Talk:Wilhelm Gustloff (ship)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Wilhelm Gustloff (ship) as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: Contents 1 To Do 2 Done 3 Reverted 4 Citing sources 5 Introduction [edit] To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve Grammer Add any additions if needed Discuss disired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion [edit] Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article

This discussion, like the article to which it relates, has itself been refactored. Fundamentally, a number of contributors took exception to the revisionist view of history expressed in one version of events, and that a NPOV had been bypassed. This article has now been substantially refactored to accommodate their legitimate concerns; moreover it should not be forgotten that Wikipaedia is an encyclopaedia. sjc

---

where it saved Polish military... Poor capitalization, grammatically poor, and seems like an attempt to insert a POV. Any ideas? --Golbez 07:43, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed it. There might be more things questionnable in that edit -- Gabriel Wicke 19:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted

I reverted this page, because the change seemed to be out of line with WP:NPOV and the anon who made it then started making vandalism edits to David Irving. Can someone please review the revert? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Travb, you reverted my edits and called them vandalism. I'm sorry you think so, but they were meant to be serious edits, clearing up some confusing numbers and making a few other improvements (I thought).Cosal 05:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

There are lots of facts and figures in this article but there are no citiations for them. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Rv. The upper range is the same quoting from an English source that quotes a German source".

What does that mean?--Modh 16:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an error in my history entry I meant to type "quoted" not "quotes". One of the two English language sources I used to make up the range is the article by Jason Pipes, who cites a number of victims as 9,343 from Heinz Schoen (presumably from his book Die Gustloff Katastrophe). This is in line with the numbers quoted by the ZDF article, which seems to be calculating the numbers from the available deck space. Such a calculation can give a maximum theoretical number but it does not confirm that that number were on the ship. I do not know how Heinz Schoen came up with his numbers, but his numbers quoted in an English language source would seem to fit the Wikipedia WP:V policy of "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." As to if the new numbers are better if the range with the sources is given it fits the WP:NPOV and allows the reader can decide for themselves which is the more credible source. As this is only the introduction, if you would like to expand on the ZDF article in the main body of the text pointing out that the calculated numbers in the article references in a German language article are close to those given by Jason Pipes quoting Heinz Schoen, then so much the better. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the text the it already include "Discovery Channel Unsolved History – Wilhelm Gustloff 2003" used the software maritime EXODUS "to predict the number of fatalities in this disaster for the TV documentary Unsolved History: Wilhelm Gustloff World's Deadliest Sea Disaster as shown on Discovery Channel. Depicted are the population density contours. The simulation included the effect of progressive heel and trim and flooding of compartments as the vessel sank." Which seems very similar to that described in the ADF programme, could it be the same one? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They're the two different ways to arrive at the number of deaths. I see you folks don't understand why the number 9343 is so popular. Let me explain its background to you.

• Heinz Schoen is seen as the most authoritative expert at the subject of the Gustloff (source1, "Heinz Schön gilt als bester Kenner dieses beispiellosen Rettungswerkes".)
• He already believed he knew everything about the vessel in 1984 (source2, "50 Jahre nach dem Untergang der "Wilhelm Gustloff" glaubte Heinz Schön, von dem 1984 im Motorbuch-Verlag Stuttgart eine umfassende Dokumentation ("Die Gustloff-Katastrophe - Bericht eines Überlebenden") erschienen war, er wisse jetzt alles über das Schiff, die Katastrophe und ihre Zusammenhänge".)
• But he was wrong in one particularly important point (source source2, "Doch er irrte und dies in einem besonders wichtigen Punkt".)
• For again and again people doubted that his number of passengers, of 6600, was correct, because in reality 12,000 people were aboard. (source source2, "Immer wieder war die von ihm veröffentlichte Zahl von insgesamt 6600 Passagieren, die auf der "Wilhelm Gustloff" gewesen sein sollen, angezweifelt worden, da der kleinere Dampfer "Deutschland", der einen Tag nach dem Untergang der "Gustloff" aus Gotenhafen ausgelaufen war, 12.000 Menschen an Bord gehabt hatte".)
• Heinz Schoen calculated with the passenger list, of 4974 (source2, "Heinz Schön hatte sich aber an die erhaltene Passagierliste gehalten, die die Namen von 4974 Flüchtlingen aufweist".)
• Then Heinz Schoen got to know Dr. Waldemar Terres, the last person responsible for the registration and who had noted the exact number of refugees. (source2, "Schoop machte Heinz Schön mit seinem Crew-Kameraden Dr. Waldemar Terres bekannt, der der letzte für die Registrierung der Flüchtlinge verantwortliche "Einschiffungsoffizier" war und der die genaue Zahl der eingeschifften Flüchtlinge notiert hatte".)
• He was confronted by the horrific fact that the real number of passengers was 7956, not 4974; further thousands followed (source2, "Die Begegnung mit diesem Überlebenden konfrontierte den "Chronisten der Gustloff-Katastrophe" mit der erschütternden Tatsache, daß nicht 4974, wie in der Passagierliste verzeichnet, sondern 7956 Flüchtlinge bis zum Spätnachmittag des 29. Januar 1945 an Bord gekommen waren; weitere eintausend folgten noch bis zum Auslaufen des Schiffes am Mittag des 30. Januar 1945".)
• Ergo this meant that 10,582 passengers, not as previously assumed 6600 went aboard (source2, "Damit stand fest, daß sich nicht insgesamt 6600, wie bisher angenommen, sondern 10.582 Passagiere auf der Todesfahrt an Bord befanden".)
• Because only 1239 survived the Gustloff killed 9,343, among them more than 8,000 refugees, more than half of them children (source2, "Da nur 1239 die Katastrophe überlebten, riß die "Wilhelm Gustloff" in der Untergangsnacht 9343 Menschen, darunter mehr als 8000 Flüchtlinge, mehr als die Hälfte Kinder, mit in den Tod".)
• The documentary on the Gustloff by the ZDF gives more explanation (you can download it from file-sharing networks if you're interested)

• The passengers going aboard was first calm and pacient but as time passed they were more and more rushing aboard
• Listing passengers was stopped 20 hours before departure after paper went out
• The ships were seen as safest and ergo many children were taken aboard
• After the ship was hit about 10,000 went on deck in a brutal rush (not good for children)

• The history department of the ZDF worked closely with Schoen and offers also the passenger lists for those interested (source3)
• Wikipedia doesn't say "between 12,000 and 200,000 people died" in the Asian tsunami disaster, despite initial reports of that low a number. Too bad for Mikkalai, who had illegaly silenced me, history doesn't halt for out-dated views.

--Modh 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making changes in multiple articles until consensus reached here. `'mikkanarxi 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You write: "Listing passengers was stopped 20 hours before departure" therefore anything beyond the listing numbers are estimates. Please provide names or reputable researchers who made the estimates and their publications, not just links to websites such as [1] with texts of unknown authorship and whose correctness I cannot judge. `'mikkanarxi 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the number of registered leaves only a margin between 9000 and like 9600 for estimations. No one can dispute that the end of the registration was the end of the passenger flood. Read the last lines of that source and you see even the number 9600. I made clear in all my edits that it was an estimation. Refrain from harasing me, violating Neutral point of view and blocking me to win edit wars.--Modh 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• You are not reading what I wrote. I don't want to read any websites. Once again, I am asking for you to write names or reputable researchers who made the estimates and their publications.
• Moreover, since these are estimates, both lower and upper estimates must be given. The lower estimate is absolutely non-disputable number, and must be present.
• There is a section, Wilhelm Gustloff (ship)#Estimated deaths. Please read it and say what is wrong.
• Please keep in mind that the article summary at the top of the article must be a summary of what is actually written in the article. `'mikkanarxi 01:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• The page Suprematismus is from Markus Quiring. He is an artist, contactable, and probably based his text on publications of Schoen himself
• The report that defines Schoen as the most authorative expert, and that is made public in Philognosie.net, is from Heidrun Beißwenger, teacher, contactable
• In asking only for names or reputable researchers who "made the estimates and their publications" I fear that you only also want the estimates included that are not up-to-date. Good for you, because you know very well that this would lower the number.
• But the article of the Asian tsunami disaster doesn't include the small number of 12,000 or does it? That can be because the Neutral Point of View article of Wikipedia doesn't say "estimates of deaths ranging from X1 - X2"-like way are necesary
• If you can prove that the other estimates are made despite knowing the number of passengers, maybe, just maybe, they can be included in an "estimates of deaths ranging from X1 - X2"-like way. Because with Schoens discovery the passenger number went up by almost 4000 (10582 (new estimate of passengers) minus 6600 (old estimate of passengers) = 3982), death numbers being lower than Schoens by about 4000, like 5000 or 6000, are almost certainly in disregard with the up-to-date number of passengers
• X2 would be "over 10,000" then [2]
• Wikipedia seems to treasure the Neutral point of view the most
• Does "reaching consensus" or even "consensus" permit a violation of the Neutral Point of View? If so, prove it. As long as you haven't do not violate the Neutral Point of View
• It is only debatable whether "estimates of deaths ranging from X1 - X2"-like way or explaining the history of the estimates of deaths is more neutral, at which point we are at the ZDF report again.
• "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre".Wikipedia:Citing sources. Whenever possible.. of equal calibre. The ZDF report has a higher level in that it examines the history of the estimates published, not just names and estimates and calls it truth
• Your edits do not even call estimates estimates but that the death number of between 6000-9000 is the full truth
• Please do not violate the Blocking policy or the Neutral Point of View with your edits again. Accept my Neutral Point of View edition until we find another Neutral Point of View proposal that we can agree on as a whole(consensus)
• I've read Wilhelm Gustloff (ship)#Estimated deaths. Most seems right but I do not believe the sentence "According to the ship's records, the total number of passengers who died was 6,050 people". Do you have a source? Subtracting the number of survivors (1,216) from the number of passengers (7,956) is exactly 6740, not 6,050. But not even then it's an estimate. Plus there's still the big number of unregistered to see or has it not never been doubted that there were unregistered?--Modh 10:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• X1 can not be 5,300 when you cite 5,348 as minumum
• Do you want to know why the number of 5,348 isn't rounded up( or down)? Isn't this very Schoenish?
• The book The damned Don't Drown and was released before Schoen updated the number of passengers. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans 1944-1950 too.
• Kappes thought "There were over 6,000 passengers--more than three times above capacity. Most were women and children, elderly men and about 1,200 wounded soldiers."
• 1,200 wounded soldiers? They all were wounded? He's so wrong.
• "Over 6,000 passengers" of Kappes and Schoen's earlier number of 6,600 are similar
• Kappes thought that 5,348 died. If he uses the old number of passengers and you add the difference between the passenger numbers of Schoen (3982) to the death number of Kappes, it makes exactly 9,330 (Schoen's is 9,343). Now isn't THAT very Schoenish?--Modh 08:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

• "The content of the article now includes the point you are trying to make in the introduction". So? Perfect.--Modh 09:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is better if a range is put into the introduction as the numbers can not be known with any certainty. This is particularly true when one is looking at historical events were there is there are strong POV and the numbers are disputed.

The detail that the upper limit comes from more recent research is mentioned in the article. It is also mentioned in the article that the analysis of the upper limit is also supported by computer simulations.

Using a German source when there are English sources goes against WP:V. Removing the sources from the introduction and not putting them lower down the article where they are used again breaks the footnotes. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW what does "Rv. You substantiate that there were 1200 wounded solidiers aboard." mean? I don't see what the revert that you are putting in has to do with that number. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)