Talk:HMS Jervis Bay

Untitled

I have ready the source book that was the basis of this article twice. It draws on far too many books to list here, as well as official documents, private correspondence and interviews with survivors and their family members - it claims about 190 sources. I believe that the article, though very short, is an accurate summary.
Roy Grubb - son of one survivor (now deceased) of the AMC HMS Jervis Bay.

Kavanagh QC

"The Burning Deck", an episode of the TV series "Kavanagh QC" features a scene where a painting of the incident involving HMS Jervis Bay is discussed. Though not particularly relevant to the storyline, it's a seemingly well-executed dramatic painting of her meeting with the Scheer which I assume hangs (or did hang) somewhere in Portsmouth (where much of the episode was shot). I've no idea who the artist was or where the painting is kept now, but I'm sure it would be of interest to anyone with an interest in this article. Mighty Antar (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Convoy HX84

The convoy saved so heroically by HMS Jervis Bay produced another heroic saga. The story of the San Demetrio, London can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_San_Demetrio

Corporalheff (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)corporalheff 26/1/2011

The time and duration of the action

I've seen mention of durations between 20 mins and 3 hrs, both of which feel implausible. I've read that the action took place at dusk, which helped the convoy scatter; now that does feel plausible. But it would be useful to know the actual tod.

Any consensus needs to feed through into the articles Edward Fegen and Convoy HX 84. (I've posted msgs pointing here on those 2 talk pages). The three articles need to be consistent with each other.

All thoughts welcome! Narky Blert (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-WP:RS YT videos, recollections by survivors, suggest 22-24 minutes. Narky Blert (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HMS Jervis Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120326022310/http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?16039 to http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?16039

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

'The Beaverford Legend'

This is a factual article about the armed merchant cruiser HMS Jervis Bay, covering her service and loss, which was worthy of a VC award.

I note that there is a substantial reference to the freighter SS Beaverford in the section regarding Jervis Bay's loss. Now, this describes am alternative version of events regarding one of the convoy's freighters - an event which demonstrably did not occur - as an alternative saviour of the convoy. The reference then continues, casting doubt on the veracity of the Beaverford legend.

My view is that this refenence does not even belong in this article, for two reasons:

1) This is an article about the AMC HMS Jervis Bay, not the freighter SS Beaverford (which has her own WP article).

2) The story of the prolonged fight of the Beaverford has been disproven conclusively and therefore, as a falsehood, has not any place in a factual historical entry within a larger encyclopedic work.

One might well add that, thirdly, the fabrication of this story about the 'unsung saviour of HX 84' does a grave disservice to the crew of Jervis Bay and belittles their undoubtedly heroic sacrifice. Why, again, is this non-event even referenced within this article? It does nothing to improve it or to assist the reader's knowledge in any useful way.

I move to delete the passage in its entirety, as it merely fuels an 'urban legend' by positing untruth as possibility which ought to be given consideration. Yet it truthfully deserves none.. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:7169:3EFF:61A7:7AE8 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As it stands, the article mentions that some sources give an account of SS Beaverford putting up a significant fight. The article then very clearly debunks this myth. This handles the situation perfectly – concisely saying what the myth is and then saying why it is incorrect. Not doing so would allow the misconception to linger on in the minds of some people. Therefore no change is required to the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)