Talk:Operation Rheinübung

Merge Rheinubung, Bismarck

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is certainly much duplication between the articles on Rheinübung and Bismarck. I don't agree that they should be merged, however. The usual practice seems to be that warship articles contain the history of that ship (admittedly short for Bismarck), its design and features and, in Bismarck's case, the search for the wreck.

Articles on operations detail the strategic background, order of battle, course of the operation and its aftermath, etc. When looking for info on an operation, I wouldn't necessarily expect a complete description of it under just one of the units involved.

I'd advocate extracting the operational detail from Bismarck and using it to improve the one on the operation, leaving a brief summary. Otherwise, there would be a precedent that might be difficult to resolve - under which ship's history would we place,eg, Cerberus or Berlin?

Folks at 137 20:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Folks. (I recently created Battle between HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran to resolve similar issues.) There is also some duplication of this article and German battleship Bismarck at Battle of the Denmark Strait. Grant65 | Talk 03:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that, as it stands, this article is hardly worth keeping as it is incomplete. Operation Rheinuebung did not end with the sinking of the Bismarck: Prinz Eugen was still loose on the high seas, although by that stage the Germans' main, if not only, concern was to get her back to port safely. Patrick

Incompleteness is not an issue, since any of us can/ should expand it or tag it as a stub (if it were an issue, then many other pages would be up for deletion). The issue is: where is it most appropriate? I still think that Rheinubung rates its own article with a link to Battle of the Denmark Strait. I don't think that it should be absorbed into an article for just one of the participating ships, in fact I would argue for transferring much of the stuff from Bismarck. Folks at 137 20:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, The problem might be that "Operation Rheinuebung" is relatively unimportant in itself, i.e. it happens to be the name chosen for the commerce-raiding operation in which the Bismarck, probably the most famous warship of WWII, was sunk.

What would you think if someone (I could do it at some stage, maybe) was to update the article to give the general background to the operation, a summary of what happened during it, and its subsequent effect on the war at sea (given that the Germans never risked their big ships again on Atlantic convoy attacks). Patrick

Good idea!, but it's not for me to approve or disapprove.

On the "subsequent effects", it's more complex than the loss of the Bismarck. Brest was vulnerable to bombing, the Prinz Eugen class were unreliable with short range (PE's war diary constantly refers to this), U-boats were an effective alternative in the Atlantic, the Arctic convoys were a better target and there was a perceived invasion threat to Norway.

Looking at the Bismarck article shows different approaches. The current Rheinubung is more of a summary, with a link to the more detailed Battle of Denmark Strait. Bismarck is much more detailed and acts as a focus for editors, although it also links to the Battle of Denmark Strait (which is less detailed). The question, I suggest, is the purpose of each of the three articles. I think that there's >1 audience: those who look for fine detail (perhaps yourself?) and those who just want the bare bones. The detail on Bismarck seems vague on the ship itself. Folks at 137 11:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence was fair comment, so I have updated the "History" section near the start of that article. Note, however, the "General Characteristics" table to its right that covers much of the technical information you would expect to find. Patrick

I'm also against a merger. I would have thought the logical approach would be to have several articles (as Folks proposes):

• Article about the ship.
• This article about the German operational plans.
• The battle of the Denmark Strait article about the action on the 24th May.
• A new article about the Bismarck chase to complement the Denmark Strait article. There's currently too much detail in the article about the ship.

JimmyTheOne 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against a merger. Bismarck is a ship whose details are loved by all and sundry. And if important topics do not have separate articles, then personally, I consider it as an exaggeration of the integrity of Wikipedia. Plus, there is a clear difference between the sortie and its disruption by the British warships. Vikrant Phadkay 09:50 (IST), 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have ended in 2006; Can we take it there was no consensus for this merger, and that the subject is closed? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge of "Bismarck Chase" and "Operation Rheinubung"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While I agree that we shouldn't merge this article with Bismarck, I don't agree with JimmyTheOne's view that there should be separate articles about the German operational plans (Operation Rheinübung) and their execution (Bismarck Chase). The case for a merger here appears to me self-evident.

Having said that, I dislike the title of this article, which is much too arcane; surely it is axiomatic that the significance of a article's title should be obvious to non-specialists? Although I am not enamoured of Bismarck Chase, I agree that we need a title in which the word Bismarck appears. The best I can suggest is Pursuit of the Bismarck. Sinking of the Bismarck would have popular appeal but would understate the scope of the article.

Comments? John Moore 309 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really too bothered what we call the article as long as there's a redirect: the current title does follow a precedent and the operation name is likely to be used - not arcane to everyone! I do agree that we should aim to be user-friendly and accessible. The problem is that there were several phases to the operation: break-out, Battle of the Denmark Strait (yet another current article!), pursuit and sinking. Another might be the subsequent activity of the Prinz Eugen (Rheinubung was not just the Bismarck).

The current Operation Rheinübung attempts to summarise all of these for a casual reader. As a summary, it does not attempt to cover the fine detail that separate articles on the phases can do. Some of this highly researched detail has been held in the Bismarck article (inappropriately, IMHO) and should continue to be presented separately. For this reason, I would tend to support JimmyTheOne's approach. Especially as he seems happy to do the work! We can then reassess. Folks at 137 18:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just read these articles as someone knew to the subject(and have no knowledge etc. to edit) and think they should be merged. There are so many main articles associated with the Bismarck that where two articles say basically the same thing it is confusing and unhelpful to have them both.213.106.165.10 12:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)J

A belated reply to this: The operation, the ship and the actions should be on separate pages, as in other cases. It doesn’t help of course that Bismarck didn’t do much, so there is a lot of overlap, but it is still better to have separate pages, for clarity. It is usual to have a main article, with summaries elsewhere. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have mostly ended in 2006; Can we take it there was no consensus for this merger, and that the subject is closed now? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Danzig

Danzig is not Gdynia. German called Gdynia Gotenhafen. I edit this, ok?

Rescope this article and rename Bismarck Chase?

I have posted, at Talk:Bismarck Chase, a proposal to revise the scope of this article and also rescope and rename the Bismarck Chase article. In brief, the idea is that Bismarck Chase will become an article on the battle of 26-27 March 1941, while the Rheinübung article becomes a "miliary conflict" article, headed by the appropriate {{Infobox Military Conflict}} template, and scoped as follows:

• A description of the planning and objectives of the operation,
• A narrative of the operations conducted by the opposing sides in the course of the operation, and referencing the more detailed articles on the two battles.
• An assessment of the impact of the operation on the subsequent course of the war.
• A historical appraisal, addressing areas of ongoing debate and uncertainty.

I am placing a similar post on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force page, but I suggest that it would be best to consolidate discussion on the Talk:Bismarck Chase page.

Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Last battle of the battleship Bismarck and "Operation Rheinubung"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Readers of Last battle of the battleship Bismarck will be aware that there is a proposal to merge that article with with this one. I have placed my own comment below. Regards to all, John Moore 309 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Against

Against: This is a revival of a proposal that I made (above) when the Last battle ... was still the Bismarck Chase. However, the renaming and rescoping of the old Bismarck Chase has removed the rationale for a merge (see the Rescope this article and rename Bismarck Chase? section above). John Moore 309 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto: Op Rheinubung has a lot of material to cover and bring sections out into their own articles for the detail work makes the most sense.GraemeLeggett 11:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Against merging is appropriate; one is a specific battle, and is a legitimate daughter page. I'm boldly closing this merger as no-consensus, since there's been no movement in more than a month. Feel free to revert me. --Haemo 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

For

As a lay person researching Bismarck topics it was confusing and rather irritating to read almost identical text in the "Last Battle Of..." page. The merge seems almost complete as things stand as no substantial additional info is provided on the seperate page that could not be incorporated here. Spoiltcat 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

For

Merge them and rename Operation Rheinubung and the Sinking of the Bismarck. One directly lead to the other and Rheinubung doesn't resonate at all with an english speaking readership.--Lepeu1999 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have ended in 2007; to stop it festering on, can we take it there is no consensus for this merger, and that the subject is closed now? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted move

I’ve moved this back to Operation Rheinubung; there is absolutely no necessity in using the German word Unternehmen in preference to "Operation", and WP:MOS dictates we don’t do it.
I’ve retained Rheinubung in preference to "Rhine Exercise" only because it is commonly used in English as a proper noun, with as little meaning as "Avalanche", or "Shingle".
The rationale for the change was that the title is neither of english and german; however that is the form most commonly found in books etc. If anyone wants to make a case for "Operation Rhine Exercise" as a title they can.Xyl 54 (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware of the lengthy discussion (over several talk pages) that my move inspired, possibly because it was not referred to/linked from here. The conclusion can be found at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_41#Foreign_military_operational_names_.28part_2.29. As you will see, there was no consensus, with equal numbers in favour of full or partial translations. I still feel that partial translations are a half-assed, neither-fish-nor-fowl abomination and am totally opposed to them.

And in point of fact, if you read MOS carefully it does not "dictate" that at all. It allows names in the original language under some circumstances. Grant | Talk 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn’t seen the discussion there ( and I can’t find the others it mentions; do you know where they are?). The tally may not be conclusive, but it favoured partial or full translation; there was no support for leaving it in the original, untranslated form. If we applied that here the choice would be Op Rheinubung (with or without umlaut) or Op Rhine Exercise.

Fair enough, MOS doesn’t "dictate"; but it does "suggest" that "Foreign words should be used sparingly", and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) (!) says "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)". OR is the format you’ll see in most books on the subject; I’ve never seen a book use “unternehmen”. And a google search shows the same pattern; OR is even used on this german, EL website, and the only hits for UR seem to be here.

I’ve got some sympathy with your point that it’s neither fish nor fowl, but I don't think this is a circumstance which warrants using the original; Unternehmen isn't a loan word, or a borrowed term, or something untranslateable. Do you want to make a case for using Operation Rhine Exercise? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Operation Rhine Exercise is desirable either.

According to a Google search, most German language sites use "Unternehmen" although some use "Operation". I suspect that operation is a post-WW2 loanword in German.

The discussion started here. Grant | Talk 00:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

a)You "don't think that Operation Rhine Exercise is desirable either": You objected to OR because it was a only partial translation, now you’ve baulked at the full translation? Why is a german term more desirable on the english language WP than an English one?

b)"most German language sites use "Unternehmen": There's a surprise! But as we aren’t talking about a change on the german WP, that’s a bit of a red herring, don’t you think?

( the reason I put the link in was just to illustrate that even a german english–language website would use OR)

c)The Milhist discussion doesn’t seem to have a conclusion; the arguments in favour of UR, etc seem to be trying to justify their use in spite of WP guidelines, and there were plenty of counter-arguments.

Xyl 54 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are getting sidetracked here. There is no definitive WP policy and what Germans call the battle, in German or English, is irrelevant. The question is whether the anachronistic name OR is so well known that it should override UR or a descriptive title like Last mission of the battleship Bismarck. Grant | Talk 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sidetracked? I’ll say!

FYI there is a WP policy that covers this. In fact there are two, which I’ve already quoted; "Foreign words should be used sparingly",(WP:Manual of Style#Foreign Terms), and "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)"WP:Naming conventions (use English) (the title says it all!)

The original title “Operation Rheinubung” conformed to this; you changed it, without any discussion here that I can see, to a german term that no-one else uses. The only reason you gave is that it’s your personal preference, (which really isn't good enough, particularly when you won't accept the full english either) which is why I've changed it back.

So I think before we go much further you need to give credible english-language source that uses Unternehmen Rheinübung for this op. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Additions

I've added some detail about the operation itself; it shouldn't just be about Bismarck, or it overlaps too much with all the other pages on the subject. Xyl 54 (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: sources

A source was requested for this:
"On the other hand, the Atlantic U-boat campaign was disrupted; boats in the Atlantic sank just 2 ships in the last weeks of May, compared to 20 at the beginning of the month."(fact|date=July 2009)
(specifically, is the decreased number of sinkings directly related to Bismarck et. al. or just a coincidence? If not, this line needs to go, because it implies a direct relation.)
This is from Blair; I’ve put it in the article. And yes, that’s pretty much exactly what he suggests;
“The Bismarck affair brought the U boat war against shipping in the North Atlantic to a standstill in the last ten days of May. The twenty boats in that area sank only two ships ….”
He then lists them (2 freighters sunk by U-557 and U-147) and lists the totals for the rest of the month:
347 ships sailed eastbound , 13 sunk (9 from HX126 and 4 stragglers
no numbers for westbound (Hague gives 439 ships at sea in May),16 sunk (7 from OB 318 and 6 others) plus 1 in home waters, and 2 sunk by Italian boats further south (total 29: my figure of 20 was wrong, I’ve corrected it); a total for May of 31. So yes, there is a direct relationship; taking U-boats off commerce raiding to set up submarine traps around Bismarck led to a drop in sinkings (which is logical enough) while failing to achieve anything in a fleet action role (which is also not surprising; there were hardly any occasions in either world war were submarines were used successfully in a fleet role). Xyl 54 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that (I was the editor who requested the clarification/citation). I hadn't heard before that the U-boats had been ordered to aid Bismarck, other than the one sub that was sent to pick up her war diary. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions

I notice from this edit that about 22 Kb of material from the Bismarck page have been duplicated to here.
This doesn’t seem to me to be a good idea, and there is no advantage that I can see in having such a huge overlap. I feel the material should be on one page only, with a summary on the other.
What does anyone else think? Does anyone feel it is better to have the same material on both pages? If not, which is the best place for it?
Up to now the edit history for the content has been on the Bismarck page, but the main article/subsidiary section split suggests it should be here. Would it be better to leave it here, and trim the section at Bismarck down to a summary? Or should we revert this page in total back to the way it was? Comments? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There's been no reply to this, nor any justification offered for having such a big overlap on both pages. So I've done the BOLD thing and reverted it.

If anyone feels this addition was a good idea, perhaps they should explain themselves here before doing anything more about it. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2012 (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) 07:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see discussion at [1]. Wdford (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fehlerhafte Landkarte , wrong map - ( Fantasy Wikipedia Map vs Real History 1941 Map )

Die Landkarte( The Map ): "Map of Operation "Rheinübung" and Royal Navy operations against the battleship Bismarck"

wrong border ( the map is not history boarder from 1939 - the border from the map is 1990-2000-2010 )

Ist voller Fehler, allein der Grenzverlauf ist von heutigen zeit aber nicht mit echten Historischen Grenzverlauf von 1941 versehen bzw identisch.

Oder Liegt Etwa San-Francisco und Los-Angeles in Mexiko ? Und Alaska zur Russland ?

Map = Germany = 1937 = Real History correctness vs political correctness Map https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Reich_in_den_Grenzen_vom_31._Dezember_1937

Japanese Map from Europa 1939 https://www.mapmania.org/map/65579/japanese_map_of_europe_from_1939

In the Map Danzig a Poland Protektorat, in Real History 1939 a Free City/Staate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig

Free City Passport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig#/media/File:Danzig_passport.jpg

Luxembourg = Free Staate = 1939 ( 1939 = 290.000 Population ) Danzig = Free Staate = 1939 ( 1938 = 388.195 Population )

Sory from my english ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denglisch ) :-) - i am a German from Berlin :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C1A0:4889:4700:870:95E8:55BE:DDEB (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right, but it's not that big of a deal. It was a naval battle and I would argue that it might actually be even better to not show any land borders at all, since the 1941 borders are open to interpretation and would also draw unnecessary attention to the wrong part of the map. Jay D. Easy (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)