Talk:HMS Tireless (S88)
|WikiProject Ships||(Rated C-class)|
I added the names of the crewmen who died, but it's just too complicated to figure out all the tags for citing the reference on Wiki (and I'm a bit lazy). This URL can be used for reference: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.8513 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Surfacing at the North Pole
It now reads: On 19 April 2004, Tireless and USS Hampton (SSN-767) rendezvoused under the Arctic ice and surfaced together at the North Pole. Surfacing at the North Pole? Probably a mis-writing, because the North Pole needs more ice-breaking gear to surface, I think? -DePiep (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Cause of explosion
The text now reads "... were killed in an explosion onboard, apparently caused by an oxygen generator candle in the forward section of the submarine. " This still leaves a degree of uncertainty. On June 12 2008 the UK MoD published the Board of Inquiry (BOI) report detailing the results of its inquiry. This leaves not much room for uncertainty since Self Contained Oxygen Generators (SCOG's) are clearly identified as having caused the explosion. BTW, the redacted BOI report can be can be downloaded here from the UK MoD website: 
I just thought this would be a valuable addition to this wikipage.
I am new to the editing of wiki pages. Any help will be appreciated.
I am unfamiliar with how to implement these changes, other that discuss the possibility to include new text and references, as I did above.
Serious struck me as a WP:PEACOCK term and as a recent change I've challenged it. My understanding was that the leak itself was minor and contained by the safety systems on board and that the crew's actions prevented any serious consequence. As written it implies a dangerous leak of radioactive material which didn't occur and its therefore misleading. Repeatedly removing a fact tag against contentious material is not helpful. We have a talk page if you have concerns. Justin talk 12:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ref 2 looks clear to me. The ref said the fault was serious, & the RN reacted accordingly. Yes, you should have taken it to the talk page, rather than repeating your edit. David Biddulph (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, the reference attached is pretty straightforward:
- The qualifier is more than supported by a reliable source.
- Last, but not least: User:Justin A Kuntz really should avoid editing "articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed".
- This paragraph: "In May 2000, Tireless developed a serious leak in the nuclear reactor primary cooling circuit. The nuclear propulsion system was shut down and using backup diesel power Tireless made way to Gibraltar. The damage was found to be more extensive than first hoped, and the boat remained at Gibraltar, creating diplomatic tensions between Spain and Britain, until she left on 7 May 2001, nearly a year later following extensive repairs. During that year, all Trafalgar-class submarines were inspected for similar problems" is not an exception. If this editor persists, please point it out to any admin. Cremallera (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I do see your point that the current wording could be construed as a leak to the environment. I will look at rewording it, but am busy for a couple of days. I was just looking for most concise wording for a leak that the source says was a "serious fault". We probably need something longer. Rwendland (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for listening, and it is of no relevance to my topic ban. My suggestion was simply to say it was a potentially serious leak but the safety systems alerted the crew before it became dangerous and no radioactivity was released to the environment - all of which is supported by the quoted source. And before a false allegation of a COI is made, yes I work for BAE Systems on the installation of Aster missiles on the Type 45, nothing to do with nuclear submarines. Justin talk 08:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)