![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
How on earth could anyone think that torpedo boats from japan would be cruising through north sea?
That is no explanation as to why anybody would deem torpedo boats 32,000 km away from home rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.112.46 ( talk) 16:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Some Japanese torpedo boats was built in Europe, like Hayabusa-class torpedo boat . There was a possibility of purchasing new vessels and immediate usage of them against Russian Navy. -- 176.222.206.247 ( talk) 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The forum post where this is discussed is linked below:
The actual novel can be read at Project Gutenberg:
The North Pacific: A Story of the Russo-Japanese War by Willis Boyd Allen
Maybe this can be added to the article as it is a legitimate case of the incident being used in fiction. Graham1973 ( talk) 03:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ref 1 is broken. Could you look at the sentence below? I think there is a typo! "The Royal Navy went after the Russian fleet and bottled her up in Vigo, Spain" JRPG 14:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Ingolfson. I've checked the link and it is ..working! All I can say is that yesterday, although the site was OK I got an invitation to report it as a problem page -which I didn't! Re the allegedly dodgy sentence, I have 2 issues. Firstly even though the link is working, as far as I can see, it doesn't reference the Vigo incident. I must say I'm very surprised I hadn't heard of it before so having searched for other references, I've learnt something. Secondly "bottled her up" seems to reference a ship not a fleet but which one? I've previously read quite a bit about the horrors of this Russian voyage including their massive logistics problem in coaling their ships. I'm therefore modifying the article slightly and adding another link which I hope people enjoy. Best wishes JRPG 12:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ingolfson 00:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ingolfson.
I did look at a rather large pdf file but settled for reading the txt file! From what you've said however, I don't think we'll disagree on very much. The Hull reference http://www.hullwebs.co.uk/content/l-20c/disaster/dogger-bank/voyage-of-dammed.htm
Twenty-eight British battleships from the Home Fleet were ordered to raise steam and prepare for action while British cruiser squadrons shadowed the Russian fleet as it crossed the Bay of Biscay and sailed down the Portuguese coast. Nearing Vigo, Rozhestvensky was ordered to dock and leave behind the officers who had been responsible for attacking the British trawlers. Rozhestvensky used the diplomatic furore as an excuse to rid himself of a Captain Klado one of his most bitter critics.
seems to suggest that the Russians entered Vigo 'voluntarily' and the British battlefleet didn't even set off although it could have caught the very slow convoy eventually. If the Russian fleet was forced into Vigo to avoid superior nearby forces, I've no problems whatsoever with saying it was bottled up or part of it was bottled up!
Whether the Hull reference is as authoritive or as clear as we would like is another matter. There are some good sources on Tshushima which cover the voyage.
Hope your PC recovers soon! JRPG 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of original articles from the NY Times available on their web archive. The Russians do seem to have entered Vigo in search of coal (CZAR'S BATTLESHIPS AT VIGO.; Two of Them Said to be Damaged -- Rojestvensky Tries to Coal There. October 27, 1904, Thursday), but the British were quite angry (LONDON PAPERS IMPATIENT.; Demand That the Baltic Squadron Be Stopped. October 26, 1904, Wednesday) and may well have lurked outside Vigo. (KING'S SHIPS GATHER ROUND CZAR'S FLEET, October 28, 1904, Friday). The British did send some ships to patrol offshore. (BRITAIN'S FLEETS HELD IN READINESS; Channel, Mediterranean and Home Squadrons. CZAR EXPRESSES REGRET Prepared to Satisfy Demands Resulting from North Sea Tragedy. NO WORD FROM ROJESTVENSKY Russian Admiralty Not Able to Reach Him -- British Ship Owners Take Out Insurance War Risks. October 26, 1904, Wednesday) Britain's Fleets Held in Readiness
DeciusAemilius ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This article should mention that this is the same fleet that was comprehensively beaten in the Battle of Tsushima. There isn't even a reference to Tsushima at all in this article. Roger ( talk) 07:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
In The Times of the time there is reference to The North Sea Inquiry into the incident. Jackiespeel ( talk)
In reference to teh statue of the fisherman in Hull, the article mentions the '18 feet high statue'. I may be wrong, but from the picture the statue itself looks smaller, and may only be 18 feet high if counting the pedestal? Is that correct usage, or should it rather say '18 feet high monument'? Sejtam ( talk) 08:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dogger Bank incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dogger Bank incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)