This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Yes, but the info on the what the song means is fan-generated content. It is in the disclaimer at the end of the paragraph. This means that even though someone associated with the website published this info, it does not come from the band itself, just a fan's interpretation and therefore, not reliable info. Llammakey (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When this article article was first posted in 2013 it stated the USCG cutter present was Spencer, per Arnold Hague’s convoyweb page (and supported by Blair and Edwards, now added). This was changed without explanationtoIngham in 2016, presumably by a Sabaton fan. I’ve changed it back, and left an edit note, to try and stop this crap recurring. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any tangible evidence of Spencer being there for the engagement? Because it’s common practice to exchange ships after battle engagements Oakland95 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically yes. The Main U-Boat site, which I've noticed every other source that claims Spencer, is full of Discrepancies. The most notable and very concerning being a Claim they had Sunk the USS Ranger (CV-4). I would not be very surprised if they had gotten this incorrect as well. Now the biggest issue with this entire argument, and can put all our demons to rest, the Coast Guard Cutter Ingham is a Museum ship in Key West, Florida. I am Nearly positive they have surviving Crew and/or documents claiming wether it was there or not in person. Now i don't know what your beef is with this band may be, but looking into them, they study and research a topic before or during song writing and have shown numerous sources through their site and videos that take a behind the scenes look. If you would like to take a look, I'll happily send it to you over discord, cherrycolaboi Oakland95 (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source used by Uboat.net, Marc Milner's North Atlantic Run of which I have a copy, the battle is described on pages 113–115, the US Coast Guard cutter identified is Spencer, not Ingram. The website misread the source. I am changing it back to Spencer. Llammakey (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you just let it fly over your head. The ship in question. The one being discredited. It exists. Its a museum. They have records of the ships log and battles. Go to it in person. Its a primary source. Stop being dicks because of a single site Oakland95 (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a personal attack. I was "corrected" by a non official source from a Book. I had already pointed out we have a first hand source available Oakland95 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Llammakey Along with I haven't seen the book. I'm going to go find it and look in the book to see if it does say Spencer In there, But we should not take one book as fact we should also be looking at other sources to say if it was or wasn't Ingham. Jonnylego109 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oakland95: I’m not clear what you are trying to say here. By 'The Main U-Boat site' that is 'full of Discrepancies' do you mean u-boat.net? Because that is the source (see above) of the claim that the cutter with ON 92 was Ingham, not Spencer. Contrariwise the sources here (books by Blair, Edwards and Milner) all say it was Spencer. Or there is the USCG history website, linked from our articles on both ships, which confirm the what is here. Or Hague’s convoyweb site which has a full listing for ON 92. Nor do I see why you feel visiting the ship would change what half-a-dozen reliable sources are telling us, even if it wasn’t 3000 miles away. So if all there is to support this 'Ingham not Spencer' position is a page on uboat.net (which is a useful, but not a reliable source) and some song lyrics, then I don’t think it’s us that’s 'being dick's' about this. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ Johnnylego109: So, thanks for finding that ubtnet page; it’s useful at least to know where this notion came from. I’m guessing 'the historian that assisted the band' didn’t look any further than there for his facts. But (as mentioned above) ubtnet isn’t a reliable source per WP:RS, though it is useful, and there are half-a-dozen sources that say otherwise. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please type my name right there is no 'H' in my username. and I do agree with that, but I do also think they did look deeper but doesn't mean they shouldn't be included in this. They did still make a song about it. Jonnylego109 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
' Jonnylego109; Ah! Sorry about that! The discussion about whether this song should be mentioned is below, but: do you have a reliable source confirming the band wrote this song about this convoy? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: more to the point, as military history pages don't usually have popular culture sections (see WP:MILPOP), can you say what well-cited and notable impact has the subject had on popular culture? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the Popular Culture section containing the information about the Sabaton track has returned, despite the discussion above. In fact it has been added and deleted about half-a-dozen times since the article was written, and I reckon that’s likely to continue. So I suggest it stays, with the caveat (now added) that the song is wildly inaccurate; if there is a source that actually says this event inspired the song so much the better (I’ve requested a better source than the one that’s there at present - a youtube video by some Third Reich fan site, AFAICT, and which doesn’t mention ON 92 until 8 minutes in!). Xyl 54 (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of only three ships mentioned, one was wrong (see above)
The ships in the convoy were not, in the main, tankers (the more valuable target), they were mostly freighters in ballast
The rescue ship, Bury, was not 'left in flames', it wasn’t even fired on
The U-boats did not leave 'half the convoy sunk or disabled', they sank seven out of 42 ships (one in six)
The convoy didn’t 'run back to shore', the majority of the ships reached their destinations
As for the wolfpack 'lurking, waiting', this one was regarded as a bit of failure by U-boat Command, as ON 92 was the only one attacked of about nine trans-Atlantic convoys at sea in May 1942.
You'll get no argument from me, but it still needs a source (something more than link to a band video) to back up the claim. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Song lyrics, presumably selected on the basis of rhyme and rhythm, can hardly be considered reliable sources as to the actual events. I suggest specific identification of these inaccuracies in the pop culture description. Thewellman (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ Thewellman: (Thanks for weighing in) On the subject of putting the specific identification of the inaccuracies into the pop culture section, I feel it would be better to keep that section to a minimum. It’s mainly there as a pacifier to any Sabaton fans who feel it should be mentioned (we don’t usually have Popular Culture sections in military history articles), as it has already been added and deleted (at least twice recently; viz: here and here) as unsourced trivia; but if it’s only going to provoke more argy-bargy we might be better off without it altogether (go back to the add/delete cycle!). Xyl 54 (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
