Talk:SMS Emden

Casualties

"hundreds of casualtys" sounds a little bit odd for a complement of 360, I believe that term is usually not used unless it means several hundred persons, which is alittle bit much even if there were more than 300 casualtys.

Redirected

I have redirected this page to the SMS Emden (1906), because the 1914 ship is currently redlinked. Until that page is written, let this be a redirect. Otherwise it sounds like "Two individuals have been called Abraham Lincoln: the President and a plumber in Arkansas". -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 13:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As per the naming convention guideline at WP:NC-SHIP, the correct way to organize these articles is to put a {{shipindex}} disambiguation page at the generic name (SMS Emden) that links to each of the ships, which have themselves been given unique names (generally via the addition of hull numbers, pennant numbers, or barring either of those, the launch date). --Kralizec! (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon in Indian Languages

There is no reference that Emadan was derived from Emden. But I was able to find that Emden is a Tamil Word "Emden" with a reliable source. Therefore I'm altering the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.241.216 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

The article is good, but it is riddled with weasel words refering to its "valiant" captain and its "well-deserved" awards, etc. Yes, the ship did have a remarkably successful career, but these are still statements of opinion that should be removed to maintain a neutral POV. F-451 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I gave the article a once-over, if you can, take a look and see if there's anything I missed. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, I went ahead and removed the template since you removed all the weasel words that I noticed. F-451 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

are you saying the captain was not valiant, or just that this was not referenced? Sandpiper (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what F-451 meant was more along the line of peacock terms, but the point remains the same. Unless there are historians who make these claims, such phrases shouldn't be in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It just annoys me when people overclaim in cliches. If they mean they they think the description is wrong and excessively praises someone then just say that. It is absolutely not the case that we do not report opinion, we just do it neutrally. I'm afraid I am a bit prone to be picky when people start using technical terms and mis-apply them. There is nothing weasley about 'valiant' in the sense meant on wiki.Sandpiper (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, we can and do report on opinions all the time, they just have to be sourced. I've been doing a lot of work on ships of the Kaiserliche Marine, and it is quite difficult to find good English-language sources about them. I've recently been working on the battlecruisers, and I've only been able to find one book that is actually about the ships themselves (and it's about 50 pages long); everything else is a general "ships of World War I" or "naval battles of the First World War" type of book. If I could only read German...and then get to the German archives... Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just be carefull, its addictive: I do know someone interested in WW2 history who has indeed been learning German. Leant me 'Dreadnought' by Massie and Jenkins on Churchill, and now look whats happened. Sandpiper (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know; I've been working on the German WWI ships for probably over a year now; it's only somewhat recently that I've been actively looking for tree-based sources, and had a difficult time doing so. I overhauled SMS Von der Tann over the past couple of months (take a look and improve it if you can/feel like it), and much of the service history had to be gleaned from the generic books. There's a lingering thought in the back of my mind that if I ever do my doctorate, I'll do the dissertation on some aspect of the German Imperial Navy that requires me to go to the German Archives for information. But it's sort of a pipe dream :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just changed "Fate" from "shot to pieces" to "scuttled", because the former is just propaganda and unfit for an encyclopedia.--217.111.119.146 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! — Kralizec! (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet curiously at odds with the article which says she was run aground. That ain't scuttling. Greglocock (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough ;-) --217.111.119.146 (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

SMS stands for Seiner Majestät Schiff

Should SMS link to Seiner Majestät Schiff, that's a new very short page? Is it normal to link directly from the SMS at the very start of the article? Or should we link from some other occurence of SMS? 83.71.71.209 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure there is a call for a specific page for that, and it should probably be linked to Kaiserliche Marine where the prefix is already explained. The only ship prefix to have its own page is Her Majesty's Ship, because of all the different variations that have existed over the years, and the subsequent spin offs such as HMCS, HMAS, HMIS, HMNZS etc mean that this page can be used to explain this development. But SMS in this case is dangerously close to just a dicdef. USS is a disambiguation page, and United States Ship links United States Navy ships which discusses the prefix in the opening section, but mainly talks about the specific ships of the US Navy. Benea (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Benea; SMS is explained at Ship prefix, there's no need for it to have it's own article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New York Times

If anyone wants more sources or links, the free New York Times Archive got quite a lot of articles about the emden.. Just search for emden.. Some links here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9901E0DC1738E633A25750C1A9679D946596D6CF SAW THE EMDEN LOSE LAST FIGHT; Cocos Island Cable Man's Vivid Description of Cruiser's Raid and the Final Battle.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E06E2DE103EE733A05753C2A9649D946596D6CF WHEN THE EMDEN RAIDED PENANG; Pen Picture from a Times Correspondent of Havoc She Wrought. YET LEFT PRAISE BEHIND Captain Wouldn't Fire on Merchant Craft and "Hoped He Hadn't Hit the Town."

There are a lot more there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.140.73.186 (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

Er, "*Divakar "SMS எம்டன் 22-09-1914" Published by Palaniappa Brothers, Madras 600014, India". Is this novel printed in English? Unless it is, it shouldn't be in the English Wikipedia, should it?. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Speeding

In the 'Madras to Penang' section, para 7, I am a bit uneasy about the phrase "entered the harbour at top speed" (even if it is referenced). A quick glance at the infobox shows that Emden's 'top speed' was 23 knots. As a fully paid-up member of the land-lubber's society, I would say that the prospect of a 3,000 ton warship coming into the port at that speed would give anyone palpatations!

It might be better if the word 'top' was deleted.

Thoughts, anyone?

RASAM (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Penang is an island, and the "harbour" is merely the roads off Georgetown in the strait separating Penang from the mainland. There are wharves and port facilities on either side of the strait, which is about as wide as a large river. I was there in 2008. We anchored fair in the middle and swung about happily, using tenders to get to shore. I expect that Emden would have simply steamed through at top speed, firing as she went. --Pete (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Pete, thanks for responding to my concerns. (I'll try not to forget to watch this page in future), but the fact that Penang is an island and there is adequate room for a ship the size of Emden to barrel through, all guns blazing, is not clearly explained; I, and most other readers, have not been to Penang. Something like: "the layout of Penang's harbour allowed Emden to steam through it, firing as she went." might be a better depiction. The phrase 'top speed' would then hardly be needed, as the impression of speed would be made by the use of 'steam through it'. RASAM (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ship Photos

The second photograph shown for this ship in this article is actually of the second Emden, launched in 1916, despite the comments on its "official" caption. The first Emden had a much more pronounced "ram" bow and its forward mast was forward of the bridge. The second Emden had a less pronounced "ram" bow and its forward mast was behind the bridge. I can understand why the archivists incorrectly captioned the photograph as photos of the first Emden are almost nonexistent and the 1916 Emden can easily be confused with the first (the 1909 Emden), unless one is a student of this sort of thing. So, I am suggesting the second photo of the ship (in this article) be moved to the article about the second, 1916 Emden, as that article lacks a decent photo and its portrayal here is, in fact, 100% incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.26.178 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about this image? If so, you are mistaken; it's clearly the first Emden. Note the three funnels are the same height (compare to this photo of the second Emden, where the first funnel is clearly taller than the second and third), the bow is wrong, and the bridge structure is completely different (compare the bow and bridge to this photo). Compare the photo in question with this; it's clearly the same ship, the first Emden. Parsecboy (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Parsecboy, also note the forward casemate gun on the hull of the ship in the 1914 Tsingtao picture, clearly visible on the 1910 picture, and the lead in this article, and completely absent from the pictures of the 1916 ship, as the Königsberg class ships did not have this feature. As to the elements that appear to have confused you, comparing other images all show Emden with the mast abaft the bridge, and the bow shown in the Tsingtao image ([1], etc). That said I will admit it is hard to reconcile the lead image here and the Tsingtao ship (and all the other images of Emden) as being one and the same. The Tsingtao image is Emden, the lead image perhaps is not, as even the earliest pictures and plans of Emden show her with the bow and mast arrangement seen in 1914. The lead image in fact much more closely resembles one of the earlier Bremen class of light cruisers, for example compare this image of SMS Bremen. Perhaps The Illustrated War News is the one that got it wrong, rushing out an image of a German light cruiser to accompany news of the Emden's loss, but publishing an incorrect picture? Benea (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right, Benea. It certainly looks like a Bremen class cruiser. I had a look at Groner's German Warships 1815-1945 and based on the linedrawings of the Bremen class there, it looks to be one of the first five ships of the class, as originally built. Note that the ship carries the ornament directly on the bow, as the Bremens did (see for instance here); Emden carried a crest on the side of the bow, as can be seen in any of the photos of her. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Emden in film

I just edited a link to the 2013 movie Die Männer der Emden to the article and was wondering if there are perhaps more movies about the ship. So I looked at inmd and saw there are a few more pre-world war II films. Some even have a wiki page like The Exploits of the Emden, How We Fought the Emden and Kreuzer Emden. Should these older films all be mentioned in the article? Pindanl (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion - I've added them (plus one more) to the article. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Number killed on Sydney

Four sailors were killed on Sydney, not three. Three were RN sailors on loan, one was RAN. CWGC lists all their names against Sydney on 9 November 1914. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up - Forstmeier might well have gotten it wrong (or maybe I copied the numbers wrong ;). I'll double check later today. Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I've found the discrepancy - only 3 men were killed in the battle itself, the fourth died later of his wounds. Parsecboy (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. There is perennial confusion in Australia over it, probably because the AWM Roll of Honour only lists one dead on that day (the Australian, Bell), but CWGC lists all four. Quite a few of the crew were Brits on loan. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Cocos Islands: wireless or telegraph station?

There is a display about the attack on the Cocos Islands in the Telegraph Museum in Porthcurno, Cornwall. From what I remember from a visit there a week ago, the Cocos Island station was predominantly a relay station for the telegraph network based on undersea cables. Although the station evidently also had wireless communication, perhaps the telegraph facilities were the main target. The German raiding party was deceived into cutting the wrong cable (the axe used is in the museum), but other equipment was damaged. Jmchutchinson (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SMS Emden. 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/20140421081755/http://www.die-maenner-der-emden.de/geschichte.html to http://www.die-maenner-der-emden.de/geschichte.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

Perhaps it should be noted that all crew members and their descendants were rewardet with the right to add the suffix "Emden" to their names.--WerWil (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is one of sourcing - do you have a reliable one? Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I can only offer you the sources of the german artikle. For Example:

• Hans H. Hildebrand Albert Röhr Hans-Otto Steinmetz: Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe: Ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart. Vol 1. Koehler, Herford 1979, p. 70.
• Burkhard Köster: Aus Liebe zur Seefahrt! Vizeadmiral Karl-Adolf Zenker. In: Helmut R. Hammerich, Rudolf J. Schlaffer (Hrsg.): Militärische Aufbaugenerationen der Bundeswehr 1955 bis 1970 : Ausgewählte Biographien. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, München 2011, p. 319–349 (google.de)

--WerWil (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall Hildebrand et. al. mentioning that, but it might have been in a note. I'll have to check it later. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Laid down

According to German Wikipedia the ship was laid down on 6 April 1906, not 1 November 1906. Which is correct?--Andreas (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

de.wiki is confused, 6 April is the contract date, not the keel laying, as confirmed by Hildebrand et. al. Parsecboy (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe the source for this wrong information is the description by Warship Profile, page 2. --Andreas (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That could well be the case. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Pronoun use

I've used this article in a central discussion as an example of poor practice in pronoun use. There is a particularly glaring example of a six-sentence section containing nine pronouns. This is unfortunate, as it is about five or six too many. There's another thing I noticed; why does this article use "she" and "her"? Was there a discussion to do this or was it just a preference from the main writer(s)? Thanks in advance. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

My preference. But if you look at the oldest revision, you'll see that the article started that way. Parsecboy (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

So it did. Any thoughts on the quality of this piece of writing?

Her keel was laid down on 1 November 1906. She was launched on 26 May 1908 and christened by the Oberbürgermeister (Lord Mayor) of her namesake city, Dr. Leo Fürbringer. After fitting-out work was completed by 10 July 1909, she was commissioned into the fleet. The new cruiser began her sea trials that day; they were interrupted from 11 August to 5 September when she participated in the annual autumn maneuvers of the main fleet. During this period, she also served as the escort for Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard his yacht Hohenzollern. Emden was decommissioned in September after she completed her trials. (my emphasis)

--The Huhsz (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It's fine. You don't like pronouns, but that's your opinion, man - using Emden in those places is even more repetitive and I don't care a whole lot for elegant variation - there are only so many ways to refer to a thing. And despite what Sandy thinks, I think Calliope is godawful. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL, I love that film too, but I didn't come here to have you tell me what you think I think, that's weird. You think "it's fine" and of course you would, as you wrote it. Does the pronoun use fit in with "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" though? I see no evidence that any of the six people who commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Emden (1908)/archive1 even looked at the prose. My own feeling, and that of others, is that it doesn't, and I think it would be hard to justify nine pronouns in six sentences in a professional context. Would you be open to having some of the prose reworked, or are you under the illusion that it's perfect, is what I'm asking. Not what you think I think about pronouns. But since you're interested, I think about pronouns the same way I think about nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs; their power is to carry information elegantly and economically. Especially in this kind of writing, less is more. I'll start you off; the easiest barnacle to scrape off the hull is that last her. See how it isn't doing anything, just taking up space and giving every single reader a little extra work with no benefit? Let's get rid of it, shall we? --The Huhsz (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I've had a hack at that section. See also below. --The Huhsz (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please explain

Emden was decommissioned in September after completing trials.

Wouldn't that be "commissioned"? --The Huhsz (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No - read the section again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, excuse my stupidity. So the ship was decommissioned then recommissioned? Why did they do that? --The Huhsz (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)