This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Convoy ON 92 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 List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding the deletion of my edit; www.Sabaton.net is the official Sabaton website and not a fan one. ScruffyFox ( talk) 07:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
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 explanation to Ingham 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
PS: Just to clarify some of the inaccuracies: [1]
Xyl 54 ( talk) 18:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Oakland95: well, no (but thanks anyway); I suggest you check WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source, then find one that confirms this song is about ON 92 and add it to the section. But be also aware, just because it is verifiable doesn’t make it notable. Xyl 54 ( talk) 20:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@ 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Convoy ON 92 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 List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding the deletion of my edit; www.Sabaton.net is the official Sabaton website and not a fan one. ScruffyFox ( talk) 07:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
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 explanation to Ingham 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
PS: Just to clarify some of the inaccuracies: [1]
Xyl 54 ( talk) 18:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Oakland95: well, no (but thanks anyway); I suggest you check WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source, then find one that confirms this song is about ON 92 and add it to the section. But be also aware, just because it is verifiable doesn’t make it notable. Xyl 54 ( talk) 20:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@ 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)