Jump to content

Talk:Zimmermann Telegram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gerard’s role

[edit]

There was a U.S. telegraph link used by the Germans to send cables to the US, theirs having been all cut by the British. Ambassador Gerard agreed to this, on condition all messages were sent in clear.

However, this one time, he approved the message being sent in code. Why? I came to this article to find out, but no info. 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:B0C0:26F1:9A03:24CF (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The link GermanNavalWarfare.info (under External Links) is fake - it leads to a Thai clickbait site ostensibly called 'The easy way to socialize, have fun, and make new friends', and should be replaced with a correct one. Jaycey (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Interception

[edit]

I revised the British interception section to remove information that had was technologically false. The Swedes and the United States did not possess telegraph cables in the waters around Great Britain. The text conflated telegraph cables (by which one means submarine telegraph cables) and "telegraph cables" (by which one refers to the messages sent by private citizens and public officials that travel via submarine telegraph cables). There were three routes, as scholars have made pretty clear in the extensive literature on the subject -- by radio, under Swedish diplomatic message traffic, and under U.S. diplomatic message traffic. Neptune1969 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: German History, 1900-1945

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 22 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eklies (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eklies (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 August 2024

[edit]

– Per WT:AT, WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, these terms are not consistently capped in sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See ngrams for Zimmermann Telegram, Riegner Telegram, Bassett Letter, Lansdowne Letter, which are quite conclusive. The ngram for Ems dispatch is not definative because of the acronym for Emergency medical services but this search of Google books clearly evidences mixed usage in book sources. Höfle Telegram returns no ngram hits but Google book and Google scholar searches indicate mixed usage in sources. Göring Telegram also returns no ngram hits but the Google books search indiactes it is commonly refered to as Göring's telegram (uncapitalised) - ie the article title is not the actual common name but a Wiki construct.

Here's a better n-gram for the Ems dispatch, constrained to sentence context by "of the". Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change to Zimmerman Telegram per the n-grams, which seem pretty conclusive that uppercase is now the common form, probably through the "Wikipedia effect" but still the most common form in English. Support the rest. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While uppercase is more common most recently, more common is not the criterion to be applied per MOS:CAPS, but a substantial majority. Most recently, it is capped 61% of the time and, as you know, ngrams tend to over-represent capitalisation because they also report title case usage (headings etc) not just usage in sentences. It will capture citations of Barbara Tuchman's book The Zimmermann Telegram, which incidentally, uses the lowercase form in prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial majority? 61% to 39%, in any election, would be called a landslide. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But capitalisation in prose (what we must look at) will be somewhat less than that. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much less, if you just put "the" in front, which could still hit on some titles. See modified n-grams linked in my response to Yaksar just below. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change for Zimmerman per User:Randy Kryn and what appears to reflect clear common usage in reliable sources. Neutral on the others at the moment.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy's logic if faulty there. If you do the n-gram search with some context to focus it in sentences instead of titles, and smooth it to not pay so much attention to the years after Wikipedia started capitalizing it (from 2004), you can see that lowercase is much more common. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support all per guidelines, usage evidence, and detailed careful nom. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: ngrams do not show "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority" of sources. More importantly, the title of the article is not a proper name of anything. In this case, it's clearly descriptive. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zimmermann_Telegram&oldid=1239691833"