Talk:Melbourne–Evans collision

Globalize tag

I've put the globalize tag on this article because the text is from my userspace rewrite of the article for HMAS Melbourne, and as such has an Australian bias towards its content. Material to expand would be in the court-martials of the three Evans officers involved in the incident, and I've also heard a US Navy training video was developed using this collision as a case study... a section on that would be good. -- saberwyn 03:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath section

Created this section to deal with events related to the collision but happening after the inital Inquiry and courts-martial. The current, sourced comment is the training video developed by the USN after the collision.

Other areas to expand this section include (which I don't have sources/specific cites for at the moment):

• Legal/compensation issues
• The joint reunion organised by two ex-Melbourne crew
• The 'failure' to recognise the Evans fatalities at the Vietnam memorial, as they technically did not die fighting in the Vietnam War.

I also acknowledge that this section may need to be renamed to something more appropriate... this is the best I could come up with, but it doesn't seem right. -- saberwyn 01:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The following note should be removed (Note: This reference to 'flag rank' is somewhat disingenuous as Stevenson had been a Commodore, many of whom are entitled to fly a rank flag and so the term is associated usually with the rank of Commodore and above, although the term definitely indicates the attainment of Admiral's rank.) The clear intent of the letter is the Stevenson would have been competitive for promotion to admiral. While a Commodore is entitled to fly a flag, it is a courtesy and not a right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.76.166.50 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Some sources and searches that may be of help

To future expanders of the article, the following websites/searches may contain useful information.

• http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=McLemore+Evans+Melbourne&meta=
• http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:qe3c_6I9ipQJ:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3834/is_199901/ai_n8847437+McLemore+Evans+Melbourne&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=au
• http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1969-9/1969-09-15-NBC-22.html
• http://archive.vva.org/TheVeteran/2004_01/feature_forgotten_tragedy.htm

Regarding recent edits

The following major changes have been made as of this edit.

• Most of the recently added sources have been moved from the body of the article. In all but one case, the provided articles held the same content as the material that had already been cited for the sentance, and most of these contain no information that is not found elsewhere. These articles have been moved to an "External Links" section... they should only be re-integrated into the article if they are used to cite information not already present
• Although the Veterans Review Board link [1] contains information not already in the article, as the link appears to be part of a larger work but no information on this work has been found as yet (title, author, publication date, statement of responsibility, etc), the source may not be reliable, and should not be integrated into the article until more information about the source is found.
• The link to the TIME article [2] has been removed completely, because the content of this article is either duplicated in more recent works, or has been proved incorrect by these more recent works.

I hope this doesn't cause any problems. -- saberwyn 07:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible source

Some Google-fu has uncovered Unsinkable sailors : the fall and rise of the last crew of USS Frank E. Evans by Paul Sherbo. This book, published in Niceville, FL by Patriot Media in 2007, may be of some use for future expansion of the article.[3][4]

The film I Relieve You Sir appears to have been renamed The Melbourne/Evans Incident for its 2004 DVD reproduction.[5][6] -- saberwyn 10:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Melbourne–Evans collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081123040249/http://www.ussfrankeevans.com/navy_department.htm to http://www.ussfrankeevans.com/navy_department.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting information early in page

Early in the page, it says this:

In 1964, Melbourne was involved in a collision with the Australian destroyer HMAS Voyager, sinking the smaller ship and killing 82 of her crew.

But it was June 2-3 1969, not 1964, and the collision was with the USS Frank E. Evans, not the HMAS Voyager? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithkennedy (talk • contribs) 16:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, Melbourne was involved in two major collisions. TheEvans incident was an almost exact rerun of the earlier Voyager collision. In both cases the destroyers crossed in front of Melbourne's bows while she was at flying stations. Two horrendous tragedies. - Nick Thorne ^talk 15:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI, if a carrier is at 'Flying Stations' it means she is steaming into the wind to launch or recover aircraft and will not change course except in the direst of emergencies as this could jeopardise the safety of both her aircraft and aircrews. Accompanying vessels are usually required to stay well clear of carriers for just this reason, as the carrier may be required to turn suddenly in order to steam into the wind to launch or recover her aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.142 (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne–Evans collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214233110/http://www.benhills.com/articles/articles/MSC07a.html to http://www.benhills.com/articles/articles/MSC07a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne–Evans collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081128011808/http://www.vva.org/archive/TheVeteran/2004_01/feature_forgotten_tragedy.htm to http://www.vva.org/archive/TheVeteran/2004_01/feature_forgotten_tragedy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Correction of a factual error

Under the heading "Collision" the statement in the last paragraph that 817 Squadron was awarded a Presidential Unit Citation is factually wrong: it was a USN citation. I have a pdf copy of the certificate. While I could save that to dropbox and refer to that as evidence I do not suppose that would do. Any help will be welcome on how to effect the correction since what I have is not "published". There is a statement to this effect in the squadron's history at http://www.navy.gov.au/817-squadron-history in the paragraph commencing, "Early in 1969....' which might do. (also, on the first page of the squadron's Wikipedia page in "decorations" there is the same error (from a different source), which I need to correct also).Barbigal (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction made.Barbigal (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)