text:
Talk:Convoy PQ 17

Major rewrite
I rewrote this article, incorporating as much as possible the previous referenced work done by the other editors. I followed a strict source policy, referencing statements with verifiable sources. Any reference to culpability, blame or other degree of wrongdoing in the convoy was limited to official inquiries or memoirs of people with direct access to information (especially Churchill).

 * Please note that I have totally refrained from using David Irving as a source. His works are not positively verifiable. That said, I still mentioned him as a controversial figure that accused a leading actor in the convoy's events (Jack Broome). I ask other editors not to include statements written by Irving that are not verifiable - in line with Wikipedia policy marked here: Fringe theories, Accuracy dispute and obviously WikiProject Fact and Reference Check.

 * The box describing the ship losses was moved to another page, (here), for fear of turning this article into a list.

 * A map was added by translating an svg map from the french Wikipedia.

 * Photos were added from public domain sources (IWM).

 * A box with the signals received by the convoy was added.

 * A battlebox was added.

ReuV talk 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Did a rewrite and added a several inline citations
I did a rewrite of the article, added a couple of sections as well as a table showing all the merchant losses as well as their flagged power. I also made sure to note how many merchant men were from each country so everyone can take the losses into account. Several citations were added using two primary sources I found on the web as well as a one direct quotation. Xatsmann (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fault with article
This article, as in depth as it is, only mentions the American ships in this convoy. The British merchant navy's role and the roles of other nations in the convoy are completely left out and unmentioned. My grandfather was on a ship called the Hartlebury which was severely damaged and then sunk by the German yet I see nothing of this ship mentioned here, only American vessels are mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.59.92 (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * It is rather strange. The Commodore of the convoy was an old boy of my old school and had to be fished out of the water at one point after his merchant ship was sunk - yet I have no idea which ship it was and this article doesn't help.  I find it bizarre that there is not one published source listed as a reference - only websites.  For anyone wanting to find out more about PQ 17 this article isn't very helpful. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * WP:SOFIXIT? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * My area of expertise and interest is the Royal navy in the First World War. As I write this I'm arm deep in reminiscences and reports of a paymaster who watched the Battle of Jutland from the spotting top of H.M.S. Malaya.  It's all very well being bold, but that only works if you have the knowledge (not that that stops a lot of people on Wikipedia).  Looking through this discussion page there are enough editors who obviously have some knowledge of the PQ 17 bibliography - just look at the debate over Irving's book.  Even that isn't listed as a reference though.  --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * As I recall (from my reading of Broome's book "Convoy is to scatter"), the Commodore was aboard "River Afton". Am I the only person here with a copy? Philip Trueman (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Harlbottom - not a helpful article for learning about PQ 17. I don't have the knowledge to get such information on to this page. I do find it disappointing, however, as the British effort has been mentioned very little considering the loss they suffered. (Not sh*tting on the American efforts at all, just pointing out that they're mentioned and the British efforts aren't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.243.93 (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"The German success was possible through German signals intelligence and cryptological analysis." This is not true. It was Finnish SIGINT that broke the code, and provided the decoded message to German Abwerh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Intelligence_Agency) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybercom drno (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Origin of supply
PQ-17 was a convoy supplying the USSR... from where? The US, presumably.

 * No, Iceland. PQ indicated the Iceland - North Russia route from September 1941 to December 1942, then JW. See . Folks at 137 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * A while back there was a conversation about this on Talk:Arctic convoys of World War II. Iceland was used as a gathering point for most convoys. Others started from various North American and British locations. Folks at 137 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See the article on David Irving--I believe the majority of his work has been discredited. Someone ought to make clear what is known and what is controversial, if possible. --Tpcraven 03:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Have look at the Wiki page on Irving. Folks at 137 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * David Irving. Great, just great.  Don't know what to trust in that work.  (SEWilco 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

 * Irving's book does use footnotes which are linked to 15 pages of notes. It at least may provide direction to a primary source, so reported facts can be confirmed.  (SEWilco 05:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

 * PQ-17 had supplies from the U.S. The preceding QP convoy contained a gold payment from Russia for the material.  Ah, here it is: HMS Edinburgh's Final Voyage  (SEWilco 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC))
 * And Irving returns to in this issue also although indirectly. His father survived the Edinburgh sinking but left the family.  (SEWilco 05:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

Finnish radio intelligence
AFAIK Germany got the information on PQ-17 from the Finnish radio intelligence.

 * I agree. This information was published in Finland in the early 1980s. The only information in Wikipedia on Finnish radio intelligence is on Operation Stella Polaris, the evacuation of the organization to Sweden and the USA. -- Petri Krohn 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This information is published also in finnish military magazine "Sotilasaikakauslehdessä" number 12/2003 page 55 - 61 in finnish article "Salakirjoituksesta, tiedustelusta, johtamisesta ja ihmisistä". Link to little modified finnish article : http://personal.inet.fi/koti/sakari.ahvenainen/index/stellap403.pdf

At there is next part : "Kuuluisin esimerkki lienee loppukesästä 1942 Muurmanskin saattue PQ 17, joka kärsi pahimmat tuhot kuin mikään muu saattue ennen sitä tai sen jälkeen. Pohjana oli suomalaisten avaama sanoma, josta saattueen tärkeimmät tiedot saatiin vastatoimien pohjaksi."

Translated some way : "Most known example might be end of summer 1942 convoy PQ 17 of Muurmansk, which took hardest hits than any other convoy before or after it. Reason for this was finns opened message, where was main information of convoy's and this info was used counteraction against convoy."

Published version of orginal message what was uncrypted and translated to german, has found after war and finnish translation is includen in Finnish book about Finland's radio intelligent 1927-1944 published 1998, writer Erkki Pale. ( orginal name "Suomen radiotiedustelu 1927-1944" ISBN 952-90-9437-X). Message has information about Germany's destroyers (Tirpitz and Scheer), Russian's air support for PQ 17 and QP 13 and route of convoys (PQ 17 and QP 13). Erkki Pale was person who uncrypted this message 1942. --84.248.6.70 (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

SS John Witherspoon
This vessel is said to have turned back early in the convoy's voyage due to ice damage. Later in the narrative it is sunk by a U-Boat as part of the convoy. These two facts are not incompatible; but there needs to be an explanation, if only a sentence to the effect that the Witherspoon rejoined the convoy, explaining whether the Witherspoon sped up to catch the convoy, or the convoy slowed down for the Witherspoon, assuming that the Witherspoon caught up with the convoy at all. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 * According to Irving's book, the Witherspoon was a part of the convoy until sunk. Her convoy position was in the southern rear section, just ahead of the southernmost rescue ship.  List of Liberty ships by hull number, 1 shows her as hull 31, sunk during this operation.  Irving says the Liberty ship Richard Bland holed on Iceland rocks and returned to port.  Early on June 29, four ships got serious damage from ice; the SS Exford returned to port, while the Gray Ranger was slowed to 8 knots.  According to one online tale the Exford hit ice on June 29, although the teller thought that was after the scatter order.  I'll replace the Witherspoon mention in the article with Exford.  (SEWilco 06:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

Loss of "SS Washington"
The article states that "Among the losses that day were U.S. merchant ships SS Pan Kraft, SS Washington ['...commissioned as the troopship USS Mount Vernon on 16 June, 1941.' - SS Washington Wikipedia page], SS Carlton, SS Honomu, and SS Peter Kerr." The SS Washington (the USS Mount Vernon) fought throughout the war and was never sunk.

The USS Washington "...was a North-Carolina class battleship..." which "served in both the Atlantic and Pacific..." and was "...decommissioned in 1947", according to the USS Washington Wikipedia page. She, too, fought throughout the war and was never sunk.

So: What "SS Washington" was sunk on July 5, 1942? Neither of the above two ships, apparently.

I would appreciate it if a naval historian could correct this contradiction.Writtenright 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

 * SS Washington was a freighter, not warship, thus the "SS" (steam ship) as designation of a merchant ship to the "USS" (Unites States ship) that warships used. The USS Washington was with the Home Fleet's distant covering force and never got closer than 200 miles to PQ 17.

Xatsmann (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Irving as a source
In the Wikipedia-Article on David Irving we write The judge also ruled that Irving had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence. - so why should we refer to a source which is widely acknowledged as manipulating historical evidence? A private website is just as good as this kind of source - if required I´m ready to present you one within minutes with contradicting thesis. Unless no one provides reasonable arguments, I will delete the reference on Irving after a while. If anyone knows which "facts" in the article are based solely on Irving, please post it here, just to doublecheck these "facts" and delete it from the article in case we can´t verify. Mausch 16:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do that now. Mausch 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote you refer to, The judge also ruled that Irving had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence., does not reference the book The Destruction of Convoy PQ17. It is in relation to another case some 30 years later. The trial associated with the book The Destruction of Convoy PQ17 was a libel action based on Irvings analysis that Capt. Jack Broome was to blame for the withdrawal of PQ.17s destroyer screen.  These were the only facts that were disputed. Irving lost the action and the book was withdrawn from circulation. However, it was republished in 1981 with the offending passages removed.  As a work of historical research the 1981 and later editions are valid and easily cross checked with other sources.  Later editions of the book attracted no legal actions.  I will re-instate the reference to post 1981 editions of The Destruction of Convoy PQ17 after the two week moratorium unless anyone can show that the research contained in the post 1981 editions is not valid. Perdiccas 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree here. A person who has disqualified himself incountable often by (at least) bad scientifc standard needs a positive verification rather than a falsification of his claim (and in such a case, that other source could be used, btw). Unless verified, Irving needs to be not cited here. Mausch 12:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I have no particular axe to grind, though my father was a friend of Capt Broome, but Irving has a great track record of looking libel actions, even I think ones he instituted, vide the Penguin Books case. I've not read either book, but I see that the 'corrected' edition was published in 1981, when Jackie Broome was 80, and may not have had the stamina or resources to go to court again. My father had to do just this, against the author, publisher [and I think Malcolm Muggeridge] over 'The Climate of Treason'. It was too late to stop the book [in paperback before my father knew of it]. It was settled before getting to court and my father gave the proceeds to charity. However the publisher reneged on the agreement not to produce further uncorrected editions and as my father had died by then there was no case to be made ['speak not ill of the dead', but libel them with impunity!

Operation Knight´s Move
I have a bad feeling about that translation into English. An English native has to clear this, as I don´t know, with which meaning you associate "Knight´s Move". I would think, the movement of a knight. However, the original term Rösselsprung in Germany is much more associated with "Jumping of a horse". The chosen translation is due to the fact that "Rösselsprung" also is the used term for the movement of the Knight (Chess) in Chess game. However, in Germany, the Chess Knight is called Springer (Jumper). After all, Rösselsprung does not associate with the medieval fighters. Unless natives do think of the chess movement when hearing "Knight´s Move", we should change the translation into "Horse Jump". Mausch 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I entirely agree with your reasoning, the use of the term "Knight's Move", in relation to Rösselsprung is accepted terminology in the vast majority of English texts on PQ17. To change to a more literal translation at this point may only cause confusion to the reader, especially when trying to cross reference with other works. I would recommend retaining the term "Knight's Move" but ensure that it is always followed by Rösselsprung in brackets. Using the term "Horse Jump" will have no meaning to the English reading student of the Arctic war at sea. Perdiccas 14:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Sadly, one of the examples how bad translations become valid translation. Then let´s keep it, but I will add a remark. Mausch 12:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

rösselsprung means a move two steps ahead and one to the side, used in chess and other less known games, it is not at all associated with the animal but with the horse-shape of the knight figure in chess, for a german speaking reader the translation horse jump is obviously wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.23.168 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, the coat of arms of Stuttgart shows the "Stuttgarter Rössle" and it clearly depicts a horse. I admit, this might be an association more intuitive for South Germans, but Rössle is no doubt related to the horse but definitly is not to the medieval fighter. horse jump is not obviously wrong to German speakers, as I am a native German speaker. However, the association with a medieval fighter has absolutely nobody. Please reread my introducing lines of this section. Mausch 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * The fact that a word has a particular meaning in one language does not necessarily mean that it should have the equivalent meaning in another (linguistic equivalence being a well-established principle); if we were to take that stance we could make the reverse - and obviously incorrect - argument that the German chess piece should be known as Ritter because the English term is Knight. This is in no way a bad translation becoming a valid translation: it is simply an instance where cultural differences mean that the same concepts are expressed differently in different languages. An English speaker would say Knight's Move where a German speaker would say Rösselsprung, and the fact that they do not have the same literal meaning is neither here nor there.

 * I second Perdiccas's suggestion on how to handle expressing this difference, being the way a translator might handle a situation where the terms in both languages were required. However, if you still feel it necessary to clarify your understanding of the meaning of the German term, then a better way to handle it would be to specify this within the brackets following the German name, i.e. (Unternehmen Rösselsprung - lit. horse jump). 67.170.82.12 02:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with most of what you say. Actually, we have no issue here any more, as solely the fact that, as Perdiccas says, Knight´s Move became the English name of the operation, whether rightfully or not, is reason enough to keep that translation. Just one short note: I stumbled upon this, because I first read of it in English and my immediate thought was: The original name of the operation must be somewhat like "Ritterschlag" or whatever - a quiet bold association - and I have been pretty surprised when reading it was "Rösselsprung", which is tiny. So, yes, I do think that this translation was a bad one, because it shifted the meaning from a chess game towards medieval ages. Your suggestion is in how to deal with it is good and I will edit a variant. Mausch 09:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Losses on 4th July
According to Jack Broome's own book, three ships, not two, were lost on 4th July: Christopher Newport early in the day to an attack by a lone Heinkel, and two others (and a tanker damaged) to the second massed attack by Heinkel He 115s in the afternoon. Is this a contended point, or can I safely amend the article? Philip Trueman 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tricky; Christopher Newport was bombed and sunk in the early hours of 4th July (though in the continuous daylight it's all a bit relative). Navarino and William Hooper were bombed around midday, and had to be abandoned; they were sunk just after midnight. Azerbaijan, the tanker, was damaged in the same attack, but was able to continue. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On a separate issue, there were 24 ships lost in this action, but only the American ones are listed; is there a reason for that? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

David Irvine (again)
There should be a link to David Irvine and his libel case: see here. It was a significant legal case and is still taught in English law courses.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rosselsprung
I've removed these three pieces.

This is misleading :-

"Tirpitz and her escorts were not in fact heading for the convoy; the movement was merely a change of berth"

And this is dubious :-

"The British intelligence services became aware of this, but Pound sent the order to scatter nevertheless"

And this is plain wrong:-

"However, following reports of the successes of the Luftwaffe and U-boats it was soon ordered back to port".

There is a discussion here if anyone is interested. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Pssible additional links
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/searchresults.asp?SearchInit=0&txtsearchterm=pq+17&txtfirstdate=&txtlastdate=&txtrestriction=ADM&hdnsorttype=Reference&image1.x=29&image1.y=14 shows some search resutls which may be of use, as does http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/searchresults.asp?SearchInit=0&txtsearchterm=pq17&txtfirstdate=&txtlastdate=&txtrestriction=ADM&hdnsorttype=Reference&image1.x=21&image1.y=12 David Underdown (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review?
Some points. Looks like a fair bit of work needs doing.... TREKphiler  hit me ♠  23:31 & 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "only eleven reached Archangel, delivering 70,000 tons of cargo out of a total of 200,000" I deleted the 200K, as it's unclear what it refers to: the total carried in 34 outbound or the total destined for Archangel'sk.
 * 2) Of the survivors, how many reached Archangel'sk & how many Murmansk?
 * 3) "70 miles north of Bear Island and, later on to open to 400 miles" "fifty miles" What's that in km? 113/644/80 or 130/740/93?
 * 4) "tracked at about 200 miles (320 km)" Can somebody confirm the conversion? And that it isn't really a ref to 200nm (370 km)? Given the source is Winston, a navy man, I'd bet it's actually 370km.
 * 5) "The escort was made up of six destroyers, four corvettes, three minesweepers, four trawlers, two anti-aircraft ships, and two submarines." I'd like to have their names...but I'm not sure it's really essential.
 * 6) "too short of fuel to escort a damaged ship to harbour" I don't recall, but wasn't refuelling possible? IIRC, it wasn't done from a convoy tanker til '43, but this would've been a task force, no?
 * 7) "unless the convoy was threatened by the presence of a surface force which the cruiser force could fight" I'm presuming this means "not overmatched", as by Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, &/or Gneisenau; correct?
 * 8) "Additionally, on 26 June, westbound convoy QP13, made up of returning merchant ships from Archangel, with some ships leaving Murmansk the next day." And this is connected how?
 * 9) Any thoughts on mentioning the type of ship when discussing force compositions? Or should we rely on the links?
 * 10) "an oiler for the use of the escort" Which contradicts "too short of fuel", doesn't it...?
 * 11) "Moreover all the convoy was bound for Archangel " Not what the intro says... So which is it?
 * 12) "The convoy was sighted and tracked by U-456 shortly after it entered the open sea." This leaves me wondering if it's U-456 entering open water or the convoy... I'm also less than clear what part isn't open. Is it after leaving the ice edge, or what? "shadowed continuously except for a few short intervals in fog." Solely by U-456? Or were others from her patrol line vectored in by Dönitz (as I'd expect)?
 * 13) Augmented by BV 138s? From where? Norway, I presume...
 * 14) "nine torpedo aircraft" "another attack, by twenty-five torpedo bombers" What type? I'm presuming Kondors.
 * 15) "At 13:00 on 3 July, the destroyer escort was steering east to pass between Bear Island and Spitzbergen." By themselves? In pursuit of U-456 (or other U-boat{s})? Or what?
 * 16) "ordering the convoy to scatter" IIRC, there was a distinction between this, disperse, & "run for your lives", except I can't keep straight which was which. Since I expect most people don't even know there was one, clarification would be welcome.
 * 17) I'm changing "signal" to "message", seeing "signal" is usually a reference to semaphore or blinker. Objection?
 * 18) Rear Admiral. I'm deleting the repetitious "Rear"s, since it's common to omit.
 * 19) "the merchantmen to proceed independently" Changed from "convoy", since, given a "scatter" order, it wasn't one, any more.
 * 20) "The earlier cruiser movement" Earlier than what? Earlier than planned?
 * 21) "the now defenceless merchantmen" Well, no. They still had their own guns.
 * 22) "only the close escort of anti-aircraft auxiliaries, corvettes, minesweepers and armed trawlers was left to attempt to protect the scattered convoy" If it had scattered, why was close escort attached? Wouldn't the close escort have been detached to return per "scatter"? Or ordered to continue to Archangel'sk? (If so, which?)
 * 23) "Fourteen American ships in all were sunk." Deleted as undue weight to U.S. losses.
 * 24) "leaving it easy prey to U-boats and aircraft" Since "four corvettes, three minesweepers, four trawlers" was much more than typical for Atlantic convoys, hardly "easy"; Atlantic convoys didn't get AA ships, & 3 'vettes & 1 can (or 2 'vettes & a can) were more ususual, so this is pretty strong. Of course, it might not be for Arctic convoys, so perspective would be welcome.
 * 25) "six more by four U-boats" Which boats?
 * 26) Is it asking to much to have the U-boat skippers' names? And the Luftwaffe unit numbers?
 * 27) "after taking the ship's documents and flag, U-255 gave Potter the coup de grace with one torpedo." Did the Germans get copies of the BAM cypher? (Seeing how successful B-Dienst was cracking it, did they need to?)
 * 28) "The senior officer of the escort preferred to stay in the low visibility on the original route, and to make ground to the eastward. Commander J. E. Broome, in command of the escort squadron, later decided that a more northerly route was necessary, ordered the senior office of the escort" OK, so who, exactly, was "senior officer of the escort", Broome or somebody else?
 * 29) "no information in Tovey's possession justified this change, Hamilton was ordered to withdraw when the convoy was east of 25° East," Who's ordering Hamilton to withdraw, here, since the Admiralty has expressly given him permission to continue...? Or didn't Tovey get word of this change? Or what?
 * 30) "consisting of HMS London, HMS Norfolk, USS Wichita, USS Tuscaloosa, and three destroyers, of which two were American" "CS1, under Rear Admiral Hamilton, of four cruisers and four destroyers." So which is it...?
 * 31) "In October 1968 Jack Broome, British escort group commander, sued David Irving for libel after the controversial historian wrote a book blaming Broome for the losses of PQ17. In February 1970 after seventeen days of deliberation before London's High Court, Broome won. Irving was forced to pay £40,000 in damages, and the book was withdrawn from circulation. " Deleted as off-point. Unless there were accusations Broome goofed at the time... Otherwise, put it on Broome's page.
 * 32) Some clarification over whether the DDs were "escort" (close in) or "screen" (distant) seems apt, since "escort" appears to be used for both.
 * 33) Some further comment on how the situation was cleared up seems appropriate. As it is, the page just stops; a bit of "conclusion" is warranted, like "It wasn't until TORCH  King unbent."...
 * 34) I added Dowding as a Br CO (as convoy Commodore, he was), added Dönitz (as BdU, he was), & deleted Raeder (he wasn't); I could be persuaded Dönitz should be removed, as not an operational commander, but he was so very hands on, I'd need to hear very, very strong arguments. (BTW, any relation?)

 * In reply to these points:

 * As regards the 200,000 tonnes of cargo, that is the actual amount of cargo specified to have left aboard the ships from Iceland, as stated further down in the article.
 * I clarified how many reached Archangel and how many Murmansk. I must repeat that Churchill stated that Murmansk had been heavily bombed, and that Archangel was the convoy's destination. I presume (but that is only me), that the Murmansk arrivals were either directed there by the scatter-orders or by their masters themselves.
 * As to the mileage to km, it is converted using a wikipedia inline template.
 * I understand that Churchill was 'a navy man', however having re-checked the book the distance references are kept in miles throughout the entire series. Having said that, I defer to any decision to change them to nautical miles, but I am hesitant on it since I believe Winston would have specified it. ..
 * The close escort ships were named, and after reviewing the Admiralty records it became apparent that six destroyers were present and eleven other minor ships. I linked those with an article page.
 * The fuelling issue. The RFA Grey Ranger, the convoy tanker held a refuelling position north-east of Jan Mayen island. The Admiralty however feared that if German surface ships were to close contact with the convoy, the destroyers themselves would not have enough fuel to escort stricken ships back to base, given that after having refuelled, the destroyers would have had to escort the convoy eastwards, take part in a possible fleet action with the German Navy, and then double back with any capital ship stricken in an encounter with the Germans.
 * The "unless the convoy was threatened by the presence of a surface force which the cruiser force could fight" part. That is Admiralty speak for 'Don't go beyond 25 East if there are the nasty, big German ships about.' So you are indeed correct.
 * QP 13 had to be mentioned because the running of PQ 17 allowed the Admiralty to get back some merchant ships from the Russian ports - something similar happened in the Mediterranean when ships in Malta left over from Operation Harpoon moved out of harbour just as Operation Pedestal was underway.
 * I'd consider mentioning the type of ship, but there are so many really that it would make reading the article a challenging feat of literacy. ..
 * Oiler (see fuelling issue above).
 * Churchill states Murmansk was out of action to receive ships in that period - the intro was amended; I believe it must have been a left over from the original version of the article, my mistake.
 * Open sea: Corrected by other editor.
 * BV 138s based in Norway: I have not found any reference to where they were based, I only found reference to them being overhead.
 * "Nine torpedo aircraft" "another attack, by twenty-five torpedo bombers": No description of type in references, unfortunately.
 * "At 13:00 on 3 July, the destroyer escort was steering east to pass between Bear Island and Spitzbergen." They were not in pursuit, they were at that point at that specific time. Reference was made to the memoirs of a destroyer captain (Roger P. Hill), stating that the escort destroyers passed through there at that time. U456 had been shadowing the convoy since it had seen it. The presumption here is that the destroyers were in their normal stations, escorting the convoy. Since Hill did not state specifically that the convoy was there I could not include it in the phrase.
 * Disperse/Scatter: Refer to Note A
 * "Signal" to "Message": Message makes more grammatic sense - I've been reading too much maritime books and its showing in my vocabulary!
 * repeating Rears: Agreed.
 * "the merchantmen to proceed independently": Agreed
 * "The earlier cruiser movement": During planning the cruisers were ordered not to go beyond 25 East. 12:30 4, July, Admiralty gave permission to go beyond 25 East - a reversal of previous orders with a number of conditions. (Explained in article). Hamilton was then ordered to withdraw when the convoy itself was beyond 25 East. Then at 18:58, the Admiraly instructed Hamilton to remain with the Convoy until he received further instructions. At 21:11, the Withdraw messages begun. Thus between 18:58 and 21:11 Hamilton had been beyond 25 East, and would probably be ordered to withdraw westwards as per the agreed plans. That is the reason for the wording that Hamilton would have had to withdraw westwards in any case. The earlier is therefore earlier to the planned withdrawal, as evident in the text.
 * "the now defenceless merchantmen": Given that they had their 'guns', they still were defenceless. Some ships had two machine guns only, others had 3-inch guns, but those are only good against aircraft, at best.
 * "only the close escort of anti-aircraft auxiliaries, corvettes, minesweepers and armed trawlers was left to attempt to protect the scattered convoy" That is exactly Convoy PQ 17's problem. While the close escort of destroyers withdrew to the west with the Cruisers to meet the Home Fleet, the anti-aircraft auxiliaries, corvettes etc. etc. remained with the ships. Presumably, the merchant ships were following their scatter-orders and the smaller close escorts covered them as best they could.
 * "Fourteen American ships in all were sunk." Agreed.
 * "leaving it easy prey to U-boats and aircraft" The merchant ships were scattered. Other escorting ships covered them as best they could;
 * "six more by four U-boats" Which boats?: Refer to List of merchant ships lost in Convoy PQ17
 * Is it asking to much to have the U-boat skippers' names? And the Luftwaffe unit numbers?: Unfortunately, I'm not a Luftwaffe or U-Boat expert.
 * "after taking the ship's documents and flag, U-255 gave Potter the coup de grace with one torpedo." The sources state that the ship's documents were taken. No reference to cyphers. That's all.
 * "The senior officer of the escort preferred to stay in the low visibility on the original route, and to make ground to the eastward. Commander J. E. Broome, in command of the escort squadron, later decided that a more northerly route was necessary, ordered the senior office of the escort" OK, so who, exactly, was "senior officer of the escort", Broome or somebody else?: In convoys, the Senior Officer of the escort is the person in charge of the combined operation details etc. Jack Broome was the Escort Group Commander, a different role.
 * "no information in Tovey's possession justified this change, Hamilton was ordered to withdraw when the convoy was east of 25° East," Who's ordering Hamilton to withdraw, here, since the Admiralty has expressly given him permission to continue...? Or didn't Tovey get word of this change? Or what?: Refer to Note above.
 * "consisting of HMS London, HMS Norfolk, USS Wichita, USS Tuscaloosa, and three destroyers, of which two were American" "CS1, under Rear Admiral Hamilton, of four cruisers and four destroyers." So which is it...?: Seems to have been addressed.
 * "In October 1968 Jack Broome, British escort group commander, sued David Irving for libel after the controversial historian wrote a book blaming Broome for the losses of PQ17. In February 1970 after seventeen days of deliberation before London's High Court, Broome won. Irving was forced to pay £40,000 in damages, and the book was withdrawn from circulation.[1]" Deleted as off-point. Unless there were accusations Broome goofed at the time... Otherwise, put it on Broome's page.Agreed.
 * Some clarification over whether the DDs were "escort" (close in) or "screen" (distant) seems apt, since "escort" appears to be used for both.: There is confusion on which destroyers were in escort, the screen is sure to have included the U.S.S. Wainwright and Rowan and seven other British destroyers.
 * Some further comment on how the situation was cleared up seems appropriate. As it is, the page just stops; a bit of "conclusion" is warranted, like "It wasn't until TORCH King unbent."...: Any suggestion? I was thinking of finding some criticism of the Operation and ending it there.
 * I added Dowding as a Br CO (as convoy Commodore, he was), added Dönitz (as BdU, he was), & deleted Raeder (he wasn't); I could be persuaded Dönitz should be removed, as not an operational commander, but he was so very hands on, I'd need to hear very, very strong arguments. (BTW, any relation?): GR Raeder has to be included. Operation Rosselsprung and his withdrawal of the German surface units was instrumental in this convoy.

 * reuv T 11:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC). Please note that I have placed a link to this conversation in the Article's Peer Review page. Thanks

 * In reply:
 * 200,000. I did notice. My concern was not having it clear where it was.
 * Murmansk. No argument with damage due bombing (as sourced); I was left a bit unclear if there was to be transshipment from Archangel'sk after, or if some ships were originally bound there, or what.
 * Open sea. No, I changed it to what seemed sensible; I think there's still room for a question of where PQ17 was/wasn't, & what U-456 was/wasn't doing. It appears, from your clarification, U-456 was acting as trailer; can you say if she was part of a patrol line, & which one? Again (not to beat it to death), were other boats being called in? I presume; confirmation would be better.
 * Miles & miles. No problem with the template, it's the choice of conversion ratio I question. And I've seen sailors (most notably Morison) off-handedly use "miles" meaning nm when dealing with sea distances. (I do, to.) It's the potential confusion that's led me to prefer km as a standard, & work backwards...
 * Cruising. I'm a bit troubled by the language "a force it could fight". Maybe because it's Admiralty-speak. ;) I'd suggest rewrite to something like "Admiralty orders were avoid being overmatched": same intent, & no risk of unclarity.
 * QP13. It's the disconnect between its return & anything to do with PQ17 I had trouble with. Unless any ships from QP13 were attached, or to be attached, I'd take it out. If it's the escort of QP13 that was attached to outbout PQ17 (per MOMP), that definitely should be clarified & included. (That possibility didn't occur to me on 1st reading.)
 * Fuelling. Clearer.
 * Naming types. I'm suggesting doing it only when introducing them (not always), then using only names; ditto HMS/USS. In a paper work, it's necessary; given links, maybe not.
 * Passing Bear I. It's the absence of connection to the convoy or any action that troubles me. If Hill doesn't specify his relationship to the convoy, I'd suggest delete the ref to where the DDs were as of no value, & a source of confusion. Unless you can relate their position to the convoy? I mean, were they "x" miles ahead? Were they detailed to remain "x" miles ahead? (I'd expect both; does Hill say?) If so, a mention of that at some point, combined with this pos report, gives PQ17's rate of advance & a rough pos (which, presumably, is what Hill was getting at by mentioning it).
 * "earlier" Clearer as explained; a similar comment, or something about the back-&-forth from the Admiralty in the text, would be a big help.
 * "defenseless" No argument they aren't well-protected; I just find "defenseless" a strong word. "Vulnerable", or something, is nearer. In particular if close escort remained.
 * Senior senor. If not Broome, I'd say name him there, then, & credit him as Sr Escort Ofcr. Same applies to Tovey & the order to withdraw, I think, 'cause I wasn't clear exactly who was making the decisions, esp in light of info & orders from Pound. And maybe there's an issue of contradictory instructions from Pound, & over-complex structure, needing to be addressed.
 * The list is a good one. (I'm still a paper guy, I guess. ;D)
 * Signal to message. I'm showing worse: only a professional sailor (or a trivia nut like me ;D) would likely draw the distinction. And maybe it's a Brit thing, too: RN might use "signal" more broadly than USN... (Is this opening up a can of worms on which to use, Britlish or Amlish? 8o)
 * 3 or 4 DDs. Addressed? No, I changed it presuming a sourced reference was right, but it looks like a second source confirming would be a good idea.
 * Raeder. I'd take him out for the same reason I wouldn't include Pound: he's not the operational commander, nor actually on scene. I wouldn't include Nimitz at Coral Sea (nor Yamamoto), for the same reason. Mention, yes; make clear Roesselsprung is per his instructions, as Tovey is under Pound's, but no more.
 * Balance. I'd like to see a bit more of the German side & their decision process, why Tirpitz & Co. didn't press on, that like.
 * Just to be clear about my aim. I probably won't reread the page with every post here; I'll rely on you to address my comments, on the page as well as here. (If I do reread, I'll be endlessly tinkering... Better to let you finish, first.)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Numbers
I'm having some trouble with the numbers here. The article says; "PQ 17 lost 24 of its 34 merchant ships" Hague says there were 41 merchant ships in convoy; Schofield (The Russian Convoys) says 35 (p77), but then adds 3 rescue ships and an oiler, and another oiler and escort travelling in concert, plus a merchant equipped as a CAM ship (p78); which would bring it up to 41. For losses Hague lists 19 ships sunk, though he doesn’t list Earlston or Paulus Potter as such, or teh auxiliaries Aldersdale and Zaafaran,though Order of battle for Convoy PQ 17 gives these as sunk. Schofield says 2 turned back, 13 (plus a rescue ship) sunk by aircraft and 10 by U boat, which gives a total of 23 merchants sunk (p94). He also gives the oiler Aldersdale as sunk (p91). The OOB page has 24 sunk altogether; however if Alderdale and Zaafaran are deducted from the OOB list the result is 22 merchant ships. So we either have 24 out of 41 ships sunk, or some number between 19 and 23 out of 35 merchant ships sunk. What is it to be? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

PS None of the sources seem to back up the number 34 merchant ships, so I've been bold and changed it. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic Campaign
If this event took place in the arctic, why is it considered part of the Atlantic campaign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by $1LENCE D00600D (talk • contribs) 07:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why were they so worried about the Tirpitz?
They had the USS Washington, HMS Duke of York and HMS Victorious on hand as part of the escort force, after all. And the Washington alone would've dismantled the Tirpitz had they fought it. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because she was a force to be reckoned with. Tirpitz was fast, had considerable firepower, an experienced and skilled crew, support from large torpedo boats, submarines and land-based aircraft etc etc. And the cold and windy seas up north could be used to surprise or go around a cover fleet that had to patrol large areas. --MoRsE (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To add to this, the German sortie didn't just involve Tirpitz; the Rosselsprung force was four capital ships and a dozen destroyers. And if, as you say, Tirpitz was out-gunned by Washington (after all, her sister ship was comprehensively demolished by a ship with the same gun armament) the concern of the Home Fleet commander was the presence of U-boats and the proximity of German air forces to which he had no remedy (as his comments in the source makes clear). Xyl 54 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Expand
This article has been tagged for expansion, thus:

with the edit summary "Russian version has FA status and is over twice length" This article is 39 Kb long already; the Russian article appears to be 252 Kb long (!), and seems to include information we already have at Lend-Lease, Arctic convoys, Operation Rosselsprung, and, principally, Order of battle for Convoy PQ 17 (23Kb). I would seriously question whether this article would be improved by a wholesale transfer of that information to here. Raising it to FA status is something else again, but I suggest that could be better achieved by building on what is already here. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, no-one has objected in the last two years, so I've deleted it. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

New Campaignbox
Ok, so I replaced the Atlantic Ocean campaignbox with a new Arctic Ocean one, because this battle did not take place in the Atlantic. If there's a problem with this, feel free to revert and discuss. Howicus (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Who's who
The Admiralty instructions..." section had the following: "''The Admiralty suggested the convoy should pass at least 50 miles north of it. The senior officer of the escort preferred to stay in the low visibility on the original route, and to make ground to the eastward. Commander J. E. Broome, in command of the escort squadron, later decided that a more northerly route was necessary, ordered the senior office of the escort to alter the convoy's course to pass 70 miles north of Bear Island... " which seems to show some confusion about who was who. The same problem was highlighted in the Peer review (point 28), above. To be clear: The Senior Officer, Escort (SOE) was the officer in command of a convoy's close escort; in this case, Jack Broome (commander of HMS Keppel''). He was the one who demurred from the Admiralty's advice (as the source makes clear), but was over-ruled by a higher-ranking officer on the scene, R.Adm. Hamilton (commanding the cruiser squadron). Though it was customary for command to fall on the senior officer present, in trade protection (such as, on the North Atlantic route) it was (or became) usual for responsibility for a convoy's safety to remain with the SOE, and for other, senior, officers acting in support to defer to his orders (usually couched diplomatically as "requests"). With the Arctic convoys (and particularly this one) interference by higher authorities was a contributing factor in things going wrong. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Introduction
This passage in the introduction was boldly changed from "The convoy's progress was being observed by the British Admiralty, which ordered the ships to scatter because of information that German navy surface units were being refuelled to intercept the convoy.." (source: Churchill) to "The convoy's progress was being observed by the British Admiralty. First Sea Lord Admiral Dudley Pound, fearing a raid by the German battleship Tirpitz, ordered the covering force away from the convoy and told the convoy to scatter. The Tirpitz, however, remained in port." (source: Beesley). I’ve reverted it, as saying “Tirpitz remained in port” is not strictly accurate, and if Beesly actually says that he is incorrect. Tirpitz’s port was Trondheim; when PQ17 was sighted she had moved, along with her entourage (and ships from Narvik), to an advance base at Alta fjord where she was refuelling, prior to a sortie, (a full account is here) and the only reason they didn’t set out until after the Admiralty had reacted was that Hitler bottled it, and failed to give the go order until it was too late. To say “Tirpitz remained in port” suggests the Admiralty decision was a fuss over nothing. And it wasn’t just Tirpitz, it was three (and should have been four) capital ships; so the threat was real enough. It would be more accurate to say "the raid never materialized". Xyl 54 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the raid never materialized Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the rest? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Convoy PQ 17. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202095710/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/faqs/faq104-2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Convoy PQ 17. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013090624/http://lib.aldebaran.ru/author/pikul_valentin/pikul_valentin_rekviem_karavanu_pq17/ to http://lib.aldebaran.ru/author/pikul_valentin/pikul_valentin_rekviem_karavanu_pq17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Dead Link and inaccurate information
Reference [53] to The Spectator is a dead link to a news website reporting on the broadcast of a documentary.

The simplest solution would be to replace that with a citation for the documentary. PQ17 An Arctic Convoy Disaster. I'd do it, but I've never edited a page and would rather not do it wrong!

Secondly a minor detail, the line relating to that citation refers to Sherman tanks, however according to the caption on an image from the US Naval History library at least one (and likely more) of the tanks were Grant tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:ba07:6501:805:51bf:38fd:6e4d (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The review page for this article appears to be a mess
The review page for this article appears to be a mess. But how can you describe "Admiral Hipper", "Admiral Scheer", or "Luetvow" as "Capital Ships"? Seriously, you'd need to be drunk as all hell. Those ships are heavy cruisers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:143F:1800:2484:2C39:9316:AEC6 (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd
The section on Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd says Broome ... secured the withdrawal of all copies of the offending book from circulation (it has since been republished, with corrections). The statement is not cited. I do not know whether that was the judgment of the court, but 1st edition copies of this book can be purchased from second-hand booksellers, so clearly it is in circulation. -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrong tons
The article says this:
 * "The merchant ships were attacked by Luftwaffe aircraft and U-boats and of the 35 ships, only eleven reached their destination, delivering 70000 ST of cargo."

What the cited source says is this:
 * "Two British, six American, one Panamanian, and two Russian merchant ships reached Archangel, and delivered 70,000 tons of cargo out of the 200,000 which had started from Iceland."

Note that the source does not mention which type of tons.

The British Naval Official History [War at Sea 1939-1945, Volume II, The Period of Balance, by S.W. Roskill (1956), page 143] has the following table:
 * {| class="wikitable"

!| !| Delivered !| Lost The Roskill figures are also given in Germany and the Second World War Volume VI, page 455, which cites Roskill, War at Sea, ii page 143 as its source. (i.e. later work accepts Roskill's figures as definitive.)
 * -valign=top
 * -valign=top
 * Vehicles || 896 ||3,350
 * -valign=top
 * Tanks || 164 || 430
 * -valign=top
 * Aircraft || 87 || 210
 * -valign=top
 * Other Cargo || 57,176 tons || 99,316 tons
 * }
 * }

Regarding tons, you would expect Churchill, as a British politician writing for a British audience to use British avoirdupois tons (i.e. tons of 2,240 lbs), Americans call these "long tons".

But there was actually another type of ton used to measure ships' cargo: measurement tons (also known as "ship tons"). A measurement ton was either 40 (American) or 42 (British) cubic feet. There is no fixed conversion between measurement tons and long tons, because the density of cargo varied. Ruppenthal wrote that "in shipments to the ETO over a long period one long ton was equivalent to approximately 2.6 measurement tons." (Ruppenthal, Logistical Support of the Armies, Volume I page 135).

On balance it seems most plausible that Churchill meant long tons. We can be confident that he did not mean American (i.e. foreign) tons, and if he had meant measurement tons, you would have expected him to have explained that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Hello.

 * Thanks for your interest.
 * However, I know Churchill didn't say " Short tons ", as your Edit Summary says.
 * Nor did I.

 * The passage, when I saw it, spoke of "...metric..."; oddly, after this further edit, (which, as I agree with you about the other ton, too, is, and always shall be "...foreign..."; and I'm sure, conveniently to quote the dead who cannot refute), Churchill should have agreed.
 * I know that the measurement I saw when I visited the page had, and still has been left with, the "Foreign", " Metric " measurement conversion, whereas I left it with the "...62,500..." conversion including a "Long tons", (avoirdupois), link.
 * Though that edit was near to 'Reference 6', I don't see how, when I wrote "...which is 62,500 long tons...", anyone could have thought I was purporting to imply those were Churchil's words. In fact, it rather could be interpreted by a third party, (but I hadn't thought of this before), that if a quotation by me was intended it rather read as though he was quoting me !

 * If you really want to leave the " Foreign " metric equivalent in as it stands, fine; I'm not dogmatic. But personally I think to say, correctly, that Churchill shouldn't have used a foreign measurement; then to remove my " Long ton " Imperial, and linked, edit; and also then to leave in the " Metric " conversion, undermines the intervention in a noticeably contradictory way.

 * I didn't know there was a " Cargo " ton; very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heath St John (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The text had a conversion template in it: 70000 ST . This produces: 70000 ST.  The text had a citation, so I checked the citation, which said "tons", so I corrected the conversion template to 70000 LT, which produces 70000 LT.  There does not seem any reason to mention American short tons. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * Thanks, too, for what I suppose is the acknowledgement that I never used the " Foreign " (Short) ton, as the reversed edit summary, (and indeed this ' Talk' 's section), said; and that my " Long ton " calculation, although returning a different sum, was the avoirdupois (Long) ton; as my link to " Long Ton " demonstrated.
 * That the metric one was, and is still there at all, when the perameter allowed is so tight; and, that it isn't disqualified, too, like my own, for its suggestion that Churchill spoke in the metric system, as per. Reference 6, (because, like the objection to my edit, it too is close to that reference number), remain, firstly a surprise, and secondly a very noticeable discrepany.
 * Still, onwards to the rest of life's by comparison more minor matters.
 * Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits
Oops egg on face, I missed the cite. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 * No worries. Jrt989 (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

what does up=yes do to a ship template?
Good afternoon, what does up=yes do to a ship template? Keith-264 (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Template:Ship says: up=yes (for unlinked prefix) can be used to have an unlinked prefix:. When set to "yes", the template will display the prefix before (outside of) the wikilink.
 * GERMAN BATTLESHIP Tirpitz is produced by GERMAN BATTLESHIP Tirpitz
 * GERMAN BATTLESHIP Tirpitz is produced by GERMAN BATTLESHIP Tirpitz
 * GERMAN BATTLESHIP Tirpitz is produced by GERMAN BATTLESHIP Tirpitz (i.e. same as omitting up=yes)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Toddy1: Thanks for answering @Keith-264's question so promptly. RHodnett (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know who invents these things but they're ingenious. ;O) Thanks to you both. Keith-264 (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Convoy PQ 17


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 04

Placenames in Central-Eastern Europe
There are currently some 100 edit wars over the naming convention for geographical objects in Poland (cities, rivers, provinces etc.) The historical background of the conflict is that Poland was partitioned in 1772-1793 between Prussia, Austria and Russia, ceased to exists as an independent state for 100 years, put to heavy Russification and Germanization practices, and emerged againg as an independent state after World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945).

This is why all of modern Poland was subject to some sort of German-language rule in its history. During the Bismarck's times Poles were persecuted and expelled from their lands, and during the Hitlers times Poles were exterminated and expelled. Both German leaders thought that this was a good idea that Polish language should be forbidden and German language used for the geographical objects in occupied Poland.

The problem users are Nico, John Kenney and RickK who think that it is still a good idea that Polish cities should be called by their German names in English Wikipedia. On the other hand there are dozens of Polish editors, who are disgusted and feel insulted by using the German names for Polish cities. The worst massacres were commited by the Nazis during World War II to the Polish people just because they wanted to be Poles, not Germans. That's why the German names of the Polish cities are no longer just neutral alternative names, they are the Nazi names, and that's why they are so offensive and insulting to the Polish people.

Most of the conflicts are over the city names, there is also some conflict over intepretation of the historical events.

Suggested solution: Naming convention for geographical objects in Central-Eastern Europe.

Rule 1. Geographical object should be called by its English name if there is one. In case there is no accepted English name: Rule 2. If there's a conflict over a city name, official name should be used. Rule 3. If an geographical object has different names in several languages; the official language of the country the geographical object is located in, should be used as a preffered name in English Wikipedia.

Mestwin of Gdansk 17:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

examples of articles involved: Gdansk, Szczecin, Poznan, Warsaw, Wroclaw

besides the renaming of Polish cities some users use offensive languagem for example Nico writes that western Poland should be called Eastern Germany, and Gdansk, Poznan and evev Warsaw should be called former German city

It seem that the problem is already being discussed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(disputed_place_names) Mestwin of Gdansk 18:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sympathise with this, but have no time myself to involve me here. Who can help this person ? FirmLittleFluffyThing
 * I agree that this is a problem that should be solved, but it does not appear to be a request for mediation. It is a naming convention issue.  Mediation may be appropriate, but it must occur between at least two people.  Is anybody actually requested mediation? Tuf-Kat 20:59, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I request mediation between pro-German editors: Nico, John Kenney, RickK, etc. vs. pro-Polish editors (myself and a dozen of other editors: Mestwin of Gdansk, Space Cadet, Yeti, Ruhrjung,  Halibutt etc. Pro-German editors think that 19th-century German names of the cities ARE most commonly used in English; pro-Polish editors think that the 18th/20th century Polish names of the cities ARE the most commonly used in English. This conflict cannot be solved on the talk pages and needs mediation. Except Warsaw and Cracow that have a common English name (non-Polish/non-German) this problem involves all of some 800 Polish cities. Mestwin of Gdansk 21:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no need for mediation between me and User:Caius2ga, also known as User:Swiecino, User:Gdansk and User:AntiNaziWatch. He is a vandal, with a long history of vandalism and nasty ad hominem attacks, especially attacks on me. Here is a good example of his behaviour . There is little more to say. I'm tired of him and his lies, manipulation and personal attacks. We reached compromise and peace in the Silesia case exactly because he left last year, when he was about to be banned. I certainly admit to have opinions on German-Polish issues, but at least I try to be cooperative. Spending time on caius2ga, however, who in the Oder talk pages stated "it is a matter of honour to erase any German name", posted numerous "WARNING: Nico the Silling" messages around on Wikipedia or is calling everyone he disagrees with nazis and neo-nazis as well as flooding, spamming and vandalizing even talk pages (like the Silesia vote), is fruitless. It is completely impossible to deal with him, which john pointed out months ago . A mediation will not bring anything new. Thanks, but no thanks.

 * Btw., RickK and John are not "pro-German" editors, and Ruhrjung is not "pro-Polish", as far as I know. -- Nico 00:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nico that I don't think that a mediation with User:Gdansk would be particularly useful, especially if he is, indeed User:Caius2ga, which he seems to be. He has proven himself to be an utterly uncooperative user. However, I think that this is an issue that might warrant some kind of involvement from people other than the people who have involved themselves heretofore, as there are many less obnoxious contributors who essentially agree with User:Gdansk on how to deal with this issue, and there are others (including myself) who have argued strongly for the opposite. Some sort of discussion involving outsiders might be useful. john 01:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I decline to participate in either arbitration or mediation. It's all nonsense. RickK | Talk 02:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-

I don't like to label myself as a "pro-polish" contributor. I just don't believe in the absurd idea of calling the same city different names throughout history. Wether it's a former german, austrian or polish city. I'm fine with comments explaining the diversity, but that's about it. And I really don't believe Fahrenheit will turn in his grave if we write that he was born in Gdansk. I don't like to call people Nazis for what they think, but then again we do have a joker around here who likes to quote neo-Nazi propaganda in relating to Polish history, just to push people's buttons. A little example of his style: "kings of Poland, at least in the past, usually were Germans, (...) they often were German souvereigns as well and (...) they spoke German, not Polish".

Space Cadet 01:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. I would love to see Uncle Ed in on this. --

I hold a wider participation by experienced wikipedians in a discussion on naming principels to be (much) more important. In my opinion, mediation is not (yet) quite called for. However, if mediation nevertheless becomes the chosen alternative, already at this stage, and if I at the time chosen for mediation am present at the computer (i.e. not at work or out in the sun ;-) I would be happy to follow the process and participate with what I feel called for. I would however like to make clear, that although I at some moments have lost my temper in frustration over some contributors' provocative and implacabel attitudes, I do not perceive me myself as being one of the warring parties in need of mediation, rather as one of them who until now have tried to contribute to constructive solutions of the conflicts aswell as to stimulate more bellicose editors to cooperation.

There is a another, but in these disputes intertwined issue, which I would like to emphasize. The words "Germany" and "German" can be understood quite differently by different people. There remains a considerable confusion regarding connections and differences between ethnicity, nationality and citizenship, aswell as on questions such as if "Germany" at all existed before 1871, if Imperial Germany and the German Empire are synonymes, and if the adjective German is limited in its scope to things pertaining "Germany" (whatever that now is).

(User:Wik is someone I think would be important to include, and for quite other reasons User:Adam Carr.) --Ruhrjung 07:54, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need a mediation commity either, but apparently all previous compromise proposals have failed. My proposal included (5 for, 5 against, 1 abstaining). The problem is that apparently there can be no compromise and only one name should be chosen in each case to avoid confusion. Either Gdansk or Danzig, either Warsaw or Warschau, either Szczecin or Stettin. I'm not sure, however, if this could be accepted by both sides.
 * Anyway, I'm always willing to help.Halibutt 09:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that mediation is required. According to me argumentation of Nico is pointless. Conventions enforced by him cause mess. The naming conventions has to be used consequently. If we start using Posen for 19th century Poznan it will be necessary to use French names for cities in western Germany on the beginning of 19th century, Czech names for cities in Lusatia (Budisyn instead of Bautzen) between 14th and 16th centuries Polish names for Ukrainian cities, German names for French cities and for Chanell Islands between 1940 and 1945 and so on. It is ridiculous.

I support the proposal of Mestwin of Gdansk. Yeti 22:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not a clean and beautiful compromise that would satisfy everyone, but I simply see no better option.Halibutt 23:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Obsession about 3rd Reich and German language
In my opinion the problem user is Nico who is obsessed by the history of the First, Second and Third German Reich or Empire and also obsessed about the German language. The main activity of Nico is to put into the English Wikipedia, as many of the German language as possible. He makes sure the German placenames are listed everywhere, that German placenames are printed in bold letters, and that the German placenames are listed are listed before any other names. This may be desirable in the case of of placenames in Germany but the same activity is very disturbing and offensive in case of the placenames outside of Germany, especially those countries that were occupied by Germany in the past. (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia).

Obsession about German language only
The other pro-German users: John Kenney and RickK do NOT share the Nico's obsession about the Third Reich, but they do share the obsession about the German language. They often support Nico in edit wars about the German placenames, and do not hesitate to erase informative content just to revert to a version that contains the German names. They are not as dangerous as Nico, but thay should also be examined and included in this mediation propoesal.

German placenames only for the German-speaking countries
My personal opinion is that we should accept German names in English Wikipedia only for placenames in the German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) and avoid German names in English Wikipedia for the placenames outside of these coutries. At the same time I am willing to accept the compromise, that the German placenames are used in English Wikipedia for geographical object outside Germany (and especially in Poland) on condition thay are used in limited numbers, and they are listed after the native names (in case of Poland: Polish, Latin, Kashubian-Pomeranian, Silesian. In case of Lithuania: Lithuanian language etc)

Requests to ban Nico
There are also several requests to bann Nico form Wikipedia (at least form English language Wikipedia) if he continues to harm the articles by his German language obsession.

That's why I requested this mediation and I will accept the results. Either we find a compromise solution about the German language in Poland or I will request to bann Nico from Wikipedia. Mestwin of Gdansk 16:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ukrainian/Lithuanian/Belarussian placenames
Results of this mediation should also include the placenames in Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia the coutries that were administered by Poland, Russia, Germany and [[Austria for many years in the past, and that's why they have many different placenames in various languages.

Im my opinion the compromise solution should be that the native names should be preferred. Ukrainian placenames should be preferred for placenames in Ukraine, Belarussian placenames should be preferred for placenames in Belarus, Lithuanian placenames should be preferred for placenames in Lithuania, etc. For example the Lithuanian cities should be called Vilnius and Kaunas for all historical periods (and not Wilno, Wilna, Vilno, Vilna). Ukrainian cities should called Kyiv (not Kijów, Kiev) Lviv (not Lwów, Lemberg, Lvov) for all historical periods, although the older English publications preferred Russian of Polish names for these cities Mestwin of Gdansk 16:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

German placenames prefered in Germany
Results of these medation should also include the German placenames of ther gerographical objects in Germany. For example the German names of Greifswald, Stralsund, Wolgast, Bautzen, Havelberg should be preffered in English Wikipedia for all historical periods, altouth they have also Polish names: Gryfia, Strzałów, Wołogoszcz, Budziszyn; and Lusatian: Budyšin. Mestwin of Gdansk 17:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flemish/French placemanes in Belgium
Belgium is a bilingual country - northern part is Flemish Flanders, while the southern part is French, Walonie. Most of the cities have names in both languages. Some cities like Brussels and Bruges have English names, while others have not. Flemish names should be used in the Flemish part of the country, French names should be used in the Wallon part of the country. Mestwin of Gdansk 20:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments to this request
I'm not clear on where to add my comments to this request, so I'm placing them here, at the end of this section.

To be honest, I don't see where mediation will be of help in this matter. Both sides appear to me as being fairly hardened & upcompromising in their positions. I make this assumption on the following observations:
 * One side has set forth a fairly detailed bill of demands above, which
 * Includes the request for having someone banned,
 * Historically, both viewpoints have extensively argued for their own POV without any sign of compromise (although the participants have changed over time),
 * There has been at least one straw poll, whose results seem to have had no effect on this dispute, and
 * My own contribution at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names), which was aimed at finding a compromise, has gone uncommented upon.

(Because of the last fact, I recuse myself from mediating this dispute.)

If we could have another poll, this time with all parties promising to abide by the result, & which drew sufficient votes from all parts of Wikipedia, perhaps the Mediation Committee could help. But even then, I believe it would only settle part of the conflict.

P.S. Please consult Godwin's Law about the use of the term Nazi. I believe it is possible to be a German chauvinist without also embracing Fascist ideology. -- llywrch 19:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some suggestions to solve this dispute forever
It is nearly impossible to create ONE article that pleases both sides. There are just a few possibilities to solve this dispute forever:

1. Bilingual names everywhere (e.g. always "Gdansk/Danzig", "Szczecin/Stettin", "Wroclaw/Breslau").

2. A technical preselection of the preferred name. A command like would insert the preferred name of the city from the REDIRECT page. The server software could be extended with an IF-clause: #IF ="Gdansk" THEN WRITE "Szczecin" ELSE IF ="Danzig" THEN WRITE "Stettin" ELSE IF ...

3. Two different articles for disputed cities that give a slightly national POV (simply choosing one name is already a national POV). Contributors need a common goal if they want to write a good article. Creation of two different articles would create two competing, but not opposing groups. Whereever a separation in two different articles is not possible, links should show both articles (e.g. Schopenhauer was born in Gdansk/Danzig). Readers could choose which article they want to read. Deleting OR REDIRECTING articles of the other side should be regarded as vandalism.

4. If you have another idea to avoid a national bias when using disputed placenames, please add here.

Please regard these ideas carefully, as the permanent edit war discourages many users. Two competing articles need just a little bit more storage, but they could reduce conflicts that makes the whole project a madhouse. Remember that this project lives from donations and nobody wants to donate any cent for an institution that makes his contributions a subject of permanent edit wars. Two different articles for such a disputed issue could create a willingness to donate that exceeds the costs for additional storage by far.

This encyclopedia has many special interest pages (e.g. special arms), so a few number of competing pages for the same issue should be allowed. If not, you should try to insert a technical preselection as quickly as possible in order to make such disputes as invisible as possible. --80.134.126.118 17:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mediation has been requested involving User:Gdansk,, User:Wik, User:Adam Carr, User:Nico, User:John Kenney, User:RickK, User:Space Cadet, User:Yeti, User:Ruhrjung, User:Szopen and User:Halibutt, User:Sca, User:Przepla, User:Cautious, User:Kpalion.

 * User:RickK - Refused mediation
 * User:Nico - Refused mediation
 * User:Adam Carr - Refused mediation
 * User:Wik - has not responded to the mediation request

 * User:Gdansk - Willing to participate, no opinions regarding the mediator
 * User:John Kenney - Willing to participate, no opinions regarding the mediator
 * User:Space Cadet - Willing to participate, prefers User:Ed Poor as mediator
 * User:Yeti - Unclear -- apparently willing to participate with Gdansk as his representative
 * User:Ruhrjung - Willing to participate, although questioning the meaningfulness, no opinions regarding the mediator
 * User:Halibutt - Willing to participate, no opinions regarding the mediator
 * Lirath Q. Pynnor - Accepts mediation, no preferences

Llyrwich has recused himself as a possible mediator, and Anthere has indicated she does not have the time to participate. All other mediators are assumed candidates.

 * Hi, guys! Shall we have another go at it? --Uncle Ed 22:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * ok! Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Where and how? Perhaps we could start on a public talk page and then move to e-mail (with multiple cc:'s) for private discussion as needed. --Uncle Ed 15:14, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Why would I know how? Im not a mediator! Lirath Q. Pynnor

Could everybody who is willing to participate in mediation please leave a message at User:Ed Poor/Mediation. I would suggest outlining your desires for mediation -- what you would feel to be the ideal outcome of mediation (and, perhaps, a more practical outcome you would be happy with). If you are not willing to participate with Ed mediating, either leave a message there or e-mail me (you can use the "e-mail this user function") so we can work it out.

This is a rather large mediation group, so I'd like to suggest whittling down the number of participants. Would anybody be willing to be represented by another person? Would anyone be willing to represent others? Do you have any other desires about how mediation should occur? Tuf-Kat 20:18, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think we should also invite User:Adam Bishop as he has an opinion on the subject and also takes controvercial actions: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators -- Mestwin of Gdansk 00:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Because I was blocked by some sort of Wikipedia Ku Klux Klan (see (Quickpolls), just for using a Wikipedia naming convention, I am sorry I cannot participate in the mediation process at the moment. Mestwin of Gdansk

(last comment added by IP: 62.244.138.99 - restored by sannse (talk) 19:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC))

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Bay of Puck

The Bay of Puck or Puck Bay (Zatoka Pucka; Pùckô Hôwinga; Putziger Wiek), is a shallow western branch of the Bay of Gdańsk in the southern Baltic Sea, off the shores of Gdańsk Pomerania, Poland. It is separated from the open sea by the Hel Peninsula.

The bay has an average depth of 2 m to 6 m. There is a shallow sand-bank from Rewa to Kuźnica in the middle of Hel Peninsula. The bay is available only for small fishing boats and yachts, which have to stick to the strict deeper routes. There are deposits of potassium salt below the Bay of Puck. The main ports are Puck, Jastarnia, and Hel.

The name has nothing to do with the sport of ice hockey. In Polish the word "puck" doesn't mean anything, and the sport is popular only in the southern part of the country, opposite to the coast.

Rivers

 * Gizdepka
 * Płutnica

title: Bay of Puck