttling sped the process up.

"Despite their sometimes differing viewpoints, these experts generally agree that Bismarck would have eventually foundered if the Germans had not scuttled her first. Ballard estimated that Bismarck could still have floated for at least a day when the British vessels ceased fire and could have been captured by the Royal Navy, a position supported by Ludovic Kennedy (who was serving on the destroyer HMS Tartar at the time). Kennedy stated, "That she would have foundered eventually there can be little doubt; but the scuttling ensured that it was sooner rather than later."[178] The Cameron expedition's report asserts "Bismarck unquestionably would have sunk due to progressive flooding hours after the battle ended".[149] In Mearns' subsequent book Hood and Bismarck, he conceded that scuttling "may have hastened the inevitable, but only by a matter of minutes."[180]" - report on the general consensus that, as already stated by the article and in Cameron's quote, Bismarck would sink as a result of the damage inflicted by the RN, but the scuttling accelerated the process.

And of course the article concludes with Ballard's simple assessment: ""As far as I was concerned, the British had sunk the ship regardless of who delivered the final blow."[189]" - I don't know how much more clear-cut we can be.

All of this leads me to ask: have you even read the article? Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is also wrong to claim that all Rodney's torpedoes missed is a good example of why this discussion is going so badly. The article doesn’t actually state that no hits happened, just that none were observed, which is uncontroversial. The Rodney article discusses this in a bit more detail. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

excellent point. Parsecboy seems to engage in specious ad hominem attacks in his crusade like exercise in war editing . TheRealForrest (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense, Orange’s comment was to refute Khamba’s point, which is not reflective of reality. Neither one of you is participating in good faith here. Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; the fact that my comment was so bizarrely mis-interpreted stretches my usual WP:AGF to its limits. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Facts that are controversial are being stated here as incontrovertible, which is my big beef. It is not proper to state definitively that none of Rodney's torpedoes hit, when there is enough evidence to suggest, though not empirically conclude, that one may have indeed hit Bismarck. This is similar to scuttling question: there is enough evidence to suggest it happened, but none to empirically conclude it definitely happened, much less that it was the only cause of Bismarck sinking. TheRealForrest (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not have a personal opinion on this topic. But I see repeated statements like It is not proper to state definitively that none of Rodney's torpedoes hit. Nobody is stating that in the article! The statement is that no hits were observed, which is very different. My comments here are less about the article, and more about the conduct that is going on here, and that conduct has clearly derailed this discussion beyond hope. As a previously uninvolved outsider, I'm going to disengage now, with the comment that you may want to step back for a bit, concentrate on refining your argument, and come back when the various concerns here related to WP:V have been addressed. I'm confident that other uninvolved editors would give you similar advice. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for misinterpreting your comment. I appear to have hit a brickwall with Parsecboy's war editing and personal faith in scuttling being the exclusive reason for Bismarck's sinking, even when showing how his own sources for supporting this disagree with him. I would love to see the language here at least mention there is some evidence to suggest one of Rodney's torpedo's hit, but I fear any editing I or you make on the matter will quickly be war-edited out by Parsecboy. TheRealForrest (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"curprev 18:27, 11 July 2023‎ Parsecboy talk contribs‎ 87,463 bytes −9‎ Please do not edit the page while this is being actively discussed - this is disruptive undothank Tags: Undo Reverted"

You are not discussing, you are arrogantly maintaining a falsehood. I thought I would change it to neutral language, relatively speaking, to see if you are as empirically open as you claim. By reversing my edit, you show that you are not and that Dispute Resilution is needed. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You have been warned repeatedly about edit-warring, your behavior is the problem. You are disrupting the article. Moreover, your changes also included grammar and formatting problems. None of what you added was an improvement. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You must be speaking to a mirror again. I have asked for dispute resolution as you have shown you are incapable of civil discourse. TheRealForrest (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

On the one side of this discussion are a team of recognized and respected marine experts, who have thoroughly studied the topic over decades, and who have actually examined the wreck with deep-sea ROV cameras. They conclude that the ship was indisputably scuttled, and provide a huge amount of detail from a number of sources, including several eye witnesses. On the other side is an editor with 34 edits, who is pushing a POV with no clear support other than his/her own personal views and assumptions. The "size" of the torpedo hole is irrelevant - there is no way to correlate this with size of the original torpedo, plus which the holes in the hull were greatly enlarged when the hull landed on the sea-bed and the internal water was violently expelled - as per the expert sources. The fact that parts of the hull are obscured today by silt is not "evidence" of huge amounts of other "hidden" damage. Wdford (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"They conclude that the ship was indisputably scuttled" - I'm sorry for my apparent ignorance, but I don't read that at all. Cameron et al say they can't see the bottom of the ship to see if scuttling really even happened but Cameron based his tentative conclusion of scuttling on the testimony of some survivors. Please show me the citation for an ROV or deep sea expedition that shows definitive empirical evidence of scuttling. There is plenty of definitive empirical evidence that battle damage alone would have sunk Bismarck. Furthermore, Cameron also clearly states that even if scuttling was successfully achieved it only hastened sinking by a couple hours at most. Cameron states that Bismarck was indisputably sinking due to battle damage, any scuttling actions were complimentary, not the primary cause of the sinking. The comment of the Graf Spee's fate is very relevant here: It took a day of planning and actions to successfully scuttle Graf Spee, hence that suggests Bismarck, a ship four times the size of Graf Spee, could not have been scuttled in less than half an hour. It is intellectually and empirically inappropriate to state that Bismarck was definitively sunk by scuttling. It is far more accurate to state that Bismarck was sunk by battle damage, possibly hastened by scuttling actions. TheRealForrest (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please give the specific reference to "the hole too big to be caused by destroyer/cruiser torpoedos" so I can include that in the article? TheRealForrest (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)