Talk:Operation Tungsten

"Kaafjord"

Is to be considered a spelling error, under our guidelines on diacritics, and looks bad in an FA. It should be corrected. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:DIACRITICS states that "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged" and recommends going with what the sources consulted as part of developing the article use. The sources I consulted (which, as far as I'm aware, included all the significant works on this battle) did not use diacritics. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Material about German markings on British aircraft

I've just removed a claim cited to German primary sources that some of the British aircraft carried German markings in violation of the laws of warfare. None of the many secondary sources on this battle mention this, and it's also not noted in the published British primary sources. I've read widely on the RAF and FAA efforts in the war, and no sources I've seen mention this being a British tactic more broadly. If the Germans at Kaafjord thought that the British aircraft had German markings, it is almost certain that they were wrong - quite likely as the attack took them by surprise and included tactics which included directly attacking the German AA gunners on the battleship and other vessels. A secondary source which supports this claim is needed for it to be included. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nick, the source of the so called 'highly dubious claim' is the official federal archive of Germany (Bundesarchiv; invenio is one of their web-tools). And it is not 'one source'. It is a bundle of intern statements and different reports, including sightings from the Zerstörer Thetis, Nymphe, Neumark, and also from the officers of the Nebelbatterie M Fla.A.710. All in addition to the statements in the "Kriegstagebuch" of the battlegroup. Take a second and follow the provided link. If you have problems with translating, i can help.

On top of that, there are entire pages on that topic in commons...

The right one translates: Top Secret, Apendix 13 to the 'Kriegstagebuch' from 1944-04-01 to 1944-04-15 / p.245

telex --red/top secred-- Concerns bar crosses on enemy machines: Further specific statements from soldiers of all ranks and various on-board and land commands about perfect observations of bar crosses on the undersides of the wings of the attacking fighters in the first wave can be found in FS Kampfgruppe Gkdos 723 & 44 A1 from 6./4. Any possible confusion that has been expressed now appears to be excluded. Airplane recovered from Kaafjord today, single-engine, two-seater, facility for bombs and / or torpedo, type cannot be determined, had British cockade on fuselage. Wings not recovered. Searching for more machines will continue.

And... if all that isn't enough, in the German Wikipedia we have a user who is in contact with at least one former crewmen of the Tirpitz. [1]

So, please undo your undo. The fact seems more then safe. --BlaeX (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No, we need secondary sources. I've removed this from the German Wikipedia as well, as it also requires secondary sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

wait ... what? Are you on a propaganda trip? Its ok to question the source or to switch the phrases to subjunctive. But you didn't take a look at the documents of the Bundesarchiv, did you? There are several documents and testimonials under oath from different sources. And: The fact that they made it Geheime Kommandosache (top secret) shows clearly, that this wasn't a propaganda move to discredit the attackers. Also: before reverting in the German Wikipedia without comment, use the Talk-Page (Diskussion)--BlaeX (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR for why Wikipedia generally does not use primary sources. This military operation has been covered by lots of secondary sources, which do not give credence to this claim. If you can identify some secondary sources which discuss this or confirm it, that would be great. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

History is written by the victors. (Churchill). ;) The documents where seized by the allies and kept in Alexandria/Virginia during the decades when most of the secondary literature was written. Therefore the chances for secondary sources is near zero.--BlaeX (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I found a secondary source on the subject. John Sweetman reports on page 99 in his book "Jagd auf die Tirpitz" from 2001 on the facts. Unfortunately, he also only works on the documents of the Public Record Office in Kew, and has deviations in detail compared to the Tirpitz's war diary. But at least he takes up the matter based on reports from the Navel War Staff and tries to classify it. I'll try to formulate the accusation neutrally. You are cordially invited to correct my jerky English.--BlaeX (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted you, as you are misrepresenting this source. The English language edition of the book notes on page 67 that "eight ratings" reported seeing crosses on British aircraft. However, Sweetman notes that this formed part of a "strange transmission" and was "not confirmed by officers or wreckage from crashes. This may have been a crude attempt on behalf of the gun crews to deflect criticism of ineffective engagement of attacking aircraft". Sweetman does not state comment further on this, including in regards to the claim that he was being used to reference that this represented a violation of the "Hague Conventions". I doubt that the German edition lacks this material. As you have previously sought to misrepresent the German primary sources and are now misrepresenting a secondary source, I simply do not trust the material you are adding to accurately represent the content of German-language works. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

previously sought to misrepresent the German primary sources ... i don't think so. But anyway: You agree that Sweetman took note of the claim. The statment is real. And then you reverted the article completely without even taking note of the claim. I don't understand why you just change the phrase to match more of Sweetmans statement (although it is oblivious wrong in terms of volume and the exclusion of the officers statements, compared to the primary source). Why is it such a big deal for you in general, that the British forces used false flag against the Tirpitz? They did it before and even equipped a civil flagged boat/trawler with weapons in their eager to destroy the ship. (Operation Title, pp.162 in Niklas Zetterling, Michael Tamelander: Tirpitz: The Life and Death of Germany’s Last Super Battleship. Casemate Publishers, 2009, ISBN 978-1-935149-18-7) I am pretty interested to get to know your motivation for your agenda, especially since your point of view reminds me a little bit of Hollywood movies with its inherent glorious/honorable vs. dishonest/bad-schema.

Above that, you reverted the name of the NO. What is wrong with that one?--BlaeX (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda, other than to ensure that faked material isn't added to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

its kind of childish to call the originals at the Bundesarchiv fake. Under this premise, you would also have to question everything that Bennet and Bishop used as primary source on the British side. Compromise proposal: I reduce the statment to From the German side it was reported afterwards that the attackers of the first wave showed German emblems in the form of bar crosses and yellow wing tips. ... or something like that without the judgmental Hague stuff. As this claim is backed by Sweetman and the testemonials at the war logs.

I am referring to the incorrect material you have added to the article. The kindest interpretation is that you are seeking to include original research based on your reading of these files given that this is not supported by secondary sources. The only secondary source you have found did not support the material you cited to it, or what you are now suggesting above given that Sweetman is dismissive of this claim. I cannot read German, and given your track record here I do not trust anything you've said about the content of the files - not that it matters given that Wikipedia generally does include material cited only to primary sources, especially when a secondary source has discussed the topic as is the case here. Sweetman also devotes about a paragraph to this claim, so I don't see how it's a significant element of this battle. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The primary source makes it pretty clear that Sweetman was wrong with his classification. And if your inability to use Google Translator stands between us, then we have to wait for the next book on the subject in the hope that it is more complete. So be it.

Apart from that: What will happen to the NO Hugo Heydal. The source Brennecke (1981), pp. 60 is pretty common. Even Sweetman refers to it and the book is also available in English.;) Can i add this fact separately?

--BlaeX (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)