Talk:SMS Goeben

Comments

TCG stands for "Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Gemisi" which translates as "Republic of Turkey's Ship". There was no Republic of Turkey in 1914 and the ship being renamed "TCG Yavuz Sultan Selim" at that date is not possible. As far as I know it was named just Yavuz after the Ottoman Emperor Selim I who had earned the nickname Yavuz (cruel) because of his massacres of Turkomans in early 16th century.

Yavuz can be translated as "resolute" and has a positive meaning in Turkish. it is definitely wrong to translate "yavuz" as "cruel".84.71.92.85 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Into Russian yavuz translates as "грозный" (Grozny) , that usually translates as "terrible" or awesome into English (See Ivan-the-Terrible):

The epithet "Grozny" is associated with might, power and strictness, rather than poor performance, horror or cruelty. Some authors more accurately translate it into modern English as Ivan the Awesome

How about this option? Сергей Олегович (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

The 1915 section reads like a biased action script. "Eagerly the Russians chased after them, the ponderous battleships at their maximum of 25 knots," "... but she spurted out of range ...," "... stern searchlights stabbed back down her wake, illuminating the sinister shapes of five destroyers ...," "The big guns of the battleships belched flame, and columns of water from exploding shells rose all around their lone opponent." 24.21.10.30 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple changes, trying to tilt it a little away from the action novel sound. Hope I didn't ruin anyone's masterpiece. Sorry for not making a note about my edits, I'm a novice still. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo

There was a photo od Goeben, but it was deleted.Who can find another one?--Jagatai Khan 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Captains

Where are the captains? No mention of Rauf Orbay and his forays into Mediterranean and Red Sea.--Murat (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There had been a full list of captains inboard this vessel. However user PARCECBOY called them from an unreliable source an errased it. I gave the correct source "turk navy high command" and then he again erased as "unimportend data". Here is the List

Lists of captains are to be avoided. Either work them into the main narrative or don't include them at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Commanders

under german Flag

2. Juli 1912 - 3. April 1914

Captain Otto Philipp

under ottoman Flag

4. April 1914 - 2. Januar 1918	Captain Richard Ackermann
3. Januar - 2. November 1918	Captain Albert Stoelzel
1919-1920	Corvette captain Vasif
1920-1922	Captain Lieutenant Mustafa Rasih
1922-1923	Captain Cevat Toydemir

under türk Flag

service time	Rang	Name
1923-1924	Corvette captain	Aziz Mahmut
1924-1925	Captain	Ahmet Saffet
1925-1926	Captain Lieutenant	Mustafa Necati
1926-1928	Captain	Tevfik Halit
1928-1931	Captain	Ahri Engin
1931-1934	Captain Lieutenant	Hüsnü Gökdemir
1934-1938	Captain Lieutenant	Ertugril Ertugrul
1936-1938	Captain	Ihsan Özel
1938-1939	DZ. KUR. ALB.	Mithat Isin
1939-1940	Captain	Safiyettin Dağada
1940-1942	DZ.KUR.ALB.	Necati Özdeniz
1942-1944	DZ.KUR.ALB.	Tacettin Talayman
1944-1945	Captain	Nedim Ülseven
1945-1946	DZ.KUR.ALB.	Münci Ülhan
1046-1947	DZ.KUR.ALB.	Kemalettin Bozkurt
1947-1948	DZ.KUR.	Münci Ülhan
1948-1949	Captain	Ndim Ülseven
1949-1951	DZ.KUR.ALB.	Asim Sinik
1951-1952	DZ.KUR.ALB.	Sadik Özcebe
1952-1953	DZ.KUR.ALB.	Naci Seyhan
1953-1954	Captain	Hilmi Okcugil
1954-1955	Captain	Edip Sahsuv Aroglu

--Gonzosft (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias against Turkey

This article is obviously biased against the Ottoman Empire. Terms like "unfortunately" and "the tragedy of Gallipoli" are especially bad. Though Gallipoli was surely a tragedy in terms of lives lost on both sides, it is a victory that Turkish people take pride in. Also, the encounter in the Aegean Sea was only "unfortunate" for the British. (Brandonwilson (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Another point. This ship fought under the flag of the Ottoman Empire for most of World War I, and had a very long postwar career as the flagship of the Turkish Navy. It was the Yavuz Sultan Selim for much longer than it was the Goeben, so why isn't it listed under its Turkish name? Jsc1973 (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because German things are more familiar to English speakers than Turkish things. It's probably a healthy dose of systemic bias, but all of the books I've got on WWI naval warfare refer to the ship as Goeben, even after transferal of the ship to the Ottoman navy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

When was the ship decommissioned?

The introduction reads until her decommissioning in 1960, ship box names 1973 as time of decommissioning, and in the section "Post War Service", it's written In 1954 Yavuz was decommissioned. 89.201.105.23 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My Conway's 1906-1921 states that the ship was laid up in 1948 (i.e., pulled from active service) and actually decommissioned in 1960. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Names

It was not proper to use the previous German name for a ship that became the flagship of the Ottoman Navy. I changed them, hope no one minds. Same with Midilli cruiser, name of the Aegean island, that was under Ottoman rule at the time, needs disambigouation, someone more capable than me should do this please. Also the the proper name of the cruiser is Hamidiye, as it is spelled here. The other one is Mecidiye. I corrected them also. Hamidiye is in desperate need of disambiguation, as it never appears as the cruiser it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.168.53 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the links for the cruisers; neither one has an article yet, but once it does the links will point to the correct locations. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Imbros

Couple of corrections/expansions needed here. Raglan and M28 were at anchor off Imbros Island (there's a brief article on the Battle of Imbros) when sunk. Lord Nelson was at Saloniki, but Agamemnon was at Mudros. <ref>{{cite book|last=Buxton|first=Ian|title=Big Gun Monitors: Design, Construction and Operations 1914–1945|publisher=Naval Institute Press|location=Annapolis, MD|date=2008|edition=2nd, revised and expanded|pages=36–37|isbn=978-1-59114-045-0}}</ref> M17 attempted to bombard her while Yavuz was grounded, but only fired ten rounds before giving up.Buxton, p. 38 --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the details pertaining to the monitors, but am a little confused about Lord Nelson. I'm wondering if Halpern was a bit confused when he wrote the line They then proceeded toward Mudros, where the Lord Nelson was raising steam to meet them. He wrote a few lines earlier The British commander...foolishly divided his forces by taking the Lord Nelson with him to Salonika at a time when the French battleship was in dock. I wonder if he did mean that Agamemnon was at Mudros. Is there a third source that might give us more of a final say? Parsecboy (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, yes, the HMS Agamemnon article quotes Burt's British Battleships 1889–1904 with Agamemnon at Mudros and Lord Nelson at Saloniki.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll make the switch. Definitely looks like a typo in Halpern's book. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The destroyers Lizard and Tigress did try to torpedo Goeben as she left the area, but were driven off.Buxton, p. 38 --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sturm. I added it back to the article. Feel free to add more if you like/have the time :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Lemme take a peek through my issues of WI; I think that there's a pretty good account of the battle somewhere therein, including individual sorties by the aircraft attempting to bomb her, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The best and most readily accessible account of the battle is the relevant chapter of Geoffrey Miller's book, available online. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 05:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, where's the full citation for Buxton? All you have are page numbers in the article. I added some more details on the bombing and attempt to shell her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I forgot to add it. Thanks for catching that, as well as the additional info. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

first aerial attack

What exact aerial attack was Hough referring to? The 1918 attack? I'm pretty sure that he's wrong as the Germans attempted to bomb Slava a number of times in 1915–16.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the attack after she was beached in 1918. He says the first capital ship to be subjected to air attack. Maybe he meant the first ship to be successfully bombed from the air (regardless of the result, which in this case was nil). Did the Germans ever actually hit Slava? That could be the distinction. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Goeben/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Although the bit about being the first capital ship to suffer aerial attack is cited in the lead, it would be good to expand on that in the main body. If it's the 1918 attack that's meant, the significance should be tied to it in the prose.

   B. Focused:

   Under Black Sea Operations, it looks a bit odd to jump from the 1916 subsection to 1918 with no obvious explanation. If she was suspended from ops all through 1917, best mention that. A possibility is to have the previous subsection titled 1916–17, and the last sentence of that subsection read ...Admiral Souchon was forced to suspend operations by Yavuz and Midilli for the rest of the year and into 1917. or some such.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Everything else looks good; ready to pass when you can deal with the above comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   I added a line in the prose to point out it was the 1918 attack that was the first air attack on a capital ship, and fixed the 1916-18 gap. As for the bit about it being offered to West Germany for a memorial, I couldn't find that mentioned in any of my sources on hand, so I removed it. I know I read it somewhere, but can't remember where it was. Maybe it was just in the previous version of the article. Thanks for looking over the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

   Tks mate. Before finalising, what's your response to Storm's point on the talk page re. a possibly earlier first aerial attack on a capital ship? I don't doubt the veracity of your citation but be nice to deal with any contradictory claims... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   Oh, I hadn't seen that until now. I responded to him there, but I'm wondering if the distinction is that Goeben/Yavuz was the first successfully bombed capital ship. I seem to think the Germans never actually managed to hit Slava in the earlier raids, which might be the important distinction. If that turns out to be the case, then the wording here will have to be tweaked slightly, and maybe a note regarding the attacks on Slava added as well. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   The Germans hit Slava in 1916 with a couple of light bombs that killed her captain. The Russians thought it was field artillery, but the Germans claimed it was a couple of seaplanes that did it in their official history. It's mentioned in the article on Slava. So I'd just drop the claim.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   In that case, I think you're right. I'll take it out. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   Okay tks guys, this is a pass now - well done! Note I'm pushed for time and may not complete all the paperwork immediately, but will do so before the end of the day... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-WWI service

Nick, nice work. The Ottoman Steam Navy might have some post-WWI stuff as well, but maybe not. One clarification that may or may not be worthwhile. Parizkaya Kommuna (sp) was ordered to the Black Sea in 1929, but arrived in early 1930.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, question: does anyone have access to the New York Times' post-1923 archives? They have a lot on Goeben, at least six of the first ten results. If not, perhaps I'll be able to bug someone on IRC to email them to me. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A list of the ones I found; there may be less obvious ones that hold information on Goeben:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A17FD3F581B7A93CAA8178AD95F428285F9&scp=3&sq=Goeben&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C15F8395912738DDDAE0A94DA415B878EF1D3&scp=4&sq=Goeben&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30A1EF83B5F17738DDDAE0A94D8415B848EF1D3&scp=6&sq=Goeben&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0911F73F581B7A93C2AB1789D95F428285F9&scp=7&sq=Goeben&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A14FD3B5E1B728DDDA10894DA415B898EF1D3&scp=9&sq=Goeben&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1091EFC3C5A1B7B93C6AB178AD95F428385F9&scp=10&sq=Goeben&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D15FA3C5A157A93CBA81783D85F418685F9&scp=2&sq=Yavuz&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F14F939581B7493CBA91789D95F4D8685F9&scp=4&sq=Yavuz&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40C15FF345C177A93C6A8178BD95F4D8285F9&scp=13&sq=Goeben&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00917F73D5B107A93C4A8178BD95F478585F9&scp=8&sq=Yavuz&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1081FF83A5D107A93C4A9178FD85F428485F9&scp=19&sq=Yavuz&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30615FA3F58147B93C1A9178ED85F438485F9&scp=18&sq=Yavuz&st=p http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60610FD3554107A93CBAB178DD85F448485F9&scp=21&sq=Yavuz&st=p —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to ping someone on IRC tomorrow (well, technically today...) for this —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Second question: is it "Turkish Government" or "Turkish government"? I thought it was the latter, but the former is used in the article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the former, I believe, as this is the name of the thing. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To User:Parsecboy

Please explain the reasonable reasons about this edits and this. Where did you find sentence A large warship sits motionless in harbor against the backdrop of a large city. ? Do you have sources ? Or did somebody write only with his/her impression ? I cannot think the sentence you tried to defend is so important and encyclopedic. But the sentence

Yavuz in Istanbul during the visit of the American battleship USS Missouri in 1946.

is more important and we can find sources for this easily ? Why do you behave such like this ? Takabeg (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

See my response on my talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I read your message. The sample in WP:ALTTEXT alt=Painting of Napoleon Bonaparte |The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries by Jacques-Louis David is reasonable and meaningful sentence but unfortunately A large warship sits motionless in harbor against the backdrop of a large city. is ambiguous and meaningless. There is no reason to put this sentence and to remove historical facts. Takabeg (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• He likes to take away facts, because HE judges them unessecery. For example he delete the complete captains list of Yavuz in english Version, which i translated from turkish to englich--Gonzosft (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You can strike that personal attack or we can go over to ANI, your choice. I've grown tired of your insults. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Key question missing?

Why did Yavuz bombard Sevastopol on 29 October in her first operation against Imperial Russia, though the Ottoman Empire was not yet at war with the Entente? As it brought Turkey into WW1 I rather think the question should be asked. --John (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, Souchon wanted to force the Turks' hand in regards to the Russians. But I'll let Parsec answer that one more definitively.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the reason. He wanted to force a conflict with Russia so the pro-German faction in Turkey would come out on top. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article then? It seems like the single thing the ship is most famous for. --John (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Added. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I adjusted the lead as well. --John (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks John. Parsecboy (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yavuz or Goeben

The title is problematic. The ship made name in the WW1 by bombarding the Russian ports and later defending Bosphorus against possible Russian attacks when it was already renamed Yavuz. I don't know why it is still named Goeben ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought I explained this to you once before. To the English-speaking world the ship was still known as Goeben then - and don't forget that she first became famous during the chase to Constantinople before her fictional sale. Parsecboy (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this issue had already been discussed in my page. But there was no satisfactory explanation. The name of the ship was Yavuz for 36 years and the most important event in her history was during this period. The rationale based on her name in English speaking world is not conclusive, because there were hundreds of warships in WW1, names of most have been forgotten. If this ship was famous, that is because of the events after she was renamed. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If my explanation was not satisfactory, that's your problem. This ship is far more well known in English under her German name, not her Ottoman/Turkish name, and since this is the English Wikipedia, we follow English usage. If you don't like it, you are of course free to edit the Turkish article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The ship may be more famous to Turks for the events after she was renamed, but not to the English-speaking world, which remembers her for two reasons, both of which occurred under the German flag: 1) as a critical part of Germany's naval arms race with Britain in the final years before World War One, a race that played a heavy role in driving Britain into the conflict, and 2) for her successful escape to Constantinople with her companion Breslau in the early weeks of the war, a terrible failure for the Royal Navy which helped guarantee that the Ottoman Empire would join Germany's side. That second reason is discussed at length in The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman's famous book on the opening days of the war; she devotes an entire chapter to Goeben's escape and argues that it had immensely far-reaching consequences for the history of the 20th century, especially in the Middle East. The critical thing here was not that Goeben became Turkish, but that the Ottomans became Germany's ally. I agree that, from the ship's perspective, Goeben's career under Turkey was obviously the most important part of it, but I think her political role under Germany trumps that. In any case, most English sources that discuss her do so under the name Goeben, and I doubt most English-speaking buffs of naval history and World War One history would even recognize her under her Turkish name. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

all this above + the ship was originally a german ship in german navy service with some well known war actions + it's quite common to keep ship articles under the original name. --Denniss (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ship name revisited, 2018

The above discussion seems rather dated, but it does not seem resolved to me. Not by a long shot. A name is a name and it is unique. It is not a matter of language or nationality. Once the name of the ship is printed on its side, there is no other name used by anyone, from anyone's navy. Besides Yavuz is a ship of legends in that part of the World, not just for Turks. Article should certainly acknowledge this. More prominently. It has been Yavuz far longer than it was Goeben. I will come back to this. Murat (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether the ship is more famous as Goeben or Yavuz in Turkey is irrelevant. The ship is by far more well known in English as Goeben, and since this is the English Wikipedia, that's what we use. You might not like the outcome of the discussion, but it is resolved. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is just a discussion, I did not edit any names, not sure why so defensive. Secondly, what makes this battleship most historic is the role it played in forcing Ottoman Empire into WWI, which changed a lot of history. I had added one sentence and it included reference to Enver Pasha who had planned this fait accompli. His page has a lot more information obviously. What problem did you see here?Murat (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Show me proof that the ship is better known in English as Yavuz, and we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you're wasting your time.

As for your edit to the article, you provided no source. Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Postcard photo

Someone should adjust the levels on the postcard photo. It's too dark. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Might be something to list on the graphics lab. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Coincidentally, on a whim I checked eBay & found this color postcard of Goeben for sale. Sca (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice as that postcard is, it was postmarked in 1991 (and is obviously at very least only published in 1975 - see the caption on the reverse side) so unfortunately we can't use it. It's too bad, since that would have made a nice lead image. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. It makes a nice desktop background, tho.

An interesting — and long (1912-73) — warship story.... Sca (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

last days

My introduction to SMS Goeben/Yavuz was in a coffetable book Anthony Preston's "Battleships 1856-1977" (Chartwell Books, 1977). It is noted in the closing pages that Yavuz was a museum ship in its last days, often "crewed" by only a caretaker and his cat. The scrapping of Yavuz left only USS Texas as an example of a Dreadnaught Era battleship. --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I have that book - I'll give it a look. Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

'Yavuz' pic.

Article caption states this is "Yavuz steaming at full speed." However, summary box with this pic. from Bundesarchiv identifies it as Goeben and indicates it was taken before WWI, i.e.. before Goeben became Yavuz.

Sca (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A fair point - I've fixed the caption. Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Bombardment of Philippeville

Hi, I was randomly reading fr:Artillerie française pendant la Première Guerre mondiale when I came across a paragraph which says that on 4 August Goeben was fired upon by two Canon de 19 C modèle 1875 coastal guns from the Kantara battery. (See also Caractéristiques du canon de 19 C modèle 1870 sur affût PC modèle 1886) Although the rangefinder wasn't working, the last of only four shots "shaved her poop", whereupon Goeben fled the scene at high speed.

"Le premier coup de canon a lieu le 4 août à Philippeville en Algérie, où deux canons de côte de 19 cm modèle 1878 de la batterie el Kantara, armées par quelques hommes du 6e groupe autonome à pied d'Afrique, tirent sur le croiseur allemand Goeben : le quatrième coup (le télémètre n'étant pas opérationnel) rase sa poupe, ce qui le décide alors à s'éloigner à grande vitesse.[François 2010, pp 7-8]"

• Pierre Touzin, François Vauvillier et général Guy François, Les Canons de la Victoire 1914-1918, Paris, Histoire et Collections, coll. « Les matériels de l'armée française » (no 3, 4 et 5), 2008-2010, trois tomes :
  • op. cit., vol. 3 : L'Artillerie de côte et l'artillerie de tranchée, 2010, 67 p. (ISBN 978-2-35250-161-9).

I wondered if this snippet (or an expansion of it) would be worthy of inclusion in the article? (Well done with the FA, by the way.) If not, skip the rest, which is an attempt to find more information about some of the first shots fired in the war before Britain joined in, and some vague refs. If so, would you have confirmatory sources to hand? The following info I have hurriedly gathered agrees as to the general facts, but differs devilishly in the details.

Fort el Kantara was located half-way between Skikda and Stora (to the west), and gives its name to a hamlet of the same name: "Un lieu-dit dont le nom provient de celui d'un fort, situé entre Philippeville et Stora." See El Kantara (Philippeville ; Algérie). A beach nearby is called Plage Militaire. See Google maps. {{confuse}} El Kantara, further inland, or many similarly named places.

According to this article (in French): Les bombardements de Bône et Philippeville en 1914, section 'Le bombardement de Philippeville par le croiseur Goeben', (citing Jean Mélia, « Les Bombardements de Bône et Philippeville », Berger-Levrault éditeurs, Paris 1927), The cruiser had been flying the Russian flag, but exchanged it for that of the Imperial Navy. Goeben's attack only lasted about four or five minutes, during which 36 x 150mm shells were fired at a range of 4,500 m. As a result of this unexpected reaction, the cruiser swiftly took to the open sea (prend rapidement le large). One of the guns is in the Musée de l'armée aux Invalides, not that it matters to this article.

"Au premier tir, à bord du croiseur, le pavillon russe est amené et remplacé par celui de l’Allemagne. Aussitôt la batterie d’El Kantara, la seule opérationnelle, réplique. Quatre obus, mais trop courts sont tirés. Le croiseur qui n’est qu’à 4 500 m, devant cette réaction inattendue, prend rapidement le large, après un tir de 36 obus de 150mn qui n’a duré que quatre à cinq minutes environ."

According to this article (in French) (again unfortunately un-reffed): Find Dans la matinée: the coastal batteries had been alerted the morning before to the cruisers' imminent presence, and news of the declaration of war only reached Souchon at 1800 hrs on the 3rd. Find A la question du journaliste: The Germans were aware that the coastal batteries would not be manned and ready until three or four days after the declaration of war: this information had been published in the Journal Officiel and the specialised press. Unknown to the Germans, however, small detachments of the XIXème Corps had been assigned to the batteries at Bône, Philippeville and Bougie in a state of permanent readiness. Find Vers 4h30: A lieutenant in charge of the Kantara battery raised the alarm about 0430, but didn't have the time to adjust his rangefinder. Goeben had not been flying any colours, but at 0500 (or an hour later) she hauled up the Imperial flag and opened fire on the port. The bombardment of 50 shots lasted from 0500 to 0518 (NB more shells fired for longer than above), at the end of which the shore batteries returned fire with the only two serviceable guns out of four. None of the shots hit. Finding the intelligence reports to be faulty, Goeben broke off the action and fled rapidly towards the high seas (s'enfuit rapidement vers la haute mer).

According to this detailed and seemingly authoritative but unreffed article (in French): Historique du 6ème Groupe d'Artillerie à Pied d'Afrique, pp. 4, 5-7, {is this a banned site?} the gunners were the 12ème batterie bis (ie 12b), reservists from the former 14ème batterie, commanded by lieutenant (R.) Carnot or Cardot. Goeben steamed for cover behind the small island of Srigina, N. of Stora.

So, is it the case that the Goeben, having approached under either a false flag or none, and expecting no opposition, was scared off in her very first action by some good shooting by an alert French reserve lieutenant of artillery with only four shells? If none of this is particularly suitable, could you suggest where it might go? HC, >MinorProphet (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's nearly 15 months later, and there has been has no reply of any sort whatsoever. I therefore intend to make some additions to the article in accordance with my findings as outlined above. MinorProphet (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

repairs in 1918

the text contains two times the statement that the repairs lasted from 7 august to 19 october 1918. the first must be wrong, since is placed before 30 march 1918. it should be replaced by a statement that works in Constantinople in early 1918 allowed the vessel to cross the Black Sea (or something like, because this is what I infer from the text). pietro151.29.189.70 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

other point: Nagara Point is not just outside the Dardanelles, but well inside (at least if the link points to the correct place). from the partial sources that I have accessed, I feel that was first grounded off the Dardanelles (where the HMS monitor attacked), then in the Nagara bay inside the Dardanelles while en route to Costantinopoli. if the site of first ground is homonym of the second, this should be stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.29.189.70 (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

On the whole, reading the 1918-1919 section is disturbing [this word is probably wrong, understand properly: I am not native english] because the damages appear not compatible with the movements. adding something like "this made the ship able to cross the sea to exploit the better facilities at ..." or "displaying force was essential in spite of ..." would make the reader less suspicious - I understand however that one must find a source stating this ... 151.29.189.70 (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)