Talk:Military Sealift Command/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Expeditionary Sea Base or Mobile Base? (ESB)

In 2015 the CNO and SecNav renamed multiple classes, including changing designations for JHSV's to Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF), Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) to Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD), and the Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) variant of the MLP to Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB). Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) is the correct designation for ESB-class vessels and there is no need to edit it to previous or outdated names. Coffee Atoms (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

See reply below - ^theWOLFchild 11:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(repeat section)

Hello, I noticed you've edited articles that had been corrected to the new designation for the Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB). In 2015 the CNO and SecNav renamed multiple classes, including changing designations for JHSV's to Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF), Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) to Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD), and the Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) variant of the MLP to Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB). There is no need to change it from the official and current designation. Coffee Atoms (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee Atoms: - AFAIK, (ESB) is the designation for Expeditionary Mobile Base. Do you have a source that states the navy has changed it to "Expeditionary Sea Base"? - ^theWOLFchild 01:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(follow up) Just confirmed with the source you attached to your edit. It is "Expeditionary Mobile Base". You do realize that hull codes are not direct acronyms, right? E.S.B. does not stand for "Expeditionary. Sea. Base." So unless you have a source to support the change, the article should have the actual type name, in which case my edits were appropriate corrections and should stand. I have to ask, where did you get "Expeditionary Sea Base" from anyway? - ^theWOLFchild 01:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:The must current publically available document is SECNAV Instruction 5030.8C. The Naval Vessel Register has the current designations for all Navy ships. Page 3 of Enclosure 1 has the specific entry for the Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB). Coffee Atoms (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee Atoms: - Link? - ^theWOLFchild 02:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:It's available at http://www.nvr.navy.mil/5030.8C.pdf Coffee Atoms (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee Atoms: - the source you provided is a typed memo, from 2 years ago, that could easily have a mistake or two. The graphic I added is with the new 8 program set-up that MSC is going with, it's current as of 2018 and it states the Puller is an Exp. Mobile Base. At the ESD article, there are numerous sources that confirm that it's 'mobile', not 'sea'. Unfortunately, some people are making the assumption that the 'S' stands for sea and some of those people are putting that in sources that we sometimes use. I found a source that uses both(!) We need to have conformity here. We should stick with "mobile" in all instances where this type is mentioned. Ultimately this will be cleared up one or the other. Either they really changed the name... again, from 'mobile' to 'sea', or it's as I suggested, it is still 'mobile', and the usage of 'sea' is in error. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 02:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:A graphic representation of ships from Military Sealift Command that was released in January 2017 does not trump the official policy from the Secretary of the Navy. Secretary of the Navy Instructions (SECNAVINST's) are not memorandums, they are official U.S. Navy policy, as they are directed by the Secretary of the Navy. The current official U.S. Navy policy, per SECNAVINST 5030.8C, is that Expeditionary Sea Bases are designated as ESB. Coffee Atoms (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So, are you telling us it's your intention now to go around to every, single article, and change every single instance of Exp. Mobile Base to Exp. Sea Base? Because I think you'll need more than just that old memo. There is a great deal of reliable sourcing that supports the type being called Exp. Mobile Base. Before you do anything, I would suggest you go to the WP:SHIPS project talk page and start an RfC. You would need to involve more of the community than just you and I on this talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 03:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:The Official U.S. Navy Policy, as previously stated, is that ESB's are Expeditionary Sea Base vessels.

• The Naval Register, the official record of U.S. Navy ships: http://www.nvr.navy.mil/5030.8C.pdf cleary states in Enclosure 1, page 3 that they vessels are known as "Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB)."
• The Naval Register, the official record of U.S. Navy ships, referring to ESB-3 as an Expeditionary Sea Base: http://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_ESB_3_5415.HTML
• The Naval Register, the official record of U.S. Navy ships, referring to ESB-4 as an Expeditionary Sea Base: http://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_ESB_4_5422.HTML
• The Naval Register, the official record of U.S. Navy ships, referring to ESB-5 as an Expeditionary Sea Base: http://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_ESB_5_5741.HTML
• Naval Sea System Command announcement regarding the Expeditionary Sea Base as "Expeditionary Sea Bas": http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Team-Ships/PEO-Ships/Exp-Transfer-Dock-ESD-Exp-Sea-Base-ESB/
• Navy press release christening the a Expeditionary Sea Base as "Expeditionary Sea Base": http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=102930
• Navy press release announcing the newest Expeditionary Sea Base as "Expeditionary Sea Base": http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=103200 Coffee Atoms (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, well... I'm off to bed. But tomorrow, I'm sure I can dig up twice as many reliable sources that support these ships being officially called Expeditionary Mobile Bases. (and I don't have a conflict of interest here either). But, again this why I suggested you start an RfC at WP:SHIPS. Why you went running to ArbCom, (and tried to drag me there, I no idea. It looked a little foolish and I'm glad they shut that down quickly. Hopefully you will learn something from that). You should take the time to learn the policies & guidelines here, and refrain from plunging head-on into things you don't understand. (or claim there are 'disputes' where there are none). Good night - ^theWOLFchild 05:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee Atoms: Why is the RfC being held here, not at WT:SHIPS as suggested (twice) by Thewolfchild? Also, have a look at how it shows up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology (permalink) - it's not at all clear what is being discussed, and reads more like a question from one user to a single other user. See WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief also WP:WRFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee Atoms: et al. - Good morning. I both appreciate and agree with Redrose64's comments. But, I think it's clear there is some inexperience on the part of Coffee Atoms and we should try to keep that in mind and help him along. Also, do to his comments at ArbCom, there is a possible Conflict of Interest here that we should keep in mind. However, that said, I've had a look a the 7 sources listed above. The 1st is the memo I already commented on, the 2nd, 3rd & 4th are the same source, (so they're really just 1 source), the 5th does say 'sea' but also links to this source which uses 'mobile', the 6th says both 'mobile' and 'sea', however the 7th one says 'sea'. So, it's not really 7 sources, as only 3 of them solely use the term "Expeditionary Sea Base"

Meanwhile I had a quick look around, and found the following sources that use the term "Expeditionary Mobile Base";

Also, I found these sources that use both 'mobile' and 'sea' (Interestingly enough though, in virtually every source, it's the writer that uses 'sea' while 'mobile' is in the caption of the official navy photo (tagged by Navy Mass Communication Specialists) attached to the article) here they are;

Lastly, I found this article from the Navy's PR dept. referring to Puller as an "Expeditionary Support Ship", and doesn't mention "Mobile" or "Sea" (perhaps deliberately?) I figured I'd add that as well:

1. http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/cpr3/Pages/USS-Puller-Participates-in-Alligator-Dagger-2017.aspx

...and I found this one from USNI, where they use both "Mobile" and "Sea", but also "Expeditionary Landing Base" (!), that can be found here;

1. https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/navy-commission-expeditionary-sea-base-lewis-b-puller-uss-warship

That's enough for now. I'm off to have breakfast. I look forward to your responses. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 13:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

One more comment on these article's that list both 'mobile' and 'sea'; I found this source;

• http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/News-Article-View/Article/1303067/largest-regional-amphibious-exercise-kicks-off-in-djibouti-africa/

...from September 2017, where the writer of the article refers to Puller as an "Expeditionary Sea Base", but in a direct quote, Puller's Commanding Officer explicitly refers to the ship as an "Expeditionary Mobile Base". I think this is a perfect example of how the word "sea" is being incorrectly inserted into some of these various sources by people mistaking the 'S' in 'ESB' as standing for 'Sea'. Perhaps even at the Navy, assistants taking dictation (for memos) and clerks doing data entry (at the NVR) are making the same error? Can't say for sure, we can only go by the sources. However I do think some of the dates of the sources could be an important factor here. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 15:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

replies

It looks like there is some confusion here, and hopefully this clears it up. Both users appear to be correct. Coffee Atoms is correct that the Naval Register defines ESB as Expeditionary Sea Base. Thewolfuser is correct that in the Expeditionary Mobile Base has also been used extensively to describe the vessels. Both terms have been used throughout the vessel's history at various times.

Since the class of vessel have undergone multiple name changes, there are is a multitude of references with different names, which makes quick verification more difficult.

For non-government personnel, commercial publications and the overall industry precedence are relied on for verifying information .

For Navy personnel the high-up written instructions, such as the Naval Register, and policies are the sole authority and source. Publicity announcements are not official instruction or policy, and would not be used for verification.

So while the newest designation may be officialy written as "Sea Base", "Mobile Base" appears to more established and commonly used.

When a change is made to a high-level Navy reference, it may take awhile for the updates to be completely promulgated, and subsequently all other Navy publications to be updated to match it. The overall spoken vernacular also has to catch up, which is why older terms may continually be said in interviews. Eventually the industry may follow suit and use simular termonology.

The Navy Organization Change Request that authorized the change from USNS to USS prefixes uses both terms Expeditionary Mobile Base (T-ESB) and Expedtionary Sea Base (ESB). The Secretary of the Navy and Naval Register says "Sea Base" which is what all new naval correspdance and policy would be likely begin using.

Navy publicly announcements use both "Sea Base" and "Mobile Base. The Senate Resolutions naming and christening ESB vessels uses "Sea Base", and the National Defense Authorization Act for FY18 funding additional vessels uses "Sea Base".

Previous publications use a variety of terms including "Mobile Platform", "Staging Base, and "Mobile Base. All appear to have been used even after the official change by the Secretary of the Navy.

So in the end both users are right that both terms have been and are still being used. 2600:387:3:801:0:0:0:88 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello 2600+ and thanks for your reply. A couple things I'd like to point out is, when the Navy changed the designation for the Lewis B. Puller sub-variant of the then-designated MLP (Mobile Landing Platform) Montford Point-class, from MLP to ESB, (while the class itself was redesignated ESD), they did so via press release. It was announced far and wide, and there are several media sources to support that. However, the source that Coffee Atoms is relying on is a memo that was issued a year later, from SECNAV to the CNO. The Puller-variant had already been established as an "Expeditionary Mobile Base" for a year, and when this memo came out, it made no mention of another re-designation. There was no press release or announcement of another change. The memo simply lists it as an "Expeditionary Sea Base". To me, that seems more like a typo, or an error by the typist assuming that the "S" stood for "Sea". Of course, that's not proof though.

Same goes for the NVR. It clearly denotes that Puller and Williams were previously designated as "MLP", and now they are listed as ESB. While the NVR makes note of the change from "Mobile Landing Platform" to "Expeditionary Sea Base", there is no mention of being redesignated from to "Expeditionary Mobile Base" in between. Of course, that's not proof either, but it certainly is worth noting. Following the initial announcement of the change from MLP to ESD/ESB in 2015, a multitude of sources noted the ships as "Expeditionary Mobile Base" and continue to do so. Only after this questionable memo came out a year later, which obviously lead to the NVR's equally questionable listing, have some sources now noted these ships as "Expeditionary Sea Base", or have used both terms in the same article, or not all. While the Navy was clear about changing it from MLP to "Expeditionary Mobile Base", there is nothing (that I can find) that confirms "Expeditionary Sea Base" was the result of another official change. There was no press release or announcement, it's just... there

Anyway, Wikipedia works on sources, and there are, (as I write this), far more sources, from the media reporting on these ships, to the contractors building them, to the Navy sailing them, to the Marines riding on them, to the government paying for them and, from the intial change in 2015 right to the present day, referring to these ships as "Expeditionary Mobile Base". Only since that memo came out a year later, have a some sources, (and right now far less), referred to them as "Expeditionary Sea Base". We go with the strongest sourcing. And lastly, I also think WP:COMMONNAME could apply here. - ^theWOLFchild 20:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Expeditionary Mobile Base, while used is the past, is not the current or correct designation.

SECNAVINST 5030.8C is not a memorandum (MEMO), the INST stands for INSTRUCTION. The Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5030.8C is the official policy of the Navy, regardless anything previously commercially published. Secretary of the Navy Instructions are black and white policy and not are not a memo. To better understand Naval Correspondence, one can reference the Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5216.5 on Naval Correspondence, also abbreviated SECNAVINST 5216.5. Once again, INST is INSTRUCTION. Is it were SECNAVMEMO, then it would be a memo, but it is INSTRUCTION.

Ships are not officially named per a commercial publication or announcements, the name become official by entry into the Naval Vessel Register. The Naval Vessel Register is the official inventory of the US Navy the authoritative source for information.

Naval Vessel Register for Expeditionary Sea Base: http://www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/HULL_SHIPS_BY_CATEGORY_ESB_115.HTML

From NASSCO who constructs Expeditionary Sea Bases: https://www.nassco.com/wp-content/uploads/ESB_FactSheet.2016_web.pdf

From NAVSEA Program Executive Office that manages the acquisition of Expeditionary Sea Bases:

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Team-Ships/PEO-Ships/Exp-Transfer-Dock-ESD-Exp-Sea-Base-ESB/

From MSC who operates the vessels:

http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2017/October/puller.htm

The official policy of the U.S. Navy, by the instruction of the Secretary of the Navy, written in black and white is that ESB is “Expeditionary Sea Base” (per SECNAVINST 5030.8C). Suggesting the SECNAV who designated the ships is mistaken along with the builders of the vessels, the operators of the vessel, the official policy of the U.S. Navy does not sound plausible. Coffee Atoms (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Coffee Atoms. Thanks for the reply. You keep repeating the same thing about this memo, or 'instruction', which makes it clear you haven't read WP:PRIMARY. I think you should. It also instructs on Tertiary sources and the important Secondary sources that Wikipedia replies on. That said, I see you added a few more sources. The first one is the NVR, which I already addressed above. The second is from the contractor NASSCO, from 2016. If you look at my list, I also have a link from NASSCO (it's way down around number 20), that clearly refers to these ships as the "Expeditionary Mobile Base Program". It appears to be current. Your third source is from navsea.navy.mil, (I have a couple of those as well, #6 & #7). Did you notice that in the source you provided, it refers to these ships as both "Exp. Sea Base" and "Exp. Mobile Base"...? And lastly, your fourth source does refer to the ship as a "Exp. Sea Base", but it is an article about an announcement made by the ship's Commanding Officer (CO), Capt. Adan G. Cruz, who in this source is directly quoted as referring to Puller as an "Expeditionary Mobile Base". (This from the ship's own CO). So again, of the four sources you listed, only one or two really support your position. Meanwhile, you haven't addressed the questions about timelines, inconsistencies, announcements/press releases (or lack of them), or the more than sixty sources I listed above, supporting my position. Sources directly from MSC, the Navy, the Marines, the DoD, the contractor and sub-contactors, from the Government Accounting Office, from Congress and of course, the numerous reliable, secondary, media sources. Many of which are current and/or post-date this memo (sorry... 'instruction') that is now a couple years old. An 'instruction' by the way that appears internal, while many of the sources I listed are directed at the public, to inform them, kinda like Wikipedia does. How do you account for all that? And lastly, are you sure you aren't a little bit conflicted here? I look forward to your reply. But, please... do some reading up first. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 19:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Coffee Atoms. Yes, the "official policy" is a primary source, however using it in this manner (for a dry fact) would be acceptable. As for "reliable, secondary sources" - yes they are reliable but that doesn't mean they're always 100% right, WP:RS even states "Source reliability falls on a spectrum". In this case, the US Navy is a more "expert" source than a journalist, who for all sorts of reason might not be using (or, maybe even not aware of) the correct, more recent term. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks foe the reply "198.84.253.202", but if you notice, among the sixty-odd sources I listed, a dozen and a half are from the MSC, the Navy, Marines, DoD and other official .mil/.gov, or "primary" sources, that post-date this one memo that I frankly feel Coffee Atoms is relying on a little too much here. The first and only ESB so far is Lewis B. Puller, and even her own commanding officer clearly referred to her as an "Expeditionary Mobile Base", is an interview 2 years after that memo came out, (and where he even appears to be correcting the interviewer who used the term (Exp. Sea Base"). So far, I haven't seen anything sufficient enough to warrant the change from "Mobile" to "Sea", especially in the face of all the souring that is available. And we are talking about a significant number of changes, as Wikipedia should strive to be as consistent as possible. Thanks again. - ^theWOLFchild 21:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Upon checking the sources above, "ESB" seems to be an accurate (i.e. in the sense "it's not wrong") designation for three ships (namely, ESB-3 Puller, and under construction T-ESB-4 Williams and T-ESB-5 Miguel). The source which you link above is kind of ambiguous as to whether this "not technically incorrect" use is also the preferred one - the ship's CO and the writer of the text both appear to be experts and I don't know which one takes precedence (because military rank isn't necessarily the most reliable indicator) so them using two different terms might just mean that both are OK. As for "more than sixty sources [you] listed above", I already pointed out that newspapers, despite being usually considered more reliable than primary sources, can still be wrong, especially in more technical areas (such as seems to be the case here). Common use in RS needs to be weighted against the actual reliability of such sources - WP isn't a repository of popular knowledge - and journalists are inherently less reliable than members of a military organization (at least, for dry facts regarding said military organization)... Overall, I have no clear-cut opinion what should be done with other potential articles which fall under the scope of this dispute - though I'm leaning towards status quo. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, "ESB" was never in dispute. The Expeditionary Transfer Dock Program (hull code ESD) began with USNS Montford Point (T-ESD-1) and was followed by USNS John Glenn (T-ESD-2). Then came USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3), a sub-variant (perhaps even sub-class tbd) called the Expeditionary Mobile Base (hull code ESB}, with ESB-4 and ESB-5 on the way. This program was originally called the Mobile Landing Platform (hull code MLP) and these ships were known as such until the announced change. None of this so far is in dispute. Puller and the next two were re-designated as "Expeditionary Mobile Bases". At one point in 2015 however, an internal memo, (or "instruction") was passed from the Office of SECNAV to the Office of the CNO. In it, it mentions "Expeditionary Sea Bases". But there was no press release or any kind of formal or official announcement that ESB had again been changed from "Exp. Mobile Base" to "Exp. Sea Base". After the release of that memo, the NVR was changed. But, I believe it's a simple mistake. A typo or an assumption made by an assistant or typist. I, of course can't prove that and certainly wouldn't base any edit solely on a 'belief' like that, nor should anyone else. Since that memo, 3 years ago, there have been numerous sources, both official military (MSC, USN, USMC, DoD) and government (the GAO and Congress), as well from the various contractors and sub-contractors building these ships, confirming it as "Mobile", not "Sea". I listed all these sources before I listed any media sources. And that combined 60+ sources I listed is just the tip of the ice-berg, there are many more. But, with all that said, I certainly agree with your position to maintain QUO on this, as it is. I really don't think we could go another way. Thanks again for your replies. - ^theWOLFchild 04:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, and this doesn't change my position in any way since it is only one source, but it seems to me that saying SECNAVINST 5030.8C is a mere "memo" would be misrepresenting the source. That document clearly states (in plain words) that it is an instruction not a memo: "[...] Records created as a result of this instruction, regardless of media and format [...] [emphasis mine]" (p. 3) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 198.84.253.202, that is a fair observation, but one that has been covered at length in the above discussion. In this instance, I don't see "instruction" and "memo" as being mutually exclusive of one another. But regardless, this document is internal correspondence between the secnav and the cno, unlike previous documents that were issued publically as press releases. That said, "memo" is just quicker to type out than "instruction". However, people should not be making any decisions on which type name to support, solely based on which term is being used to describe said document. I see that it didn't affect your judgement, so going forward I don't really see it as a concern. But, again, it was a fair observation to make and I thank you for your reply. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2