This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USS Columbia (SSN-771) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is the fact that the USS Columbia is missing blanked out of this article and the fact that it was involved in the sinking of the south Korean ship Chonan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.121.49 ( talk) 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: First off, "edit warring" is by far an inappropriate accusation for one revert with explanation, followed by additional sourcing. If I accused you of "edit warring" with your two reversions, you'd probably be offended (and very rightly). In the future, please take the prerogative and open a discussion on the talk page yourself. We should tend towards civility and AGF, something evidently not present in your edit note. Second, sources repeatedly associate the shooting with the vessel. The US Navy's own report implicates the shooter's stationing on that submarine as a mental health factor in the shooting and the vessel as a point in the shooting timeline. Unless you can find explicit rationale to delete this information, there are numerous WP:RSs that discuss the shooting in the context of the ship. For examples of somewhat similar inclusions, consider the inclusion of mention for one suicide that occurred during the British invasion of Iceland. Multiple reliable sources attest to it and associate it with the invasion, even if the relationship is not exactly direct. In this instance, sources are far more certain about this shooting being proximate and related to the vessel described in this article. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Also, no need to get all riled up about the edit-warring comment, in the future, just follow wp:brd, instead of repeatedly reverting your edit back it. - wolf 22:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@Prbritti, both you and PRRfan have already posted here, so pinging either of you (the way you keep pinging me) seems needless. You're already engaged in this discussion and it should be on your watchlist, as it is on mine. (and pinging anyone else could be construed as canvassing). In short, further pings are not necessary, imo. And you repeatedly mentioning who should've done what, and being upset about the edit warring comment is a needless thread derail. You added content. It was removed. You then should've gone to the talk page as the WP:ONUS is the editor seeking to include content. So with that, I think we should just move forward, and avoid any circular debates. I specifically mentioned WT:SHIPS, if you doubt what I stated previously, we could always take the discussion there and seek further input. I'd be fine with that.
@PRRfan, you do bring up some good points, (that are thankfully on topic) that under other circumstances, would make for a good argument for inclusion. But, as you may notice, the history of this particular boat is sadly lacking. Twenty-seven years in service and not a single entry. Adding just this entry would be extremely undue as far as weight goes. This is another reason I mentioned the three other related articles as possible pages to note this incident on (there could even be more). Yet both you of you failed to even acknowledge any of those articles. There is a potential resolution there. - wolf 06:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Looks great! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
After they reinserted unsourced information into the article, Thewolfchild asked me to bring the matter here. The current section about the naming convention of upcoming US submarines reads with an aside about the projected longevity and inserts a tidbit about age of other boats in the current Columbia's class at their retirement. However, neither source gives any information to this end or specifically comments on the age of the boats at retirement. The more recent US Navy source does give this quote: "…consequently overlapping with the existing USS Columbia (SSN 771)". One might read this as state the current vessel will be in service, but why extrapolate when one could closely follow the original source? The current unsourced material violates textbook WP:NOR principles—particularly WP:SYNTH.
A far more suitable passage might simply say the Navy has stated the new intended to prevent violation of rules wherein two vessels can not share a name. The original research is muddying the point, especially considering the only other (albeit dated) source for the section explicitly states that the current boat will likely be out of service. In fact, per the new Navy source, the implication is not that the current boat will overlap with the new District of Columbia in active duty, but that the June keel laying was the point of overlap that necessitated a different name. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 06:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Recalling your last dispute on this article..." - I will again request that you focus on edits, not editors. Personal snubs like this are needless and accomplish little. - wolf 05:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@ PRRfan and Thewolfchild: Both of you seem to misunderstand the sources. The overlap has already occurred via the keel-laying. While somewhat goofy—and perhaps overly circumspect of the Navy—the renaming has nothing to do with an overlap of commission (something neither source even comments on). Neither source "explicitly" says anything other than they don't want two Columbias on the books, irrespective of whether there is even any openness to overlapping commission. Anything more is inserting one's open interpretation onto the sources and this constitutes WP:NOR in of itself, long before one even delves into the unsourced addition of the aside about ship ages. Sorry about the pinging on this comment alone; uncertain if both have this on your watchlists right now. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 02:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, still disagree with that. There is absolutely no need for this excessive synthesis; a reader can comprehend the idea that a boat might be in service at the same time as another without a synthesized claim about a specific age that it might achieve in service. We're at an impasse, I won't comment on the matter further, but I appreciate the new sourced passage. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 03:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USS Columbia (SSN-771) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is the fact that the USS Columbia is missing blanked out of this article and the fact that it was involved in the sinking of the south Korean ship Chonan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.121.49 ( talk) 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: First off, "edit warring" is by far an inappropriate accusation for one revert with explanation, followed by additional sourcing. If I accused you of "edit warring" with your two reversions, you'd probably be offended (and very rightly). In the future, please take the prerogative and open a discussion on the talk page yourself. We should tend towards civility and AGF, something evidently not present in your edit note. Second, sources repeatedly associate the shooting with the vessel. The US Navy's own report implicates the shooter's stationing on that submarine as a mental health factor in the shooting and the vessel as a point in the shooting timeline. Unless you can find explicit rationale to delete this information, there are numerous WP:RSs that discuss the shooting in the context of the ship. For examples of somewhat similar inclusions, consider the inclusion of mention for one suicide that occurred during the British invasion of Iceland. Multiple reliable sources attest to it and associate it with the invasion, even if the relationship is not exactly direct. In this instance, sources are far more certain about this shooting being proximate and related to the vessel described in this article. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Also, no need to get all riled up about the edit-warring comment, in the future, just follow wp:brd, instead of repeatedly reverting your edit back it. - wolf 22:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@Prbritti, both you and PRRfan have already posted here, so pinging either of you (the way you keep pinging me) seems needless. You're already engaged in this discussion and it should be on your watchlist, as it is on mine. (and pinging anyone else could be construed as canvassing). In short, further pings are not necessary, imo. And you repeatedly mentioning who should've done what, and being upset about the edit warring comment is a needless thread derail. You added content. It was removed. You then should've gone to the talk page as the WP:ONUS is the editor seeking to include content. So with that, I think we should just move forward, and avoid any circular debates. I specifically mentioned WT:SHIPS, if you doubt what I stated previously, we could always take the discussion there and seek further input. I'd be fine with that.
@PRRfan, you do bring up some good points, (that are thankfully on topic) that under other circumstances, would make for a good argument for inclusion. But, as you may notice, the history of this particular boat is sadly lacking. Twenty-seven years in service and not a single entry. Adding just this entry would be extremely undue as far as weight goes. This is another reason I mentioned the three other related articles as possible pages to note this incident on (there could even be more). Yet both you of you failed to even acknowledge any of those articles. There is a potential resolution there. - wolf 06:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Looks great! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
After they reinserted unsourced information into the article, Thewolfchild asked me to bring the matter here. The current section about the naming convention of upcoming US submarines reads with an aside about the projected longevity and inserts a tidbit about age of other boats in the current Columbia's class at their retirement. However, neither source gives any information to this end or specifically comments on the age of the boats at retirement. The more recent US Navy source does give this quote: "…consequently overlapping with the existing USS Columbia (SSN 771)". One might read this as state the current vessel will be in service, but why extrapolate when one could closely follow the original source? The current unsourced material violates textbook WP:NOR principles—particularly WP:SYNTH.
A far more suitable passage might simply say the Navy has stated the new intended to prevent violation of rules wherein two vessels can not share a name. The original research is muddying the point, especially considering the only other (albeit dated) source for the section explicitly states that the current boat will likely be out of service. In fact, per the new Navy source, the implication is not that the current boat will overlap with the new District of Columbia in active duty, but that the June keel laying was the point of overlap that necessitated a different name. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 06:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Recalling your last dispute on this article..." - I will again request that you focus on edits, not editors. Personal snubs like this are needless and accomplish little. - wolf 05:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@ PRRfan and Thewolfchild: Both of you seem to misunderstand the sources. The overlap has already occurred via the keel-laying. While somewhat goofy—and perhaps overly circumspect of the Navy—the renaming has nothing to do with an overlap of commission (something neither source even comments on). Neither source "explicitly" says anything other than they don't want two Columbias on the books, irrespective of whether there is even any openness to overlapping commission. Anything more is inserting one's open interpretation onto the sources and this constitutes WP:NOR in of itself, long before one even delves into the unsourced addition of the aside about ship ages. Sorry about the pinging on this comment alone; uncertain if both have this on your watchlists right now. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 02:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, still disagree with that. There is absolutely no need for this excessive synthesis; a reader can comprehend the idea that a boat might be in service at the same time as another without a synthesized claim about a specific age that it might achieve in service. We're at an impasse, I won't comment on the matter further, but I appreciate the new sourced passage. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 03:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
References