Talk:Battle of Jutland

Torpedo boats vs. destroyers

I recognize that the Germans used the term "torpedo boat" and "destroyer" interchangeably, but shouldn't the infobox say "destroyers"? That's what they were. They were not what we think of today as torpedo boats, and its misleading to the readers, or those that don't read the note. Overall, we should keep the note in place, but use the term "destroyer".--RM (Be my friend) 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Stöwer painting

While researching Willy Stöwer, I came across a color painting of this battle from Die deutsche Flotte in großer Zeit; captioned: Die Seeschlacht vor dem Skagerrak. Die Nachtschlacht. Vernichtung des englischen Panzerkreuzers "Black Prince". (The Battle of Jutland. The night battle. Destruction of the British battle cruiser "Black Prince"). A decent copy can be found here: http://billerantik.de.www35.your-server.de/gallery2/main.php/d/8263-1/03_Nachtschlacht.jpg
Note: this image might need cropping; if interested, I have a slightly better copy that I could upload to a web album (I don't have WP upload access). This would be PD (Stöwer died in 1931). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a slight problem with using Stöwer's paintings on en.wiki: it has to be PD in the US (since that's where the servers are located), which does not use the author's death date for works published before 1978. So for the painting to be in the public domain, it has to have been created before 1923. The image you linked to is too small for me to make out the year in his signature - can you tell what it is in your better version? Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... There might be a problem: the book is (c)1926; first publication for the book might be earlier -- I'll check. Not certain of the signed date, but he often did paintings contemporaneously (accompanied fleets in action). Slightly better image (no mat or caption): from Imagekind

Proof of publication is mandatory; uploaders making a "public domain" claim on (a reproduction of) an artwork are required to prove with verifiable details that the work was first published before 1923, or first published after 2003 with an artist who died more than 70 years ago. From: Wikipedia:Public_domain#Artworks -- oops!

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Update: Found a 1st edition -- 1926 -- oh well. ~E 22:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.225.106 (talk)

Link the Skagerrak in the introduction?

The German name of the battle, Skagerrakschlacht, is explicitly set as not to be a link. But for a reader who doesn't know what the Skagerrak is, the German name is confusing. So why not link it directly? --KnightMove (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Added two paragraphs to the Outcome section

At the risk of courting considerable controversy, I have added a couple of paragraphs to the beginning of the outcome section briefly explaining the German claim of a tactical victory and why Jutland effectively ended surface actions in the North Sea. I have done so because the outcome section is currently weighted entirely towards the "British Strategic Victory" perspective with five paragraphs explaining that position, but had no content at all indicating why the Germans might have thought they had won. I will start referencing it properly this evening because I'm editing from work at the moment. Obviously I'm happy to have my edit worked on, but can we try and include at least something explaining the "German tactical victory" position in the outcome section please. Getztashida (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

On a fundamental level, Jutland did not end surface actions in the North Sea. The sortie on 18–19 August did; note that Jellicoe issued orders after that operation that the Grand Fleet would not steam south of the line of Horns Reef unless the Germans were in the Thames or something equally dramatic. When Scheer came out again on 18 October, Jellicoe remained in Scapa. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, right - and I think I explained that better in my revision than I did summarizing my edit here. My main point is that we need to give the German Victory perspective at least some attention. I have no problem the British victory perspective getting more screen time - it's a more subtle point and requires more explanation - but prior to my edit no attempt was made to explain why the German victory perspective has value and persisted to this day beyond a simple accounting of tonnages sunk and lives lost qualified with a statement that the RN "held the field." My objective is to give those numbers some context, explaining that the Germans were specifically looking to "hit hard and bug out" so Jutland can be considered a successful operation - if only by the skin of it's teeth. The purpose of the second paragraph is to explain that the Germans realized it was a close run thing and decided not to chance it again when it became clear that they couldn't sortie without the Grand Fleet coming out. Getztashida (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The British strategy post-19 August is laid out perfectly clear here: if the Admiralty thought there was a good chance the Germans could be brought to battle then they would be given the go ahead, although they fully recognised that the Germans ran the same risks as themselves in the North Sea.

I trust you'll find a source to specifically back up such statements such as "retaining control of the site of the battle had no significance to the German strategy." Surely it would have made more sense to make what you yourself admit are controversial additions when you were in possession of your sources? —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Done - I wouldn't have said it if I couldn't cite it, although have changed the text to be a bit closer the original so as to avoid issues regarding original research or synthesis. 86.129.38.78 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an extremely well written article in my opinion. Only thing is, I think its shows slight favoritism to Jellicoe and slightly unjustified criticism of Beatty. Still though, a wonderful read. Arthur Longshanks (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)