Talk:USS Salish

Image copyright problem with Image:The Sun (Gotcha).png

The image Image:The Sun (Gotcha).png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Location

Source specifies distance as 70 miles [1] see also [2] which specifies all distances are in statute miles. 1 mile = 1.61 km hence 70 miles is approximately 110 km. The distance is not specified in nautical miles.

It would be nice if people checked before editing, it would be even nicer if they didn't blindly revert with a pedantic comment about specifying statute miles in the article. It would absolutely peachu if that were the case they did the edit themselves rather than reverting to the wrong numbers. Justin talk 09:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.naval-history.net/F36opsweek6.htm says "Argentine patrol ship Alferez Sobral damaged 70 miles north of East Falkland island", and http://www.naval-history.net/F03Abbrevs.htm says "All distances are statute miles, unless stated otherwise."

Nevertheless, I remain dubious that F36opsweek6.htm is using statute miles. The page also says "Then to confirm control of the seas, Britain extended the TEZ on Friday and warned Argentina that any warships or military aircraft found more than 12 miles from their coast were liable to attack." These are definitely nautical miles, 12 nm being the limit of Argentina's territorial sea. (See The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, p. 306.)

I can't find a reference to the location of the attack on the Sobral which doesn't look a copy of Wikipedia or Battle Atlas of the Falklands War. How about we just skip that metric conversion until somebody finds something?

—WWoods (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really he is pretty definite about using statute miles but in the case of the 12 mile limit is merely repeating the communique of the British Government. I'll check Freedman when I get home, it doesn't have to be changed now this very minute. Justin talk 09:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Like WWoods, as especially with his "12 miles" example, which are nautical miles but not identified as such,contrary to the blanket claim made on a different page of that website , I remain dubious. But in any case, it isn't acceptable to just blindly put in unconventional units into this article without identifying them as such. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, he explicitly states units are statute miles but in that case repeats the communique of the British Government. And I will check sources I have to hand at home - including the official history. Justin talk 12:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing that does increase the likelihood of them being a conversion to statute miles by a fool who wants to write a book using unconventional units is the fact that 70 statute miles might be a conversion of a nice round one degree or 60 nautical miles, appropriate for a number classified as "approximately". We'd be damn fools ourselves to follow his example, of course. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Smith is a well respected author on naval history, he is certainly no fool. Justin talk 13:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In this respect he most certainly is. If he doesn't want to use the conventional nautical miles, he should just stick to the kilometers and not ambiguously use "miles" to mean statute miles in a context where that is abnormal. You will also note that while I originally fixed it with the most probably result, I did call it to your attention that there was an alternative possibility, and that if that were the case the identity of the miles would need to be specified. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say his expertise would be preferrable to someone who can't tell the difference between a 12000 ton armoured cruiser and an 800 ton tugboat (despite both articles including photographs) and who stubbornly reverts over a petty matter to the detriment of the project. I also made the effort to check the units involved, rather than simply guessing and included what they were in my edit summary. You just guessed. Justin talk 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"...in the case of the 12 mile limit [Smith] is merely repeating the communique of the British Government." You mean this?

"... Her Majesty's Government warns that any Argentine warship or military aircraft which is found more than 12 nautical miles from the Argentine coast will be regarded as hostile and are [sic] liable to be dealt with accordingly." (Freedman, p. 306)

—WWoods (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thats the one. 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a really sloppy job of "repeating" to me, since it doesn't agree with the quote WWoods found, especially when he promises on his abbreviations page that when he uses nautical miles he will identify them as such. Did he just think he could leave out the "nautical" from that would change them to statute miles, willy-nilly? Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake he made a mistake, like you're perfect. Justin talk 00:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, you can like him all you want, I don't have anything else against him. But us quibbling about that doesn't make any sense at all. However,

1. This isn't likely to be the only article you edit dealing with ships.
2. This isn't likely to be the only article for which you use Gordon as a source.
3. You are aware of the unconventional use of units in Gordon's work.
4. You, therefore, are the one who has an obligation to properly identify those ambiguous units of measure when they are used here on Wikipedia.

That's what you should be taking away from this discussion. Okay? Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy on this or is it just your opinion? Actually pointing at a relevant policy would be helpful, lectures on your opinion are about as much helpful as a chocolate tea pot. At the moment I'm reserving judgement. Justin talk 13:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Checked Freedman, both the Official History and Signals of War, neither give a position. I've a couple of other sources I can check. Justin talk 00:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume for argument that you did have the actual location of the ship pinned down to a gnat's ass. Then what, exactly, does "from the Falkland Islands" mean? Where, exactly, on the Falkland Islands are you measuring from? The point is, there will always be considerable uncertainty. Or, when you say it is x distance (in any units) "north" of the Falkland islands, are you only considering the northerly component of the distance, or the total distance even if it is a little ways east or west of true north? So even if a different source has a different number, in clearly identified and unambiguous units, it still won't be of any particular help in determining what your source meant by his measurement. All we really have about that is his claim that if he uses nautical miles he will identify them as such, and a counterexample proving that he does not always do as he said he would. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For the second time of asking is there a policy on this or is it just your opinion? Justin talk 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it weren't, what difference would it make? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it isn't, and it is a matter of us hammering it out between ourselves. Please give some reason why you think it would be sensible to hide the fact that the ambiguous units used in this article are not the ones that people conversant with this field of activity would expect in this context. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:units Both statute mile and nautical mile are equally acceptable in nautical and aeronautical contexts. It also states that:

In a direct quotation, always keep the source units.

• Conversions required for units cited within direct quotations should appear within square brackets in the quote.
• Alternatively, you can annotate an obscure use of units (e.g. five million board feet of lumber) with a footnote that provides conversion in standard modern units, rather than changing the text of the quotation. See the style guide for citation, footnoting and citing sources.

So it would appear to be just your opinion, acting against policy. It would also recommend conversion from Imperial to metric or vice versa - not multiple units have you have done. About the only thing that you have commented that would appear to have been correct is the need to add statute mile to make it explicit. So I will correct it as per MOS and assume that will be the end of the matter. Justin talk 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you had better just look again. I see absolutely nothing there saying that it is improper to identify the units, nor that such identification is not necessary. Use them, fine. But be damn sure you let the readers know what they are, rather than keeping it a secret to yourself. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you also address the question I raised. Why do you think this information should be hidden? Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Note further that there is no "direct quotation" involved here, nor should there be. So I don't know why you are emphasizing an irrelevant part like that. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Then top that of with the big notice at the top of the page, "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version". Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change as you haven't objected. I also said nothing about "is improper to identify the units, nor that such identification is not necessary" so there is no question to answer. I don't see how you can demand an answer to a question or statement that I have never posed. Neither have I in way shape or form said the information should be hidden. Again

I don't see how you can demand an answer to a question or statement that I have never posed. Now I have wasted enough time on this, its seems clear that you're arguing for arguing's sake. You have a nice life now. Justin talk 17:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't object? Good grief, how big a 2x4 would I need to hit up upside the head with to make my point? once again, can you answer the question I posed? You have, by your actions here and here done just that. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Steady on mate, dancing around the threat of physical violence wont get you anywhere, I agree with Justin that you seem to be constantly changing your position for the sake of an argument. I also found what you (a Wikipedia editor) said about Gordon Smith (a published military author) simply hilarious, goodbye. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh you had a point????? Justin talk 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Merge

Merging this article with the ARA General Belgrano is a ridiculous suggestion, they're different ships, were attacked under completely different circumstances, there is no merit whatsoever in such a suggestion. Justin talk 12:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I'll remove tags. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Name

This ship have been for the last 40 years and still is the Alferez Sobral, can we changed the article name or even better split it ?? --Jor70 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with moving it. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you, guys. The notability of USS Salish is clearly overshadowed by the operational history of ARA Sobral. The Argentine vessel endured the attack of two choppers armed with antiship missiles and survived an ordeal of several days with her bridge in tatters. She was also the first warship since the time of the war of Independence to have her commander KIA. Enough stuff for an article of her own, I guess.--Darius (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you guys but the usual protocol is to split it. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)