Talk:SS General von Steuben

message: : "A lot of the wounded soldiers committed suicide, just moments after the first hit."
Sounds very touching, but I was unable to find any confirmation to that. A reference would be mostly welcome, to eliminate the suspicions of original research... BACbKA 09:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  suicide after the 1st hit &mdash; reference requested 

message: Antony Beevor on page 88 of Berlin: The downfall 1945 reports that the General von Steuben was torpedoed and sunk on the 12 February after leaving Pillau with 2,680 wounded nearly all of whom drowned. The current figures are not cited from a reference, they ought to be. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: Number of passengers and number of victims doesn't match. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.2.125.50 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check numbers... 

message: Though pretty sure he only does it to (or rather tries to, as it's failing) to irritate me, let me just note how ridiculous your move is. The ships name was, General von Steuben, Dampfschiff just means steamboat and was not part of the ships' name. You as a German, and German speaker know this. Hereby propose to move to either General von Steuben (Ship) or General von Steuben (Steamer/Steamboat). Oh and matthead, the lenghts you're willing to go to irritate me while ridiculing yourself are very amusing. Thank you. Rex 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article exists since March 2002. I've taken the liberty to restore its old name after you moved it. -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ow, well that explaines everthing! Would you mind explaining everyone exactly why you as a German speaker moved this article title back to its false title other than just because you saw my name?Rex 07:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah let's do that, and quickly forget/ignore the fact that this move occured solely because Matthead saw my name and thought it was a good opportunity to provoke conflict.Rex 08:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mattheads move 

message: The first part of the article describes the sinking of the Steuben as "the fourth worst maritime disaster in history," but later the article claims it was "the third worst maritime disaster in history."  So which was it----fourth or third?  
Consider also that what was a "disaster" to one side was a triumph (or something) to the other.  But I'm not sure there is a more-fitting word (maybe just "sinking").  Richard David Ramsey (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that it's next to impossible to rank these wartime sinkings by numbers of dead with any degree of accuracy.  I therefore believe that we should not attempt to, and instead mention simply that it was among the worst (and link in 'See also' to other comparable incidents). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RANK AMONG "DISASTERS" 

message: "When it became apparent that the ship was doomed, one female survivor remembers hearing the sound of "popcorn popping." After walking down the hallway where the sound was coming from, she realized to her horror that she was hearing the sound of wounded German officers committing suicide with their pistols. One told her they did not want to take the lifeboat space from the women and children."
Please ;)...We know how brave were German soldiers during the war but we don't have space for myths in Wikipedia as long as someone will not have proofs for them.
--Krzyzowiec (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV/POV 

message: Anyone know the coordinates for the wreck? They ought to be in the article. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wreck coordinates?

message: :Notified: WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Ships, WikiProject Military history
In July of this year, it was reported that the wreck had been severely damaged by looters. News reports put emphasis on the fact that diving to the wreck, while common, is illegal, and that it has become a problem for many ship wrecks in the Baltic Sea in general.The wreck section of the article currently includes an external link to a diving video, and a photo of a diver entering the wreck. While both of these look clearly like useful content to me, I am concerned that they advocate diving. I don't know if I'd want to remove them altogether, but I am uncomfortable with the section in its current state. Any input would be appreciated. Renerpho (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it could give the impression that we are promoting illegal activities by linking to such material and we don't want to be associated with that. Bermicourt (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Interesting. I agree that it is potentially problematical. I think "promoting illegal activities" is a bit of a stretch, but I do see there's a bit of an ethical greyish zone around reporting what it is likewhich is why the photo is goodversus sounding as if we like it, etc etc. I think it's good that we report the damage, so that is already a positive. I also wondered: (a) do we know that that is an illegal diver in the photo? If so then maybe consider removing it completely, and if we know it is a government-sanctioned diver then say so in the caption. Indeed if we know that it is an illegal diver then add that fact too? Or (b) can we replace the diver image with an underwater image which does not include a diver? Because then we are still showing that it is down there but without looking like we in some way "endorse" the presence of the diver in the shot; or (c) are there any shots of or by government-sanctioned divers to which we could swap, and explain the source in the caption? Again this would perhaps give us a little more distance from the illegal activity. Sorry it's a bit waffly but that's all I have at present. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

text: The text is clear that diving into or tampering with the wreck is "illegal" and it is a "war grave" so I've no problems in that regard. The problem is with the photo. "Own work" is garbage unless the person behind the camera was taking a personal photo and is the person uploading the image. The uploading person is "Jaksel~commonswiki" and the author is stated as "Jakob Selbing" so the data is on its face not an "own work" image. Thus there is a very possible copyright issue and at the least inadequate information to defend such a charge. I see no little attribution on Wikipedia as "own work" when that is highly unlikely and, at best, in the mind of the person uploading the copy/upload process is the "work" mentioned. Best case for a photo inside such a wreck is an authorized dive of some sort, and those are not uncommon for monitoring and such. In such a case the photo is possibly owned by an organization or authority rather than individual divers. I personally think "own work" claims should face immediate challenge unless explained further. "Personal photo taken by me on X" or similar for drawings, diagrams and such. Unless "Jakob Selbing" was an athorized diver and behind the personal camera with authority to take "personal" photos during the dive any such photo is questionable on Wikipedia. This photo is questionable and someone with Commons familiarity should probably tag it for deletion unless much more information, including authority for the dive, is provided. Palmeira (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

text: This is a great discussion. Just to clarify, I am the original author of this photograph (this is "own work", isn't it?). I took the photo during a dive on this shipwreck. There is no organization behind it. "Illegal" in this context is a greyzone. I think it is only Germany and Poland that signed laws against diving there, and since I come from Sweden then it obviously does not apply to me. The shipwreck lies in international water but within economic zone of Poland so Polish coast guard have no right to stop anyone carrying out diving there. But OTOH if you are a polish citizen and dive there, then you may face charges. At least, this is how I think the situation is. So basically, the photo does not show anything that could be considered subject of a trial. Regarding looting and damage - this is quite a shame and makes me sad, but OTOH I am not surprised. I absolutely do not endorse that kind of activity.  --Jaksel (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diving photo 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Apart from two anti-aircraft guns - all ships of all nations between 1939-1945 carried these - she was not "armed", which would suggest she was a warship. This was a liner being used for evacuations and everyone knew that, including the murderer who sank her. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:1918:6E80:F0BD:C44F (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Armed

message: in the Baltic Sea. 206.251.47.20 (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want to see the wreck