Talk:USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision

Photos

Photos of ACX Crystal need to be added, and probably some more photos of Fitzgerald. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Two here, showing bow damage, arriving Tokyo, if photographer will license suitably:

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2682629

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2682627

Davidships (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

Can someone please fix the lack of italics for the infobox heading. Davidships (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, by coincidence 1 minute after you posted the request. - Bri (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Before and after images of Fitzgerald

Fitzgerald in dry dock at Yokosuka in July 2016

This might come in handy if USN releases more images of the damage to Fitzgerald. - Bri (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Washington Free Beacon

According to the article Washington Free Beacon, this is a website that says it is "dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day". Sounds very iffy as a RS for this article. Bri (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Their disjointed writing style is amateurish, and their suggestion ("nevertheless") that the Crystal's autopilot could have been hacked is simply incredible. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Animated gif of vector map?

Over at Tableau Public I've uploaded a version of the detail map File:AIS map of MV ACX Crystal 2017-06-16 detail.png that shows the course and speed with varying size arrows, sort of like vectors. You can click the arrows in the upper right by "Timestamp (UTC)" to advance time. With some effort I could make a ogg or gif animation and upload it, if it would add value to the article. Or anyone is welcome to copy the images from the workbook and make the animation themselves. Is it worth while? It's the same data that's in the maps we already have, just displayed differently. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Recommended source(s)

I have a potential conflict of interest on this article and won't contribute further directly, instead recommending changes on the talkpage. Here's a source that could be used:

• Tim Kelly (June 26, 2017), Exclusive: U.S. Warship Stayed on Deadly Collision Course Despite Warning - Container Ship Captain, Reuters – via US News

- Bri (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's another written by a former Navy captain and law professor.

• Larry Brennan (July 12, 2017), "The Philippine container ship that crashed into a US guided-missile destroyer may be liable for almost $2 billion", Business Insider

☆ Bri (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A maritime company has posted some analysis of tracks, speeds, limitations of AIS, and unique look at what's identified as "trouble" with ACX Crystal several hours after the collision.

• Eric Meger (Maerospace Corp.) (June 17, 2017), Assessing the USS Fitzgerald Collision with the ACX Crystal – via LinkedIn

Diagram of collision from US Navy preliminary report

Preliminary USN inquiry results including this diagram ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Shake-up at 7th Fleet ☆ Bri (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Commander, Carrier Strike Group 5 (11 August 2017), Supplemental preliminary inquiry and line of duty determination regarding injuries and the deaths of seven sailors aboard USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) on or about 17 June 2017 (PDF), ser N00/328{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• David B. Larter, U.S. Pacific Fleet boss set to sack three-star fleet commander after a rash of accidents
• Gordon Lubold (August 22, 2017), "U.S. Navy to Relieve Admiral of Command After Collisions", The Wall Street Journal

AIS

The article says "As U.S. Navy ships do not transmit their location data openly the way commercial vessels do, the path of Fitzgerald leading up to the collision cannot be independently confirmed and has not been announced by Navy officials", and cites a WaPost article. The WaPost article says nothing that I can find about whether Navy ships transmit their location data, and I can't imagine they don't at least turn on their AIS when they're in a shipping lane. (Whether the Fitzgerald's AIS was in fact turned on is of course a different question.) If there isn't a source that speaks to the Navy's use of AIS, I suggest omitting this sentence. Mcswell (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Ars Technica story listed under Further reading describes this in detail. - Bri (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

US Navy ships are capable of receiving AIS data for merchant ships. But they do not transmit AIS data of their own. AIS is only a source of intel for our Naval Ships on the location of merchant ships, it is not used by our ships for own own positioning information. US Naval vessels use our own CLASSIFIED networks to share our own position information. Transmitted through our own Navy owned satellite network.

Seriously.. why would we use an open public network to broadcast our own positions? THINK, Man.

But what would I know? Electronic Warfare Technician, SLQ_32 Operator, CIC Watchstander... USS Halsey CG 23, and USS Kitty Hawk CV 63. Cg23sailor (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like an electronic warfare technician ought to be able to cite a source for these facts. We don't just believe it because some guy on the internet said he is an expert. I realize the military benefit of not broadcasting your position and you wouldn't expect the Navy to be so foolish. But then again you wouldn't expect a fast and agile destroyer to just sit there and let a big dumb slow container ship run into it. Perhaps there is a military benefit to not having the Fitzgerald sitting in dry dock with a big hole in it. We should find the published policy and find out the rationale behind it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Just sitting there? Wouldn't it be more stable (and maneuverable) if it was "under way"? Besides, I read somewhere that the freighter captain said the war ship "suddenly" turned toward the starboard (that's "the right" for you civilians and landlubbers) and cut across the freighter's path.

On the other hand, everyone seems to think the freighter didn't have anyone steering or on watch, so how would the captain know that?

Isn't there any information at all on the Fitzgerald's bearings, speed, or direction? (Hate waiting for a one-sided report to come out months later!) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to the Ars Technica article Brian mentioned above, this says : "the Navy pointed out that while its ships are equipped with AIS transponders, they're often turned off based on ships' missions". So the statement "they do not transmit AIS data of their own. AIS is only a source of intel" is false. They can and do transmit AIS data when they choose to. "Why would we use an open public network to broadcast our own positions?" So civilian ships don't run into you.

  So this leaves us back with the original question: what was the status of the Fitzgerald at the time? If they were in a relaxed, no-combat posture with no lookouts and everybody chilling, why not turn AIS on to help with all that traffic? If they had AIS off because they were carrying out a sensitive mission, why weren't they alert to nearby ships? We won't know until the investigation is over, I suppose.

  By the way, the article Automatic identification system goes on for a few thousand words sifting through the minute technical details of how AIS works without so much as mentioning the Navy or the intelligence and/or public relations aspects of AIS. There's one sentence at the end about spoofing, but that's all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Synonyms for said

This kind of pedantry requires some scrutiny. If you're going to be scrupulous about using 'stated' rather than 'said' because the communication was written, then consider the following:

1. Say does not mean only oral, spoken words. OED: " I. To utter, speak; to express in words, declare; to make known, tell." M-W: "a : to express in words : state"
2. The Reuters source does not say it's a paper document. It calls it a "report" and "account" which they "saw". We don't know if it's written, in video, PowerPoint, spoken at a press conference, or interpretive dance. Don't torture the definition of "said" while making assumptions not contained in the source
3. Even if the report that Reuters saw was on paper and not some other medium, Reuters tells us that "the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights". Said is what we have been given by the source. Why are we presuming to change it to something else?
4. Stated is a synonym for said, but the connotation is a level of formality greater than said. We're told this is a report the Captain gave to the shipowners, but we do not know how formal this report was. Was it a screengrab of the Captain Skyping to his boss? Notes on a napkin? A sworn deposition? It sounds like a formal statement, but we don't know that. We only know it's some kind of report.

Also: our article says "a report to the ship's owners which was shown to the press". Reuters says it is an "exclusive", and that a copy of the report "was seen by Reuters". It doesn't say it was "shown to the press". "The press" being plural, the opposite of exclusive. Reuters does not say it was "shown" to them, they say they saw it. Did they steal it? Spy it through an open window? Find it in a bus station? We do not know. We only know Reuters, and Reuters alone, saw it. To be pedantic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Know what? We all make mistakes sometimes. Writing "press" instead of "Reuters" was my bad, I should have been more precise (though, if you really want to dig into technicalities, "Reuters" is part of the press). The "said/stated/wrote" thing is a honest mistake I made while trying to be (probably too) precise. Sorry for the inconvenience. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Before somebody reverts again

Is this reliable enough or should I try another page? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Defense News is considered reliable. Tons of articles use it without controversy. - Bri (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a big scoop and a good find. Also this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Added. Will somebody check the comments I've put within the text and see if the relevant text needs to be inserted or not. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Landlubberly POV?

Does anyone working on this article have bridge experience? I ask because the article is permeated with a certain awkwardness that suggests the editors are largely unfamiliar with the topic and its context.

E.g.: the article refers to the Fitzgerald's "sensor systems". The source referenced (Scott Shane, NYT) says nothing about "sensor systems"; this seems to be an editor's vague awareness of "radar". And it shows a landlubberly lack of understanding that the primary "system" of avoiding collisions at sea is the age-old, tried-and-true use of lookouts. There should have been a lookout on the starboard bridge wing, and what amazes everyone with maritime experience is why he did not give alarm that a huge freighter was coming right at him. What is so amazing as to be stupefying is that the collision alarm was not sounded prior to impact.

Similarly, where the article says: "the rules of the sea suggest Fitzgerald failed to give way...." Not really. These "rules" say (generally) that when two vessels are on converging courses the one on the left must give way. It is the observed fact that the Fitzgerald was hit on its right side that strongly "suggests" it was in the wrong.

Under "Discrepancies about the time of collision", the first sentence – "The time of the collision was unclear at first, but in the days after the collision a time of 01:30 was generally accepted" (by whom?) – is quite suspect. The initial reports, originating from the Navy, clearly stated "about 02:30" local time. Perhaps someone was simply confused about what timezone was "local", perhaps that was the time Fleet Command heard about it (because the Fitzgerald's radios were out of commission). But that was the basis for reports that the freighter doubled-back prior to the collision, the implications of that being so dire that the discrepancy warrants clarification.

There is a problem in instances like this where massive replication of non-expert reporting tends to blur and bury pertinent information. Expert advice and guidance would help make this article much better. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have naval experience but can't edit this directly due to conflict-of-interest. Other editors may be in the same fix. The July 12 source I recommended above is really good IMO, but hasn't been incorporated yet. It talks about the time discrepancies specifically: "The available electronic data of the track of ACX Crystal suggests that the collision occurred almost due west of the northernmost point of Toshima (34.5222 deg North, 139.072 deg. East) if the collision occurred at about 0130 as the containership contends. If, however, the collision occurred about 0220-0230 as the US Navy initially contended, then the site would be slightly to the northwest. The 50-60 minute time gap could make all the difference in determining the causal fault resulting in the casualty." Timezone errors are unlikely, as the collision occurred in Japanese waters, USFJ and 7th fleet HQ are located in the same time zone (which does not observe summer/daylight savings time), and USN has plenty of experience doing correct conversions to/from Zulu time when necessary. Note that inexperienced or misinformed press reporters have made lots of errors in items about the collision, most frequently stating that it was fifty-plus nautical miles off of Honshu, not under 12 as it actually was (e.g. CNN); they apparently are mistaking distance from port from distance from the coastline. The distinction could be important because of jurisdictional issues due to the definition of territorial waters. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your comments are exactly the kind of critical assessment needed to sort out what really happened. E.g.: I agree that an error in noting the time is unlikely. (But then-- so was the collision!) But what does that initial time of 02:30 refer to: the collision itself? Or when 7th Fleet got the message? Or what? Did some yeoman mistype the time? This is where seeing the actual press release by the Navy would be helpful. Likewise any message traffic by the Japanese CG. Most news agencies don't carry those details, which means burrowing down to the actual sources, which comes back to needing expert guidance.

I wonder if it would be useful to list (here, on the talk page) the various apparent or possible elements of the event, which we could evaluate for inclusion in the article. Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Japan Coast Guard is going to release findings soon [1], and there are purported leaks from the USN investigation available as well. So it might be best to just wait a few more days. As to your specific question, 0225 (± an unknown delta) was when the collision was reported to Japan Coast Guard. Some media have stated that Fitzgerald's radio room was destroyed and AFAIK no reliable reporting on when 7th Fleet became aware of events.

There are USN press releases now [2], but like I said, until the actual investigation results are released, they (unsurprisingly) don't really say much about the events prior to the collision.

A thought on a major point missing in the current revision of the article: there are multiple overlapping authorities, we could discuss who they are and what is their ambit. Japan Coast Guard and USN are only two of them. There's also (at least potentially) the ship's insurers, US National Transportation Safety Board, US Coast Guard, Japan Transport Safety Board and various Philippine authorities including the coast guard and even US Congressional committees (hinted at by USN 21 July). I'm a bit surprised that US–Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is still only in the See Also section and not discussed in the body of the article. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Opinion of Steffan Watkins

I have deleted the following sentence and cites:

Independent analyst Steffan Watkins said it is likely there was no one on the bridge of the ACX Crystal, though investigation officials have not commented on this.

__________________________________________

The investigations undoubtedly will go into this matter. Is there a reason why we should be reporting the opinion of an IT security consultant?

Kablammo (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

According to Irish Times [3], he writes for Jane's, so yes, that's a reason. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I will restore his opinion (with his qualifications in a footnote or text) when I get to my desktop. Kablammo (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The article now refers to his opinion. Kablammo (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, because he might know something. (Of course, that was speculation, so needs to be presented as such.) However, that remark seems to have been taken down. My recollection is that he said something like "there was no one the bridge [of the Crystal] that knew how to turn off the auto-pilot". Which would readily explain: 1) why the Crystal did not take evasive action (as they were required to do when collision was eminent), 2) why the Crystal's course around 1:30 becomes erratic (assuming that is time of the collision), and 3) why the Crystal continued on her course for another 30 minutes or so before turning back. In that these are curious points the readers might be wondering about, but for which there is yet no definitive information, it seems reasonable to offer a hypothesis (provided it is properly presented as such).

Another hypothesis (and I see I am not only one to have thought of this) is that the collision was indeed at 2:30, and that the Crystal was deliberately turned back before hand, with a possible intent of seeking and deliberately colliding. This is why the time discrepancy was significant. That could also be a teaching moment in why details are so important and first impressions often so wrong. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was clear with the in-text attribution per Wikipedia:BIASED, that this is an expert's opinion, not a fact. But if that isn't clear enough we should adjust the wording so no one is confused. We should also work to include other significant expert opinions. If another reputable source thinks it happened differently, or thinks these conjectures are premature, we want to include that. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2017‎

Mr. Watkins likely does qualify as an expert on the tracking of ships. From his conclusions there he expresses a further opinion-- that no one was on the bridge. I believe that it is a close call as to whether that second opinion should be included. Kablammo (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But we're also allowed to use basic common sense. If someone was on the bridge, they would have tried to do something, even if they couldn't turn the ship. If nothing else, they would have reported it. No one being on the bridge does explain the delay. So really, it's not far fetched. But again, if we have other sources who contradict that, we should give their alternative view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The NYT June 23 piece considers "the possibility that no one was awake" on ACX Crystal, which sort of implies that they weren't on the bridge doing what they usually do. This backs up what Dennis is saying, but of course it should be stated as journalistic opinion not our own. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It's not so much whether a particular view is contradicted or not, but more of: what are the possibilities? (Including the possibility that the Fitzgerald, having lost their radio room, either did not have, or could not fire up, an auxillary transmitter.) But we do need to take care that statements about hypotheses and opinions are clearly understood to be only hypotheses and opinions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would keep this. Maybe not keep the commentary (for the reasons already stated) but I think the link ought to stay. The analysis of the AIS track is valuable, even if conclusions can't (at this point) be included in the article. Although I would support keeping those too (against this removal), as I see the wording used as acceptably non-committal. We do know that one commentator has made these claims, so long as we don't also claim that they're the truth, or WP's agreed truth, then we're good. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Some points to work on

I think the following points need some attention. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• "US Naval casualties" leaves the reader wondering about non-"US Naval casualties". I suggest that the section be "Casualties", with the first sentence explaining that the only casualties were on the Fitzgerald.

• Same section: Commander Benson will certainly be a "casualty" (he will never again command a naval vessel), but does this really belong in this section?

• "Discrepancies about the time of collision": as I've said before, the "time of the collison" was not "unclear it first": the Navy clearly and definitely said: 02:30 local time. The non-clarity arose from the discrepancy with the subsequent reports from the Japanese.

• As I have also said before: the "rules of the sea" do not "suggest" the Fitzgerald was at fault; that inference arises from the nature of the collison. (If I get some time perhaps I'll take a whack at this.)

• "Personnel involved": this section seems quite misnamed. "Sensor systems" is nonsense: what "sensor systems"? The source cited says nothing about "sensor system". But that source (and others) do relate how there must have been multiple failures of the crew.

• "Investigations": "Preliminary findings suggest" is quite weak (what "pelimnary findings"?), particularly as the basis for thinking the Fitzgerald was at fault is quite evident in that the collision was on their starboard side.

Some points not mentioned (yet) in the story

Something that caught my attention. The official Navy press release (at http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=101098) says the Fitzgerald was navigated home by means of "a magnetic compass and backup navigation equipment." Normally there two gyrocompasses, located near the centerline of the ship, one forward and one aft, with the bridge able to switch their repeater to either gyrocompass. If they could not do that then either the damage incurred was MUCH greater than a couple of compartments flooded, or (possibly "and") the fundamental design philosophy regarding redundancy is severely flawed. It is possible they had a general failure of electrical power, which is NOT supposed to happen except under the most extensive battle damage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, J. Johnson (JJ).

My wild (un)educated guess is that they were consciously playing with fire, something akin to the USSR engineers testing the design limits during the Chernobyl disaster, that is they switched off anything electrical: their radars, the AIS, ARPA, GMDSS, what not systems, and even gave up on the human lookout, to test the conditions after a (North Korean?) nuclear strike or an EMP. That is why they keep it all secret, including the (automatic) logs of the collision, speed, course, vibration, proximity, ultrasound, etc.

Or else they were all drunk or stoned.

They violated the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and the age-old laws of the sea thereby, but, hey, it is an USA ship protecting the democratic world, so... Zezen (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Is your "they" the naval ship designers (who I think have been shaving too closely), or the crew? Big difference there.

The latest info is that the Fitzgerald lost electrical power forward, which imples they had power aft. That suggests a problem not with the generators, but with the feeders. Unless ship design has totally failed they have independent feeders port and starboard, with critical equipment — such as the radio room — having a switch to select either feeder. Flooding of a transfer switch could compromise both feeders, but I see no credible reason why the electricians couldn't have rigged emergency power cables. Even if the radio room was flooded (and the lack of an auxillary radio room aft is a failure of ship design) it is a good question why they (apparently) did not have power to the bridge.

I very much doubt "they were all drunk or stoned", and your notion of some kind of secret test is wholly uncredible. As has been commented already elsewhere, a likely possibility is that the OOD (Officer Of the Deck) thought they were going to cross ahead of the Crystal, and failed to recognize the significance of "constant bearing". (Such an egregious failure of training would account for the XO getting sacked.) More likely everyone was waiting for the the OOD to take proper action, and he did not realize how dire the situation was until it was too late. As for the Junior OOD jumping in: consider why he is considered junior, and read The Caine Mutiny. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your speculation is no better than Zezen's wild guess. Assuming the OOD was actually on the bridge - and that there was no problem with radar - then, as he saw the cargo ship slowly lumbering into his own ship's path, he would have had plenty of time to make a slight rudder adjustment and prevent the collision. It's not like they were real close and the cargo ship suddenly veered into them; these are not sailboats racing toward the same flag buoy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My speculation is a LOT better then Zezen's, as it is based on a likely physical reality rather than his self-admitted "wild (un)educated guess". E.g., naval ships typically (but perhaps not the Arleigh Burke class??) have dual electrical feeders, port and starboard. And I will attest based on personal observation that critical equipment is connected via an "Automatic Bus Transfer" (ABT) switch to access either feeder, and that this a potential common point of failure.

For sure, given "plenty of time" even a slight adjustment of course would have been sufficient to avoid the collision. But so-called "crossing encounters" can be tricky to judge (as has been noted on the blogs). My point (above) is that the OOD might not have realized that he was on a collision course, that a "slight adjustment" was even needed.

"Assuming ... that there was no problem with radar ...." Those ignorant of ship handling think that "radar" is the nub of the matter, where it is actually the least. For sure, the quartermaster assigned to watching the radar plot should have noticed, and reported, the converging course, and that will undoubtedly be a point of investigation. But the key element here is the lookout, who is the ship's "eyes", and charged with keeping the OOD updated on other ships.

And note: the ships had been on parallel courses, about two miles apart, and the Crystal did change course, about four minutes prior to the collision. (All of that can be inferred from the Crystal's track and the angle of the collision.) So in effect the Crystal did veer, and in terms of ship handling it was fairly sudden. Yet that change of course was so gradual that the lookout might not have noticed it for a minute or two. So when he does notice, and report, the OOD's first response is likely "what the hell? they've been parallel to us" for however long. So by the time he steps out to the wing bridge to be sure, the situation was already dire and collision imminent.

By the way, I reverted your "many speculations" edit. There have been reasonably authoritative statements that the Crystal was likely on autopilot, but if you want to add that you need to provide a source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Now can I get out of the brig? :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No shore leave until you polish those citations! :-)     ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Something curious. Last night I looked at the Navy's preliminary report on the post-collison response (available here), and was struck by something that does not seem to have been reported before: the Navy's investigator (it's not "Navy" until signed by higher authority) says the Fitz was on course 230T (nearly due southwest), outbound from Yokosuka to Subic Bay (Philipinnes). This is corroborated by a note in her history that after a recent exercise she had moored in Yokosuka, departing June 16.

The significance of this is that the vessels were approaching nose-to-nose, which was definitely NOT the case in the actual collision. (See diagram above.) Resolving this difference requires a radical change of course of some 140°, and that would certainly have brought the Captain to the bridge. (Alternately: only 50° if the collision came after the Crystal's 90° turn to the right, but that does not seem to be the case.) And would show that the OOD was aware (albeit inadequately) of a potential problem.

More mystery. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a pattern?

J. Johnson, have you heard about the USS McCain collision? --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Two such events in two months is most likely coincidence.

That collision looks much less baffling. (For starters, the Navy seems to have got the time and date right, right off the bat.) The damage was probably from the "nose" of the other ship, which is normally underwater, and being higher here than with the Fitzgerald (perhaps because the other ship was not loaded), and possibly less severe in respect of puncturing the hull, may have slowed the flooding. Though in that case I wonder why there were more fatalities.

The lack of scraping on the side suggests a nearly right-angle collision, though perhaps slightly from astern. Much will depend on whether either ship made, or perhaps did not make, any changes of course just prior to the collision.

While the McCain was struck on the port side, and thus might have been the "stand-on" ship, COLLREGS isn't that simple, so the admiralty lawyers might have a field day here. But aside from that I suspect this is going to be a fairly simple case of two ships getting into a bind, and touching. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Of interest here: CNO's tweet, reported by major media outlets. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No, not really of interest. CNN reported that some Navy officer (unidentified) said the McCain had a "steering malfunction", and some alleged cyber-security person suggested cybernetic sabotage. Unlike with the Fitzgerald, where someone suggested that the Crystal's autopilot might have been hacked, this time the Navy responded. Which may have only stirred things up.

Of course, I've heard the Navy is still running XP, so there are possibilities. But I wouldn't go there until there is more info.

What is interesting is the possibility of a steering failure. That would, at the very best, be awkward in such a crowded sea lane. The comments as to why they didn't go to "back-up" steering are wrong in their premise. The key question (assuming there was a steering malfunction) is: how long did it take? Depending on the nature of the failure, how long it took to identify the nature or location of the fault, and how quickly key personnel could respond (they probably were not stationed in the steering gear room), it could have taken ten minutes or more to regain steering. Meanwhile, some very large vessel only two miles away that is heading for the spot the McCain was vacating might not immediately realize there has been a breakdown in the plan. Oh ....! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Off topic perhaps, but lots of things run XP including hospital equipment and ATMs as well as industrial controls. It's in one of the sources I added to the electric squirrels article (a talk sponsored by the National Science Foundation) and other sources like this and this.

Back on topic, I just added at #Recommended source(s) a 40-minute old story that will definitely be of interest. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Navy's report

The Navy has released (yesterday) a "Memorandum for Distribution" from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Department of the Navy, dated 23 October 2017, covering both the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions. Very definitely incomplete (I get the feeling there are aspects that they do not want to mention, probably for reasons of legal liability), but a much fuller picture than we have had so far. In regards of the Fitzgerald: nothing at all sinister, just some really egregious failures of the OOD, and failures generally all across the board. (And a very curious statement that "physical lookout duties" were not "performed" on the starboard side. Yeah..."HUH???") The basic plot line: they were headed south (course 190T, speed 20 knots), the OOD miscalculated the situation regarding the Crystal, then couldn't figure out what to do. Bang. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Maersk Elba, sister ship of Maersk Evora

Thanks for posting this update. The course of Maersk Evora (IMO 9458080[4]; see Maersk Edinburgh-class container ship) is shown in the navigation diagrams in the new Navy report. If you read between the lines here, Fitzgerald may have mistaken Evora for Crystal on their radar when incorrectly assessing they would pass starboard-to-starboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't take any "between the lines" reading. From page 5 of the report:

Initially, the Officer of the Deck intended to take no action, mistaking CRYSTAL to be another of the two vessels with a greater closest point of approach.

Still, does it matter which ship was which? They had a radar contact that was closing rapidly, never mind the name painted on the bow. Did the OOD get hung-up on the second closest contact? Don't know. Though it hardly matters, as there was such a train of failures, including training. And where the hell was the starboard lookout? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Criminal charges

Could someone (with more free time than me) please follow up on the court-martial charges? I'm particularly interested in the following points:

1. Is the Trump administration blaming Obama for "lax oversight" - letting the Navy become lazy and complacent?
2. Will Trump and his supporters blame Obama for cutting the Navy's budget while doubling or tripling the burden of remaining ships and crews?
3. More to the point, is this the traditional Navy way of holding leaders accountable for negligence?

I'd also like to see some data on whether the various leaders have been jailed, or consulting with lawyers, and of course what the progress is with the courts-martial. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This kind of politicized theater and spin is generally not relevant to this type of encyclopedia article. I would expect to see mentions of blame shifting to the previous administration not here, but on articles about the Trump administration, in that it says more about them than it does about the Navy or the accident. 'Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan'. The Navy only just announced a week ago that hearings for possible charges are going to begin. Possibly up to three individuals may be charged. That is all the "data" there is. Questions like "Is this the traditional Navy way of holding leaders accountable for negligence?" are matters of opinion and analysis. You could certainly start quoting pundits who sound off one way or another on this question, but anyone who takes a strong position on this at such an early date is almost certainly a political hack. In five or ten years possibly, reputable historians might express their opinions, but even then, those are just opinions.

We don't need to expunge all commentary or reaction; there is some room for that. But it should be kept to a minimum and only summarize what the most prominent or reputable individuals have to say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL edit

I've reverted the deletion of the names of the U.S. Navy sailors killed in the incident, and here's why. The reason given in the edit summary was WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which doesn't apply here: it forbids "personal web pages, file storage areas, dating services, memorial pages, and content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia"; it nowhere enjoins a list, within a well-regarded article about a notable event, of those who died in that event. Moreover, the deaths of the sailors are the main reason this incident is notable; a brief, factual list of who died is crucial detail without which this article would be incomplete. PRRfan (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Now my reversion has been reverted, again citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL. @BB-PB:, @Lyndaship:, would you kindly explain which part of WP:NOTMEMORIAL you believe applies here? PRRfan (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Section 4. Lyndaship (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, this line:

Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements (emphasis in original)

Non-notable individuals who died in this incident should not be memorialized in a Wikipedia article, which, as we should all remember, is part of a general-knowledge encyclopedia. Parsecboy (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It clearly says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles", not the contents or details mentioned in articles. The individuals named are not hte subject of this article. Subjects of articles must be notable, but notability requirements never apply to content of articles which are otherwise notable. It says this right near the top of the notability policy: WP:NOTEWORTHY "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists". Nobody added these names because they are friends, acquaintances, or relatives with the crew. They were added by editors acting in good faith who put details into articles for the simple reason that reliable sources publish this information. If sources that we trust consider this information worthwhile, then we follow suit. And editorial discretion is sufficient reason to include details like the names of the crew.

Accusing any of us of having a conflict of interest without evidence is a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Assume good faith guidelines. Please do not repeat this accusation without evidence. Notability is irrelevant.

The only real reason to remove this is if consensus supports removal. From what I can tell, no such consensus exists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Although we all use WP:xxx to explain our POV they are always subject to interpretation. WP:NOTMEMORIAL has been widely used to explain the removal of lists of individuals who are otherwise not notable. We do not have a list of all the casualties in 9/11 or USS Arizona nor in the other collision articles listed at the bottom of this article. What we need to consider is does having a list of bare names assist the general reader of this article in understanding the occurrence and aftermath of this event and indeed would they find it of interest? I think not Lyndaship (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, one wonders why you are citing the limitations of WP:N, as if they are in any way relevant to WP:NOT. The two are completely different (in fact one is a guideline and the other is policy). You might as well be citing WP:CIVIL or WP:AT to support your argument. They are equally irrelevant.

As for including something simply because it has been published in a reliable source, I don't know that a photo posted on Reddit and a dead Fox News link really passes the bar. See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING:

Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.

Just because something is in a Fox News article doesn't mean we need to include it in an article. And as Lynda points out, it is not at all accepted practice to include lists of every non-notable individual who died in an event. Find me an actual reliable source - ideally something made out of dead trees and written by a naval historian - that includes a list of casualties, and we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

As for WP:COI, who has accused anyone of that? Parsecboy (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

How about the Congressional Record and The Washington Post? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No. The Congressional record is a primary source, not a secondary source. And a newspaper article is, by definition, not an encyclopedia article. The scope of the two are a Venn diagram - what they should include to be considered complete has some overlap, but the two should not be considered one and the same.

Again, find me something written by a naval historian, and we'll talk. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it's commonplace for a variety of quality sources to tell us the names of casualties. The logic here is like saying that you have an article about a band, and the band is notable, but you can't list the names of the members of the band, unless each of them individually is also notable. You can write an article about a album, but you can't say the names of the songs on the album unless each of them also qualifies for its own article? It's silly and it's why "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" is so prominently stated at the top of the notability policy.

Here is selection of some Featured articles about similar incidents. FAs are, by strong consensus of qualified judges, examples of Wikipedia's best content, and numerous editors verify that the articles strictly adhere to all policies and guidelines:

• 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash Gives name, rank, and age of all four casualties, though none are notable enough to have their own bio pages
• 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision All four crew members, even three who were uninjured, named
• 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash Single fatality, and five survivors, all named, though none are notable individually
• 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident All four non-notable casualties named
• Moors murders all five non-notable victims named
• Whitechapel murders several non-notable victims named

Other FAs about similar incidents, like 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident and USS Iowa turret explosion, name only individuals whose actions are recorded as part of the narrative of events. What's the difference? Notability is not what determines when a person is named in an article. Based on this sample, it's the small numbers of casualties, up to about 10 or so names, that limits naming of casualties. When there are 20 or 30 or 40 or more deaths, they are omitted for the sake of brevity and a clear narrative. In other words, it's left to editorial discretion, and practicality. Listing 40 or 100 or 10,000 names is impractical, but not against policy. In some cases, it feels natural and relevant to give all the names of the casualties, in others, it feels excessive. There is clearly no hard rule, and notability, and the NOTMEMORIAL policy, are not determining factors.

You can either read the words of the guidelines, which clearly apply to the creation of articles, not the mention of facts within articles, or you can learn by example, and see that this meets the rigors criteria of the WP:FA selection process. Either way, it's valid, and you need to come up with a better reason if you want to delete the names. If you think its better to have the names in prose rather than a bulleted list, I tend to agree. Should a link to a jpeg of a grave marker be cited as a footnote? No. We have other, better sources to support this.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Find me some naval historians who include material like this and you'll have a leg to stand on. Until then, please stop edit-warring. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It says a lot about your understanding of Wikipedia if you consider Featured Articles to be merely "other stuff". Learning by example, if the example is a FA, is useful for those who have trouble reading explicit policies and guidelines. Nobody is memorializing their friends. You've offered no evidence of that. Nobody has violated the notability requirements by creaing articles about non-notable casualties. Since neither of those things is happening, WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you don't know anything about me. Let me help enlighten you: I've written 65 FAs, and I'm an administrator. I humbly suggest that my understanding of policy is better than yours.

Again, find me some actual RSes. Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your behavior today suggests the opposite. Bri just cited reliable sources and you're too busy trying to bully people to pay attention. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

If only you weren’t struggling to hard to be right in the face of all evidence to the contrary, you’d have noticed I already responded to Bri. I’m still waiting on you to provide some reliable sources. Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't expect this to impress everyone, but here is a substantial list of sources that I think editors will find useful in coming to a consensus:

• Varandani, Suman (May 9, 2018), "USS Fitzgerald Collision: Junior Officer Sarah Coppock Pleads Guilty At Court-Martial", International Business Times, Newsweek Media Group
• Simkins, J.D. (July 10, 2018), Former Fitzgerald CO pleads not guilty to charges in connection to fatal collision
• "Summary of Major Events Since Fatal USS Fitzgerald Collision", US Naval Institute, June 20, 2018
• Cohen, Zachary; Herb, Jeremy (December 13, 2017), "Navy ships in deadly collisions had lengthy training lapses", CNN
• Martinez, Luis (May 8, 2018), "USS Fitzgerald officer pleads guilty to role in deadly collision", ABC News
• "The Sailors Who Saved USS Fitzgerald", The Maritime Executive, October 20, 2017
• Yamaguchi, Mari, "Japan investigates delay in reporting U.S. Navy ship collision", Chicago Tribune, Associated Press
• Robson, Seth; Cook, Leon (June 19, 2017), "Scale of Fitzgerald tragedy revealed in reports from lost sailors' hometowns", Stars and Stripes
• Thomas, Gibbons-Neff; Lamothe, Dan (22 June 2017), "Navy sailors made tough call to seal flooding compartments, unclear if survivors were inside."", Washington Post
• Lamothe, Dan (August 17, 2017), "Top two officers and other sailors aboard the USS Fitzgerald to be disciplined following deadly collision at sea", The Washington Post
• Altman, Howard (June 25, 2017), "Macdill Hosting Navy Fighters Involved In Incident Over Syria; Navy F/A-18E Super Hornets will be training at the Avon Park Air Force Range", Tampa Bay Times, St. Petersburg, FL, p. p4 {{citation}}: |page= has extra text (help)
• Lamothe, Dan (June 19, 2017), "When Navy ships collide, there is virtually always human error involved", The Washington Post
• "Mother: Son tried to save Navy shipmates after collision", Orange County Register, Santa Ana, California, June 19, 2017
• Philipps, Dave (June 19, 2017), "7 Sailors Emerged From Diverse Backgrounds to Pursue a Common Cause", New York Times
• Gale, Alastair; Lubold, Gordon (19 June 2017), "Japan Probe Deadly Ship Collision --- Bodies of 7 American sailors recovered after cargo ship and U.S. destroyer collide", Wall Street Journal, p. A.7
• Shane, Scott (June 18, 2017), Sleeping Sailors on U.S.S. Fitzgerald Awoke to a Calamity at Sea

Reliable secondary sources, were requested, so here are a great many of them. Adding more requirements to that, saying well, it can't be a newspaper, and well, now it has to be a naval historian, etc makes me suspect special pleading. I'm sure you can always reject every new source with some arbitrary requirement, but we do know these meet the criteria at WP:RS. If I were given a definition ahead of time of what would qualify as a "naval historian", I might want to try to track that down, but not if it's going to be batted away because the goal post keeps moving. What we do know is that many reliable sources do choose to list all the names. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Tell me, what is the point of a newspaper article? What is the point of a monograph? And what is the point of an encyclopedia? As for what constitutes a naval historian, I wouldn't have thought you needed spoon feeding, but here goes: look for someone with a PhD in history, who specializes in, get this, naval history. Parsecboy (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It meets the criteria at WP:RS. That's good enough for me. I don't think all the extra special critiera you keep pliing on are going to win very much consensus. If we applied standards that narrow, we'd not have an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A classic dodge, indeed. I’ll give you a hint: they’re not all the same. Parsecboy (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Parsecboy, the list of casualties was published ubiquitously, by the wire services (Reuters, etc.), by national newspapers (New York Times, etc.) by major networks (ABC News, etc.) and by the specialist press (USNI News, etc.). All of these sources must be reliable, because they are cited by this very article. If you want a primary source, there's the Navy's own Memorandum for Distribution of 23 October 2017, also cited by this article. As for your doubt that naval historians include material like this, let me assure you that they do, particularly in treating disasters at sea. (As an experiment, I pulled two books off my near bookshelf just now, and sure enough, there are lists of the dead in both Fire on the Hangar Deck by Wynn F. Foster (Naval Institute Press, 2001) and Sailors to the End by Gregory A. Freeman (William Morrow, 2002).) So can we put aside your objections that the names do not appear in reliable sources, and that naval historians don't include such lists? PRRfan (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything that suggests that Forster or Freeman are an actual naval historian (neither Foster's bio or Freeman's website make that claim). A book about a maritime topic written by an amateur != naval history. If naval historians don't include something, that's a strong hint that we should not also. You might ask yourself the same questions I posed to Dennis above. Parsecboy (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

There. You ask for naval historians who list names of casualties, and voila, PRRfan gives you Foster (2001) and Freeman (2002). But we can't say anything in this article that isn't in a naval history tome -- an event that happened in June 2017! I know I was calling it two years, but it's closer to 18 months. Call it 24 months, or whatever. You can't demand we unearth history books written so soon after any event. Lucky for us, we have highly respectable media like the WSJ, WaPo and NYT.

The veracity of the seven names isn't in dispute. You're arguing that they lack gravitas, yet we've given you a long list of FAs, all weighty with gravitas: 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash, 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision, 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash, 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident, Moors murders, Whitechapel murders. You've been given august naval histories that also list this very type of information.

Your objections have been satisfied. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you in any way familiar with academic history? It seems you are not. Simply having written a book does not equate to being an actual historian. If you think goalposts are being moved, you haven’t been paying attention. But not surprising behavior from someone who invents reverts, COI accusations, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I knew it. Ask for naval histories, get naval histories. "No! Those don't count!" We have a whole article on Special pleading. Or the old "No true Scotsman". That's a fun one. What are your criteria? We have an established set of criteria at WP:RS, and the rest of us are working within that framework. Now you come in and announce that's not how it is at all. I don't remember any changes to policy, but have it your way. You make up policy on the fly now. So. Tell us. What is the bar for a "naval historian" that gets your stamp of approval? And maybe also, why should we work under rules you just now made up? Maybe you've got a good reason why we should do that. Please tell us. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we stop misrepresenting wha lt others say? I never asked for histories, I asked for historians. There is a difference. Any Joe Schmoe can write a book. That does not mean they are an expert. That I have to spell this out (and the fact that you keep ignoring and misrepresenting what I say) is not encouraging. Parsecboy (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to spell anything out if we could just follow the guidelines at WP:RS. You're the one making the No true naval historian argument. Right? If I name one naval historian who lists the name of all the casualties, you'll say, "Ah! That hack! You can tell he's not a true naval historian by the fact that he lists the names!".

If we can't go by the rules at WP:RS, then what rules can we go by? Tell us what the criteria are for a true naval historian. Then we can test whether or not one of these learned sages ever does this thing that you say they never do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I told you once, you didn't read it; here it is again. Three little letters: P, h, and D. You know, like a historian. Parsecboy (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Really? That's it? A PhD in history who specializes in naval history? You're not going to demand they be chair of a department? Or say, oh, no, that guy odesn't count because his university is rubbish. I just want to know beforehand, because meeting your criteria and then finding out after the fact that you have more hoops to jump through is not a fair game.

It is only a game though. WP:RS doesn't say we can only cite PhDs in history, and third, fourth, tenth opinions are going to converge on the old standby: we already have a perfectly good set of guidelines for what is and isn't a reliable source. There's no reason why all the editors on this article have to work with your made-up restrictions. It will be amusing to cite PhDs in history who specialize in naval history who have listed all the casualties of an incident, and see if you think of reasons why the are not true PhDs of naval history. We'll see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Dennis, since you seem either unaware of why I asked about newspapers, monographs, and encyclopedias, and why I’ve argued that works by PhDs are superior to those written by non-experts (or maybe you do understand and are just being willfully ignorant in an attempt to be “right”), let me give you a clear example. Iain Ballantyne is an author. He’s written numerous books on naval history, like Killing the Bismarck. Ballantyne has no PhD, in fact he got started writing articles for newspapers. In his book on Bismarck Ballantyne included the ridiculous claim that the Germans tried to surrender. It was cited in newspaper reviews of the book. Now, let’s think critically and ask some questions. Do actual historians include the claim in their books? Why did he do that? Was it, perhaps, to generate controversy and sell more books? Should we follow that example simply because a non-expert included it in their book? Parsecboy (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm still scratching my head over the determination that Congressional Record is a first-party source for events in Japanese waters. But whaterver, will wait for more WP:MILHIST parties to appear as requested. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Bri, primary sources include things like government documents. That's what the Congressional Record is. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No, a primary government document would be a Navy report in a command that investigated the collision. I don't think every U.S. Government work is a primary document with respect to the collision or its investigation. If that were true, we could not cite government printed maps, for instance, and every article that uses the {{GNIS}} template would have to be re-done (it is transcluded over 35,000 times). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Parsecboy, if you want naval historian Ph.Ds who write about casualty lists, you could start with Samuel Eliot Morison, whose first great work of World War II was compiling a casualty list for Pearl Harbor, and just keep going. But "a Ph.D wrote something like it" shouldn't be the litmus test anyway; it certainly isn't for anything else in this article. On the other hand, and as noted, the list of people who died in the incident was published by several sources cited by this article, and in one case, by a primary-source document that is itself cited. PRRfan (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tell me, was that casualty list an internal Navy record? You do know that Morison was working for the Navy, right (and was in fact a commissioned officer)? If so, why do you think that is at all relevant? Parsecboy (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are just moving your goalposts now. Let's go back to where we talk about "a Ph.D wrote something like it" isn't the bar for anything else in this article, and shouldn't be for a casualty list. PRRfan (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense - and if you think goalposts are moving, then you must have no understanding of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are, or how to use them. We write encyclopedia articles based on reliable, secondary sources, not internal Navy documents. Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Of which I have cited many, and of which you seem to be taking no notice. In any case, the straw poll is pointing toward a resolution of the question, and so I will bow out of this discussion. Cheers to you! PRRfan (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed you have. And I have repeatedly explained why newspapers and non-academic sources are not good to use as a baseline for something like this issue, which you and Dennis seem to have ignored (indeed, did you even bother to read and actually think about what I said in the diff you linked? Or did you stop reading when it became clear that I did not agree with you?). See for instance here and here (and what Alan said directly above), for example. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

Since we don't seem to be reaching consensus, I've asked for other opinions on this sourcing issue from the Military History Wikiproject. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Non-notable crew--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, I'm seeing stuff like "we can't just prohibit mention of non-notable crew, because they are sometimes involved in notable incidents" and "their service on the ship was is in itself notable and significant to the history of the ship", proposal #3. Not sure how this squares with what's happening here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion isn't finished yet. Feel free to comment as I think it's directly applicable to what's going on here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the list does not belong in this article, per NOTMEMORIAL. I don't see this as a sourcing issue. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless these people had significant activity involved with the event or were previously notable, then while their names are easily sourced, they shouldn't be included. Combination of NOTMEMORIAL and BLPPRIVACY/BLP1E. --Masem (t) 02:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You're combining rules for dead people with rules for living people? That certainly covers all the bases. This isn't an issue about either of those things. BLP1E obviously applies only to living people, and these are all deceased. The 'not memorial' rules apply to user pages and creating articles about non-notable people. Similarly, even if WP:BLP1E could apply to non-living people, it only deals with creating bio articles about them, not mentioning their names in other articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Aside from ignoring arguments based on misreading guidelines like NOTMEMORIAL and BLP1E, the postive reasons for including details about the casualties are that they illustrate the nature of the catastrophe. Who dies in an event has meaning. Their ages and ranks say something about who suffers when things go wrong, for example. We could give only their age and rank, but that would look awkward, hanging a lampshade on avoiding saying their names. The NYT makes the point in 7 Sailors Emerged From Diverse Backgrounds to Pursue a Common Cause, that, "The roll call of the dead also illustrated the degree to which the military relies on recruits from immigrant communities around the country." The international origins of the crew are revealed in their names. Stars and Stripes simply observes that who they are ties them to where they came from, and the scale of the loss is illustrated by that.

  For me, the problem is we have a bulleted list with no context. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections points out that a garbage dump section or context-free list (trivia, pop culture, misc) makes poor articles for organizational reasons, not because of the content itself. You fix that by moving the content into context, and fleshing it out in prose, using information such as that given in the NYT here, as well as other sources in the list above. So we should put a prose rewrite out there, and discuss that on its merits. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  You're misinterpreting NOTAMEMORIAL, IMO. Bullet 4 reads: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." The dead crewmen are not notable in their own right, nor are their deaths important to the history of the ship. To think otherwise is to believe that we should add casualty lists to the articles on ships that have been sunk or damaged by enemy action, accident, or otherwise.

  The composition of the crew isn't relevant to the ship herself, but rather to an article on modern Navy recruiting practices and manning procedures.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  It says: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles". The casualties are not the subject of this article. These facts are details related to the subject. It would be weird to imagine every fact in an article must itself be the subject of an article.

  Reliable indicate their deaths are important. A lot of what we have here is editors who want to do as they please rather than be guided by what the sources give us. I don't arbitrarily discount whole swaths of citations that meet WP:RS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the names of crewmen doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article, which is a collision. Arguments that the names tell some story are completely unconvincing; if sources tell us something about crew demographics, and those details are DUE, then include such details by drawing on such sources. EEng 03:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  As I mentioned, sources disagree. I would add that the names humanize the casualties, making it harder to think of them as abstract losses. Since they are human, humanizing them increases the reader's understanding. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  If by "sources disagree" you mean they disagree with me in that they list the crew names, then that's no argument, since sources give all kinds of matter-of-record details, or humanizing details, we don't include in articles. The reader already understands that they're human. EEng 03:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I found a large number of matter-of-record news articles with the list of names. On the day the Navy put out a press release with the list, the news everywhere reflexively put out a matter-of-record routine news item with the same list. I've cited, and quoted, a number of sources that do much more than that, and they give specific reasons why this matters.

  As I said, this probably requires the actual text to be put in the article so that everyone can see it. It's not helping to only talk vaguely about what it should say. But you can see it in the sources above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  If you're proposing text other than that you've been trying to add to the article, why not propose it here? EEng 04:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I could do that. Or I could put it in the article to see what others think, per WP:BRD, but there seem to be a lot of tempers on the verge of exploding, so maybe the normal editing process has to wait for that to simmmer down. I'll get to it when I can; if not somebody else might try their hand at it first. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the names appear in the sources listed above because they have a different mandate than we do (i.e. they are entirely within their policy in memorializing). I don't see the names contributing encyclopedically to the understanding of the subject of the article. If a source talks about the composition of the crew and its relation to blame, recruiting, training, etc., I can understand that being the subject of a paragraph or three, but the names don't seem necessary (with, of course, all due respect to their individual service, heroism, and the loss suffered by their families ). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was getting at when I asked Dennis what the point of newspaper articles and encyclopedias are. There is also the point to be made that news outlets are selling a product, and human interest aspects stories are more...interesting...to humans. Why do newspapers plaster their front pages with tragedies and crimes? We are not selling a product, we are trying to write an encyclopedic article on the topic of a collision for general readers. The names of specific, non-notable individuals involved in an accident are immaterial for general readers to understand the topic. Parsecboy (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that y'all are getting wrapped around the axle on this topic. I think that there's more than enough RS coverage of the dead men's names, but I also think that it's entirely irrelevant as I don't believe that they should be listed in the article. Otherwise we'd have editors adding lists of the dead for other ship losses or accidents.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What this boils down to is WP:NOTEVERYTHING - what I'm trying to make clear by harping on the differences between newspapers and encyclopedias is why the simple fact that a bunch of newspapers reported the names doesn't mean we should follow suit. Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If you could say that the names, ages, and ranks of the saiors were meaningless, then you could build an argument that the content adds nothing to the article. But we've already pointed out there is meaning contained there: there's a difference between the death of a 19 year old and a 75 year old. People care about that difference. The names, and the home towns of record, tell us about their ethnicity and national origin, which is meaningful, per the NYT article on that topic. Their ranks show their relative status, and their relative power over their fate. Some have said, well, this could go in an article about Navy demographics. It could, though you'd be guilty of overgeneralizing if you try to inductively describe the whole Navy based on these 7 names. Even if you could make that work, it's fine for the same information to appear in two or more articles. There's no policy of saying every fact gets to be stated in one and only one article. WP:Summary style goes into a broad discussion of how we repeat information in a structured way. We also repeat information in an unstructured way: if article A is better with a fact than without, it doesn't matter that article B is also better with the same fact than without. If both articles are better including that fact, then repeat it in both. It's all red herrings, in other words. We're here talking about this article, and we've given evidence that the names, ages, and ranks (as well as other biographical details) are meaningful and the can add something to this article.

The attempts to cite policy saying we aren't allowed to say their names have not been convincing. They depend on a tortured reading of the guidelines and a lot of Wikilawyering. It seems like if Wikipedia really had a restriction against listing the names of casualties, it would say so plainly, and we wouldn't see such a large number of FAs (not to mention GAs) that are apparently unaware of this supposed restriction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• There seems to be a significant precedent for inclusion of the names of the dead at the (sadly, many) articles listed at List of mass shootings in the United States, based on a quick review of the largest few of them. Are those perhaps different because they are more about the victims than this article (about an accident, even though negligent)? What about articles about losses sustained during a military conflict as the result of enemy fire? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll

There has been some edit-warring, the page has been locked, a 3P0 has been posted... yet the debate rages on. Perhaps if we were to gauge consensus with a straw-poll, then an uninvolved admin can close this discussion, unlock the page, the consensus can be implemented and everyone can move on to more productive endeavors. For the uninitiated, people should state whether they "support" inclusion of the names, or "oppose" inclusion, and add any relevant policies & guidelines with their !vote. - wolf

• Oppose inclusion. Per wp:notmemorial and the many solid arguments made above, especially by Parsecboy. This list is not encyclopaedic info and the trend among other similar articles involving mass-deaths has been to disclude such lists. - wolf 11:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and I'm going to draw a distinction with the list at University_of_Texas_tower_shooting#Persons_killed_or_injured_on_the_University_campus, in which describing the event makes it natural to enumerate the victims by name. I'm sorry to say, but when a number of people all die at once in the same way, and there's no reason to describe their individual fates, there's no reason to name them either. EEng 11:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion -per arguments by Parsecboy, EEng, Lyndaship, Sturmvogel, wolf and others. Llammakey (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as not encyclopedic, not summary style, notamemorial, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the inclusion of the names does nothing to enhance the understanding of the circumstances and aftermath of the event described in the article to the general reader. They are a distraction Lyndaship (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. A basic, natural question about any deadly event is: who died? (Also: the text of wp:notmemorial clearly enjoins only pages about dead non-notables. If it's the will of the community that this prohibition be extended to supplemental detail in other articles, the policy ought to be rewritten to say so.) PRRfan (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's what we're in the process of doing on WT:SHIPS. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "A basic, natural question about any deadly event is: who died?" - More like "How many died?". The names are irrelevant, unless you happen to know one of them, but even then this is not an obituary page, it's an encyclopaedia article... something that you and Mr. Bratland seem to continually overlook. - wolf 21:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Opppose. I find much of Parsecboy's argumentatation obnoxious. But in the end I don't see any point in naming the dead. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Strange, I never saw someone use the rationale to support their !vote as a means to take a cheap shot at someone they agree with... - wolf 03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Not a "cheap shot", just noting that concurrence of result should not be taken as condoning someone else's argumentation. I have my own rationale, but I don't believe there is any need to explain it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

As your point is unexplained, my point stands. - wolf 00:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose to me, this relates to WP:NOTEVERYTHING (the article should only provide a summary of the casualties), WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:WEIGHT (undue detail). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Support Make a seperate list of the crew that died, similar to Passengers of the RMS Titanic if you think they are noteworthy.Not that my opinion probably matters, but Dennis Bratland sold me on the fact that this is a separate article from the main ships articles and this article deals with the collision and its aftermath, the deaths of the sailors is part of this and can/should be included in the article. It's not a memorial, it's part of the story.Pennsy22 (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Pennsy22: How "separate" do you think this article is? The main ship articles are about the ships, this is about the collision involving those ships. The same standards apply. We don't include the names of non-notable crew killed in the ship article(s) and we don't include the non-notable names of those killed here (Just as we don't include interviews with family members of those killed about the affect the deaths have had on them). We're not "telling a story", we documenting a notable incident. This is an encyclopaedic article about the collision, not a dramatic narrative of the "aftermath". - wolf 19:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Thewolfchild: Obviously you've made up your mind on this issue and are no longer listening. This isn't an article on ships, this is an article that ships were involved in. The article is about the collision, what lead up to it and what happened afterward. The fact that sailors died is part of the article and should be listed. I have absolutely no idea why you put aftermath in quotes. The aftermath of the story is what did the navy do/is doing to correct the failures that led up to this, what happened to the officers, what will be done to the ships. There are plenty of article where victims are listed. I think you are trying to pigeonhole this article.Pennsy22 (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Pennsy22: I "made up my mind" on this long ago, but I'm "listening". Much of what you've said here is correct, but still does not justify listing the names of non-notable people, which is why you tossed in the WP:OSE argument at the end. The are some other articles where, by an incorrect local consensus, some non-notable incident victims names are listed. And just like this article, they do nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of the incident being documented. There is simply no encyclopaedic need for these names. If anything, they're a distraction for the readers and a colossal timesink for the rest of us everytime some editor feels the need to use an article to memorialize these people. This is far from "pigeonholing", there are many more articles about various calamities that do not list the names of non-notable victims. So, if anything, it's Dennis, and now you, that are "pingeonholing", and trying to use the few articles that can be found as support. I say again, these names are not notable. They in no way serve the purpose of this article. This is not an obituary. - wolf 15:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  "This is not an obituary." Of course this is not an obituary. I don't see anyone suggesting this article may be an obituary. This is an article on an incident at sea in which fatalities took place. Why wouldn't the names of the dead be pertinent to this article? Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Bus stop: You do realize that I replied to your comment down below (at the bottom) right? But, whatever. You are right, "this is not an obituary". That is why there is no need to memorialize the names of non-notable people here. Again, I will ask you; how are these names pertinent to the article? How do they lend to the reader's understanding of how the collision occurred, and what transpired after? Yes, seven people died, and that is noted. But we no more need their names to complete this article than we need a list of the names of all ≈80 million people that died in World War II to complete, or understand, any of the articles here about that subject. That is specifically why we have a policy regarding this very issue. (Now, feel to move your post here down to where your first post is. You have my permission to move mine as well.) - wolf 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support The policies and guidelines cited don't restrict the inclusion of this kind of information. The attempt to cite both NOTMEMORIAL and BLP1E for the same facts underscores the level of Wikilawyering required to make the guidelines say what they don't say. Notability doesn't apply, NOTEVERYTHING doesn't apply. The only thing that does apply is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The Featured Articles that list names of victims and casualties seem to "like it" when the names are written in prose, not lists, and biographical details and context are included. It's very likely that such a prose paragraph containing the names, and various information about the casualties, will be more "liked". In any case, no policy or guideline determines it one way or the other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Dennnis: as a small matter of curiousity I wonder why you think WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not apply. Even granting that the policies you cite do not exclude (restrict) this kind of material, does that then grant some kind of right of inclusion? Where neither exclusion nor inclusion is mandated might there be scope for editorial preference? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Since nobody argued that these names belong here merely "because it is true or useful", then WP:NOTEVERYTHING doesn't apply. I argued that the names made the article better because they contain relevant information, which I enumerated above. Nobody claimed these names are here merely to honor the dead, and those who wish to exclude the names deny that they are accusing others of wanting to create a memorial here (because doing so is baseless, and violates AGF, among other reasons). So we all agree that the intent is not to memorialize the casualties, and therefore WP:NOTMEMORIAL is inapplicable.

I never said inclusion is required. WP:CONPOL is the relevant guide, and as I said back on November 4, "The only real reason to remove this is if consensus supports removal."

That's where WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is relevant: if the consensus is that the article is simply better, then that's a good enough reason. But all of these claims that policy or guidelines demand it are invalid.

The only time inclusion of anything is required by policy is WP:WEIGHT or other NPOV issues. Based on how frequently our sources recite the full list of seven names, their ranks, and ages, and frequently home towns and other biographical details, you could almost argue that WP:WEIGHT requires or at least encourages us to follow suit. It's hard to conjure up neutrality from nothing, especially hard for editors who disagree to pull it out of thin air. But if we agree that we will be guided by whatever our sources think is the right amount of weight to give aspects of a story, then we have something to fashion neutrality out of, and we have an objective reality separate from the combination of personalities that happen to be editing an article. If that is our principle, than in any alternate reality with different POVs of editors collaborating, they will all tend to write the same article, since neutrality isn't splitting the difference between the editors, but between the sources. The sources include the names, so WP:WEIGHT at least suggest, and perhaps even requires, we include them.

But if the consensus is we don't like it, that's fine. I don't think the editors here have given the necessary consideration to the alternate version I outlined, with the biographical details in prose rather than a bulleted list. Hopefully that can be done and maybe consensus will support it.

I'm probably also going to make a proposal to tighten up the wording of WP:NOTMEMORIAL to be more in line with WP:NLISTITEM/WP:NOTEWORTHY, because too many ediotors are citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL when only WP:CONPOL should apply. If we want policy to go so far as to suppress the names of casualties, meaning deleting hundreds of "list of people killed" articles (or deleting everything but blue linked names), and delete the names from the FAs I mentioned, then that policy change needs to be proposed and stated explicitly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. (And I can't complain I didn't get enough answer.) One point for clarification: where is your WP:CONPOL link supposed to be going? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea that WP:NOTEVERYTHING doesn't apply because "nobody argued that these names belong here merely 'because it is true or useful'" is among the most nonsensical things I've heard in this discussion, and there has been no shortage of competition... Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Parsecboy: I am jumping in front of Dennis to point out that (just as he eventually gets to) calling someone's comments "among the most nonsensical things I've heard in this discussion" does not further the discussion, and actually degrades it. It is uncivil, and one of the points of your comments I find obnoxious. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Good for you? I prefer to call a spade a spade - and there is nothing uncivil about calling an argument nonsensical. I did not call Dennis nonsensical. If someone's argument is nonsensical, I will refer to it as such. Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Which does nothing to advance the discussion. Lacking any relevance, your comments are disruptive. I suggest you cease. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If the purpose of discussion is to determine which line of argument is superior, pointing out that one such argument makes no sense (i.e., is nonsensical) directly advances the discussion. This little interaction between you and I here, on the other hand... Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps ♦ J.Johnson, you are the one that shoud "cease". While it's debatable that Parsecboy has made inappropriate comments comments directed at Dennis, you have clearly insulted Parsecboy here with personal attacks, more than once. I don't know if you're carrying a grudge over from a previous dispute, but your comments are disruptive. Give it a rest already. - wolf 04:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my, what a melee we have gotten into here.

Parsecboy: if Dennis' argument is "nonsensical", and if you showed just how that is, then I might agree with you. But! it seems to me that you have not made any such showing, that you have just flung that out as a rhetorical ploy. My comment (echoing Dennis) is that, lacking any demonstrated basis or relevance, such language does not forward the discussion. While I think Dennis' argument is weak at some points, I do not see it as "nonsensical". If you want to "win" that argument I would suggest you take a different tack.

wolf: What I have been trying to disrupt is this combat between two editors. As to any insult: I could invoke the very same argument PB did: I was not commenting on the editor! Only his argument! Except that my comment was about my opinion ("I find ....") about his argumentation, not a claim of certain fact. By the way, please remember that to allege a personal attack can itself be taken as a personal attack. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

♦JJ, to me, (and maybe it's just me), but "nonsensical" speaks more to a lack of clarity where "obnoxious" is just an outright accusation of boorish behaviour. I just don't seem them as being on the same level. - wolf 00:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

J. Johnson, I didn't think it was necessary to explain why Dennis's ridiculous argument (which is essentially that "because no one has argued for A because B, C does not apply") is ridiculous. I see I was mistaken. Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

wolf: As the saying goes, "your mileage may vary." I say that "nonsensical" means exactly and literally "not sensical", or lacking in sense. Which, asserted in an ostensibly sensical discussion, I take as a deeply profound insult. On the otherhand, if the sense of an argument is not clear to someone – a constant situation – then a nonboorish response could be something on the lines of "I do not see the sense of your argument". Which could lead to further discussion to clarify the matter, whereas just slapping labels around, however, generally does not. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, J.Johnson, do me a favor: explain how this line of argument is anything but logically fallacious: "Since nobody argued that these names belong here merely "because it is true or useful", then WP:NOTEVERYTHING doesn't apply." Until you do, I'll assume you've accepted that it's perfectly legitimate to characterize it as "nonsensical" and move on to something that...advances the debate. Parsecboy (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Do not assume. I reject your claim, but I see little benefit in arguing it with you. Besides, the proper place for debate is in the preceding section. This section is a straw poll to (as wolf stated) "gauge consensus". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You're great - you ask for me to defend my characterization, and then when I do, it's all of a sudden not the place for discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I neither challenged nor asked you to defend your characterization. I criticized your assertion here of an unuseful characterization, whose validity is more properly debated elsewhere.♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This is among the flimsiest of excuses I've seen in quite a while. If it was not relevant in this poll, why did you bring it up in your initial comment? And why did you bring it up again in your reply to me in this thread? Parsecboy (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(break #1)

Well, here it is. Strap in...

Consider: an editor goes to the article cat and deletes all instances of the letter 'C', arguing "Just because the letter C exists, that's not a reason to put it in every article! WP:NOTEVERYTHING!" Well, we know NOTEVERYTHING is not an all-purpose excuse to delete whatever you want. The counter argument is this: "We didn't use the letter C in this article for no reason other than the fact that C exists. We need that letter. You can't spell cat without it." NOTEVERYTHING says "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." When you delete these 7 names and cite NOTEVERYTHING as the reason, you're saying we added those facts solely because they are true or useful. A straw man argument, avoiding the actual reasons, instead picking on an easier target: the inane belief that we must include the names merely because we know them.

If I added a fact like "a sailor wore size 10 shoes" and insisted it had to be here because it was true and well-sourced NOTEVERYTHING would apply. When you cite NOTEVERYTHING, you're equating their names, ages, ranks, etc. as being as irrelevant as their shoe size.

It suggests a deep, fundamental lack of respect for those who don't agree with one's opinions, and this leads to this pitfall of not addressing actual arguments. My actual argument (above) is that this information is meaningful, that it distinguishes this event. Bri alluded to this in saying "ships don't sail themselves". This article isn't about two dead asteroids colliding in a vacuum, it's about a human endeavor, a human activity. Not about a machine with no people involved. Who those people are makes a difference. If you want to dispute that, you'd need to look at the sources I mentioned which detail why it matters who these people are, and then argue that these individual facts about them as people make no difference. That it's all the same whether any other 7 people in the world were killed. It's all the same if 7 Rear Admirals from Boise were killed, or 7 seamen born in Indonesia were killed. You'd be saying "Who they are doesn't matter because [...]" That would be an actual counterargument, rather than a straw man that treats me like some kind of fool.

But maybe I really am as big a fool as you think I am. In that case, don't you think all your fellow editors could recoginze that without you bludgeoning the process by repeatedly haranguing me with your "nonsense!" ejaculations? A counter-argument that your fellow editors are unaware of is a good contribution. Labeling others' words as "nonsensical" isn't helping. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Er, Dennis... just a couple of points, if you don't mind; 1) we need the letter 'c', we don't need to list these names. So that entire argument is somewhat moot. 2) As for this "human element" part of the your argument; again it's moot. These articles are about the ships, not the men and women who sail on them. If "seven Admirals were killed", they would be listed because each of them has notability onto themselves per WP:SOLDIER. (Not to mention the notability of such an event... has that many flag officers ever died on a single ship, under any circumstances?) If "seven Indonesian sailors were killed", no... they likely would not be listed as they likely would not be individually notable. This is an encyclopaedia, not a human interest magazine. This article is about a collision between two ships. That is what is notable here. We have articles about all kinds of ships, involved in all kinds of notable events; naval exercises, collisions, near-collisions, on-board incidents, rescues at sea, humanitarian operations after disasters, international incidents, piracy, conflicts, etc., etc. We note those events in the articles of the ships involved and often as their own articles. We don't go listing the name of every sailor or marine that was involved, dead or alive, just to show the "human element of the story". Listing such otherwise non-notable names has no "meaning" here, except for those who might know those people. But that's not what we're here for. Wikipedia is not a memorial. - wolf 20:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - the deaths of these non-notable individuals are not relevant in what is a general encyclopedia. I haven't ignored your points, I've addressed them, repeatedly, to no avail. That you haven't bothered to read anything I've said or tried to explain is your fault, not mine. I also find it rich that someone with your history of incivility is wringing their hands at someone calling their comments nonsensical... Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"These articles are about the ships, not the men and women who sail on them." That statement nails precisely what's behind all this. It treats the collision between two ships as if it were a collision between two asteroids in deep space. As if ships collide only because of the laws of physics, not human behavior, processes, decision making, culture. I know that the 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash was blamed very much on the culture in SAC and the base, not merely the choices made by one pilot, let alone merely gravity and the properties of Earth's atmosphere. You speak of this as if all that matters is how much damage was done to the hardware, how many months it will take to repair, how many dollars it will cost.

We already have articles specifically about the ships themselves, USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal. USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision is an article about an event, not about two ships, which are covered as the main subject elsewhere.

I see this desire to expunge the human element from articles across Wikipedia. Editors like to geek out about technology and big metal machines, and they don't want to get into all this squishy emotional and humanistic stuff. It's totally cool if an editor chooses to only add content about hardware to articles, but to go so far as to insist no one else can fully round out the subject is unjustifiable. One of the most obvious reasons is that this contradicts the sources. The sources don't describe this event purely as a cold physical occurrence when two inanimate machines interacted out in the ocean. The sources put people front and center. I hope no one would suggest a historian with PhD specializing in naval history would a fatal collision like this purely in physical terms, and they would never say "this is only about the ships, not the people."

But I understand what I'm up against. I recognized from the beginning the endemic Wikipedia prejudice favoring the specs and features of the toys, and not the people to make them go.

"I find it rich..." Who cares what you find rich? Does it advance this discussion? Obviously not. I realize Admins are virtually never held accountable for their behavior, so this, too, is moot. But everyone here can see what you're doing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, sorry but I gotta say, your arguments here are essentially moot. You say that there is more here than just two ships "crashing like asteroids". That we're leaving out the "mushy human component". Well, to that I have to ask; did any of those that died in the collision, do anything to cause the collision? No? Then wtf are we talking about here? This article is not like the sort that describes asteroids colliding in space with no humans involved. Fitzgerald's Commanding Officer is named because he was relieved of command and is facing criminal charges. Other officers and an NCO are named because they were either directly involved in the events leading to the collision or are facing disciplinary action. Yet more officers are named because as flag officers, they have bio pages per WP:SOLDIER, and are involved in the investigations that followed and their fallout. The deaths, along with those injured, are noted in the article. So, as such, you simply can not claim there is "no human component to this article". So, again I will apologize because, that is just an incredibly inane argument to make. The seven sailors that died were not notable before the collision, and so are not mentioned. They were, afaik, not involved in the cause of the collision, and so are not mentioned. That they died in the collision does not make them notable, and so again, they should not be mentioned in the article, just for that reason alone. It has already been established on Wikipedia that people are not named in such articles for such reasons. WP is not a memorial or an obituary. Lastly, know this is not personal. I don't know you and so please don't take this personally. - wolf 04:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it is central to why we care in the first place. If zero deaths had occurred, the incident would be roasted on late night TV, because a Mr. Magoo US Navy bumbling in front of big dumb cargo ships would be a giant embarrassment. It still is, but nobody's laughing because of the seven deaths. 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash gives us the names of every crew member, even though, for example, Lt. Col. Ken Huston, and others, were as hapless as you suggest the crew was here. Regardless, when innocent passengers or bystanders are casualties in a crime or accident or disaster, people feel a different concern for it than if the perpetrators or those who intentionally take a risk or whose negligence is to blame are the only ones killed. The fact that these 7 didn't directly cause anything is in itself significant, the dog that didn't bark. Reliable sources obviously agree. Nobody writing for any of our sources thinks of this event as only "about the ships, not the men and women who sail on them." The FA Passengers Sinking of the RMS Titanic doesn't have space for all 2,500 casualty and survivor names, but we don't let that stop us: the Good Article Passengers of the RMS Titanic lists every single name that we know -- only about 250 are notable with bios, the other nine tenths are black linked, non-notable people. It was AfD'd, and the "not memorial" argument gained no traction. The 2014 GA Review makes no mention of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It's a non-issue. The list was twice nominated for WP:FL, and NOTMEMORIAL was never mentioned as a problem -- incompleteness was one point explicitly holding it back. To reach FL, the list needs more black linked, non-notable casualties. We can go on and on finding examples of FAs, FLs, and GAs that give the names of non-notable people, killed, injured, or merely present, in all sorts of events. List of deaths at the Berlin Wall is a FL filled with non-notable names. So is The class the stars fell on.

"That they died in the collision does not make them notable": Can we stop beating that dead horse? Nobody claimed they are notable. Notability is irrelevant to whether or not a fact or name may be mentioned in an article or list. It's incredibly tedious to keep having to bat away this red herring. I realize the limits of an WP:OSE argument, but the idea that you my not list non-notable names is rubbished by the endless examples of Wikipedia's best content that does exactly that. The laughable special pleading that we can only compare this to warship collisions only underscores the weakness of the thinking here. We aren't required to list the names just because lots and lots and lots of FAs, FLs, and GAs do it, but we can be certain that Wikipedia has no policy or guideline saying it's forbidden.

It's OK if you don't like it. If consensus is simply "the article is better without it", that's totally valid. I've said four, five times, that a naked bulleted list is not the way to go, and I understand why consensus opposes having the names in that form.

But you cannot insist that nobody may boldly try a different format. No matter how many times you chant "not memorial not memorial not memorial" or "not notable not notable not notable", those arguments continue to be irrelevant and invalid. This is a classic BRD use case: "local consensus differs from global consensus, and your goal is to apply global consensus." I don't know why ten or so editors with this odd point of view have converged on this article, but there is a mountain of evidence, mainly FAs and FLs, that there is no global consensus against mentioning the names of non-notable casualties. I believe a proposal to tighten up the wording of WP:NOTMEMORIAL will verify that. Disagree? Then you can smugly watch my proposal go down in flames. You don't need to prolong the debate here.

The BRD use case "people are talking past each other instead of getting down to brass tacks with concrete proposals" is especially relevant. I keep talking hypothetically about a future prose rewrite, to which an appropriate response is "yeah, whatever, I'll tell you what I think when I see it". Instead, several editors want to sit here and debate me about even attempting this hypothetical content nobody has even seen. Warning me that I would "disrupt Wikipedia" if I were to add such a paragraph! Really? The bare list sat here for a year and a half, and did its existence "disrupt Wikipedia"? It's not libel, a privacy violation, a copyright violation. Yet editors are slavering at the thought, ready to pounce on the revert button. Why? What if I added the content in a month or whatever, and you calmly left it there for even one week? Allowed others to take a look, while merely commenting on the talk page? You could post, "nope, still don't like it. What do others say?" If others agree, remove it after a reasonable interval.

The sad truth is I'm sure several editors will rush to revert within seconds, and will die on that hill if need be, edit warring to the limit of the 3RR, because they can't stand to let a proposed version be seen for a few days. What does that say about them? There's a reason WP:Editing policy has a whole paragraph, WP:NOTPERFECT, encouraging you to not jump on the revert button so fast. Try to fix it. Give others time to see if they can fix it. Who knows? Maybe they'll surprise you. Maybe the global consensus allowing non-notable casualty names will make itself known. And if not, you'll get to delete it in due course. It's just weird to see this kind of panic when I say I'm planning on trying a revised, reformatted, and expanded rewrite of the rejected bare list. Why the panic of a hypothetical paragraph? I really think this obsession with geeking out over hardware and excluding humanistic aspects is pathological. Whatever it is, something ain't right.

Still disagree? Then put the page on your watchlist and pounce if/when anybody puts a revised version out there. WP:ANI is ready and waiting for your reports of this hypothetical dastardly disruption. Until then, chill. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Because what, is central to who, cares about what? Look, we are not in the dramatic narrative business, even if it is non-fictional, we are in the encyclopaedia business. Now, you wrote a pretty lengthy reply, but I'll tell you just what stood out to me from the the entire post; the words "...a proposal to tighten up the wording of WP:NOTMEMORIAL...". I read that and immediately thought "fuck, yeah!". Obviously for not the reasons you meant though. I'm thinking; "let's tighten up wp:memorial to eliminate all lists of non-notable victims, whether bulleted or in prose, and put and end to all this. Then use the list of examples in your post as a start; RMS Titanic. the 1994 B-52 crash, and every other one we can find and, clear out all these unnecessary obituaries, (especially the List of every single personal killed during the 9/11 attacks, all two thousand, nine hundred and oh, wait... ) - wolf 23:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait? I just pointed you to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Go tell those editors they aren't writing an encyclopedia. It was promoted to Good article in 2014, with 1,348 names, and one of the reasons it failed promotion to Featured List list is that it lacks the complete 2,400 names. You are not paying attention. Casualties of the September 11 attacks isn't required to name all 2,996 people if those editors prefer not to write it that way, but they could if they chose to, and it could become a GA or FL just like the Titanic list. -Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I find it odd that people are pointing to examples from a decade ago as if those are in any way useful. Wikipedia has changed a lot in the last ten years - something you would know if you'd been an active contributor that long, Dennis. The idea that Passengers of the RMS Titanic is somehow justification for your position based on the fact that it's a GA (based on this joke of a review), the fact that people over ten years ago thought it should have the entire list of names, and that people eleven years ago made a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT arguments (much the same as you're doing here, while decrying the rest of us for supposedly doing the opposite) that got the article kept is laughable. That a different group of people were wrong a decade ago is not reason for us to continue being wrong today.

But hey, look at the bright side - you've pointed out an article that needs to be GAR'd and delisted. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

...something you would know if you'd been an active contributor that long, Dennis. I've never encountered an Admin who spews such petty, unprofessional, schoolyard taunts, textbook examples of policy violations -- and we've all known some pretty unprofessional, uncivil Admins. I shudder to think how many noobs you've driven away with your elitist gatekeeping. I can only imagine how much abuse you heap on those with even less than my paltry 13 years, 55,000 edits, three GAs, 31 DYKs. I notice you haven't said anything about ignoring the !votes of those editors with far less experience than me, who happen to agree with your oppose position. Funny how the gate can swing wide, opening the ranks of They Whose Opinions Count, so long as it's the right opinion.

You're well aware I never 'decried' anyone for simply liking this article better without the names. You know I said that consensus was valid and I'm happy to respect it. Don't you? Please admit that. My words are right here. Scroll up.

Didn't you casually dismiss the six FAs I cited as counterexamples with a terse "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS"? But one additional example -- and it is only one of many -- Passengers of the RMS Titanic, now isn't mere "other stuff", and you've decided to go on the war path over it. I don't even know what the "changed a lot in the last ten years" point means. This was promoted to GA only four and a half years ago. Is that before or after this great change you speak of? I want to point out that the old books you favor only gather dust after they're published. They can't be de-published if they're wrong. An article that became a FA, FL or GA back before ten years ago, back when you say the standards were lax (which was also 4-1/2 years ago? When DID the standards become respectable? Another moving target.) has had to survive getting delisted all those years. In that sense, age can imply quality, since sooner or later time will catch up with those that don't meet current standards. But the point of these numerous counterexamples is that the global standard is not to suppress mention of the names of non-notable dead people, because of NOTMEMORIAL does not say what you claim it does, and the editors who wrote and reviewed all these GAs and FAs recognize that fact.

Sooooo... this GA review isn't in any way an attempt to make a WP:POINT, nor an acknowledgement that these counterexamples have any weight. Just pushin' that broom, doin' some cleanup. It's funny how you didn't mention to anyone over there on the Titanic list what brought you there. They probably don't need to know anything about your motives. It's all fine. No worries. Here's my question: if it is delisted, do you intend to drop your WP:OSE dismissal of counterexamples? Meaning you accept other counterexamples, like he six FAs I mentioned, and who knows how many GAs I could name. Or perhaps it won't be delisted, in which case is your plan to say you never gave any weight to counterexamples anyway? You probably want to wait until after you know the outcome of the GA review to decide which side of that fence you want to land on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

1. #37...
2. Yeah, I can scroll up and find several posts of yours complaining about JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
3. This is ridiculous. The perfunctory review, such as it was, is not evidence of anything besides the reviewer's unfitness to conduct such reviews. It's funny, you whine about me pointing out that you're not exactly familiar with the history of Wikipedia, and then you make ridiculous comments like this that only demonstrate your lack of familiarity with the evolution of review processes here. Go ahead, keep proving my point for me.
4. No, because the two are completely unrelated. Your attempt to muddy the waters by conflating this article and that one is not lost on me, though. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Complaining? No. Please quote the words of my so-called "complaint". I said not liking it is fine. I did link to WP:IJDLI, but what complaints? Quote me, really. Please. Every time, I said if consensus favored removing the names, because most here like it better, that's fine. What I complained about was claiming it was a policy violation. You are obtusely, stubbornly refusing to admit the plain English meaning of my words. Consensus favors your version of the article, but you're refusing to accept that simple victory and instead you demand that your favored version be treated as if it's codified by a policy requirement. Why not do that in an appropriate venue? Propose a wording change at WP:NOT.

...you whine... Nice. Please try to be civil. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"I didn't complain...what I complained about" - can we keep anything straight in this discussion? And if the issue is settled, why are you still commenting here?

You're the last person to be lecturing about civility here. Parsecboy (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, please stop with the Titanic list page already. While there may be worthwhile encyclopaedic content there, it is also a massive 217kB in size, and that is owing to the fact that the tables with the lists of passengers alone are a ridiculous 174kB! That is not an article, it's a memorial wall. And you keep saying it missed out on FL status because they wanted more names. That is somewhat disingenuous because at the time, the page was titled "List of Passengers of the RMS Titanic". The issue was, that as a "list", it was incomplete. The page was moved to remove the "List of" part from the title years ago. But aside from all that I will say, if I was part of the discussion back then, regarding the inclusion of any of those non-notable names, I would tell those editors that they were wrong, just as I am telling you now; you are wrong. These non-notable names do not belong here. - wolf 20:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The purpose with citing these counterexamples is to gauge the global consensus on this. Do many editors believe NOTMEMORIAL forbids mentioning the name of a non-notable casualty? The titanic list is only one of them, and we keep finding more examples. It's a No true Scotsman argument: here's a Scotsman do did that. "He doesn't count". Here's another one. "He's not a true Scotsman". Oh, found another. "Definitely not that guy. Look at him". Etc.

There has been more than adequate proof given by many examples that the community does not read NOTMEMORIAL this way. The WP:LISTPEOPLE guidelines show a preference for only putting notable people on lists, but it's clear that's not an absolute, and there are many cases where editors accept lists with the names of non-notable people. Just because some of hem happen to be dead doesn't make it a memorial. There are lots of high-quality articles and lists that are valid exceptions to the preference for notables.

It makes no difference that it was considered as a WP:Featured list and not an article. The basic standards for an embedded list aren't essentially different than a stand alone list. What's important was the glaring lack of anyone saying "What! 1300 non-notable blacklinked names? It's not a memorial!" The WP:NOT restrictions against memorials date to 2004 in different words but the same basic meaning. It makes no sense that these GA and FL reviewers make no mention of the not-memorial policy. In 2007, the memorial point was rasied by several editors when the Titanic passenger list was up for deletion, but it didn't gain much support. Not all that many editors in 2007 read the NOTMEMORIAL policy that way. Nor did they in the 2008 FL reviews, or the 2014 GA review.

Some editors oppose naming non-notable casualties, in the spirit of NOTMEMORIAL, but there is no global consensus that it does say that.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(break #2)

• Support inclusion on two points. One, FAs are the highest example of good content that Wikipedians recognize and as Dennis pointed out, there are many that list casualties like this. Two, to address J. Johnson's question about NOTEVERYTHING, I think the proper policy is to "leave it alone" unless there is damn good reason to undo another editor's changes, and no damn good reason has been offered – at best, references to weak, inconsistent or inapplicable editorial guidelines. I don't see the removal in any points listed at WP:RVREASONS for instance. The notion that bona fide national-level sources should not be followed, and our own precedent of FAs should also not be followed, is just bewildering to me. To quote from the WT:SHIPS discussion, "Ships don't sail themselves, they have a crew, and a captain." ☆ Bri (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Didn't you quote that from a discussion where the consensus is to not add names of non-notable crew? That would apply here, would it not? These crew are not-notable except for the fact that they had the poor misfortune to die in this incident. Wikipedia is not an obituary. - wolf 18:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  On your other point WP:SHIPS FAs are listed on the project page, looking at those I can see none which include lists of non notable casualties, therefore to omit the names from this article is following the established precedent and not contradicting it Lyndaship (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Lyndaship: Incorrect. See footnote 36 of USS Iowa turret explosion, a featured article, listing over 50 non-notable individuals including six seaman recruits! ☆ Bri (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  A footnote TO an article is not the same as a list IN an article. Did you find any lists even in the footnotes of the other 131 Ships FAs? Lyndaship (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  It's also worth pointing out that that's a 2009 FA - standards at FAC have risen considerably since then. It's not exactly a great example. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  You also reject a 2014 GA as somehow representing the bad old days. Only four years ago. How is anyone to guess where you're going to move the goalposts next? What is your cutoff date for which of these meet your nebulous standards? In order to collaborate, we all need to have a shared set of standards. WP:RS is a shared guideline we all use, yet you are casually tossing out new standards for sourcing that nobody is even aware of until you reveal them ad hoc. You reject parallels with air crashes, because Naval casualties are different? It's all no true Scotsman, all day long.

  FAs, FLs, and GAs are always at risk of review and being delisted. The older it is, the more years it has survived the threat of delising. Many have been reviewed and updated to keep up with changing standards. Whereas an FA promoted last week has hardly stood the test of time. The thing is: we have so many examples. It doesn't hinge on a single one. We have cited close to a dozen already, and can cite more. What we know from this wide range of counterexamples is that the global consensus on WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not what you say it is. Policy does not forbid the thing you say it does. Many editors choose not to list these names, perhaps in the spirit of the NOTMEMORIAL, maybe for style or maintainability or sourcing reasons. Consensus already favors your goal here. What is gained by trying to drive this policy interpretation on and on like this? If your main goal really is to ensure the the policy is interpreted the way you prefer, why not make a proposal to reword NOTMEMORIAL to make that plain and easy to recognize? If you're right, there will be broad consensus for that. Going on fighting this way to win a battle you've already won, at least for the short term, is making Wikipedia a battleground. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  Can we drop the strawmen? I rejected a 2014 GA because the review was a joke. I tossed aside your handful of examples because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. And even if it was, can you address the dozen or so examples I listed below?

  No, plenty of FAs and GAs are ignored and slip under the radar until someone notices them. You might not have noticed, but most FAs are written on obscure topics that are poorly visited. If the person who wrote them is no longer around to tend them, they will inevitably decay, both in real terms and also comparatively as standards rise. And even if they haven't, that an old FA or GA does something a specific way is not evidence of anything other than that it does something a certain way. The Wikipedia community didn't vote on them, and the only precedent they establish is "this worked at FAC last time, it will probably work on this article as well". Which, for the purposes of this discussion, is meaningless. Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  Except plenty of good reasons have been given - that you don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist, Bri. And that you like the list isn't a good reason to keep it. The FAs Dennis provided aren't good examples (are any of them about warship collisions? Do they even have the same kind of list this article had (or did they simply name relevant individuals who had active roles in the accidents in the prose?) Do any articles that are about warship collisions have similar lists?). Interestingly, Melbourne–Evans collision, Melbourne–Voyager collision, Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision (which is an FA), Submarine incident off Kola Peninsula, Submarine incident off Kildin Island, USS Hartford and USS New Orleans collision – none of these maritime accident articles have casualty lists. There are tons more - need I go on? Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Can we stop now? per WP:SNOW. This has turned into nothing but bickering. It's clear the opposition the list is overwhelming. I agree with the last arguemnt that none of the FAs have simple lists of casualties; what makes their use of the names of murder victims or accident casualties encyclopedic is that they are presented in prose with details and context that makes it clear that it's more than just a list of names. A naked bulleted list is easily mistaken for some kind of memorial or indiscriminate collection of data. Shortly, I or someone else can boldly add a revised prose version that presents the information fully fleshed out in that way, much like the FAs mentioned, and we can see how everyone feels about that. Until that time, the current discussion ready to stick a fork in it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with your statement Dennis. Unless that list of names in prose can show some actual encyclopedic context, I will have to suggest you not reinsert it. At this point, an attempt to reinsert without showing some encyclopedic context could be seen as WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT. Llammakey (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Enough with the bullying. Read WP:Editing policy, WP:OWN, and WP:BRD and find me anything that forbids anyone from adding an alternative version to this or any article. If you want me banned from this topic, go propose that. If you want to change WP:NOT to forbid mentioning the names of people not bluelinked, go propose that. You’re pretending that WP:BLPNAME applies not just to living and recently deceased people, but to the dead as well. If this keeps up, you’ll be extending it to fictional people’s names, and their dogs’ names too.

I’m done here. You don’t need to obsess over content you haven’t even seen yet. When or if we come to that, you can go try to convene a tribunal to have me dunked or burned for disruption. My suggestion to you is to stop trying to scare people away from editing. Anyone may edit Wikipedia and attempting ownership of articles is actual disruption. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, this is pointless. You just acknowledged that consensus is against including the names of the dead. Whether in bulleted list form or prose, the community has spoken. If you try re-adding them, then it is you that would be running afoul of wp:own, and several other P&G, so why not just let this go, and move on to something else? Something more productive. - wolf 17:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make me keep repeating myself. Maybe go back and read my comments again; I described what I was proposing at least four times. If you missed it then, saying it a fifth time won't help. "Let it go" is a really good idea though. Stop now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was under the same impression as Llammakey. Perhaps if you replied to my last reply to you in the above sub-thread under your "support" !vote, it would help make your future intentions more clear. Thanks again - wolf 17:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. The names of the fatalities would be considered pertinent and of encyclopedic value to this article and no policy is prohibiting the inclusion of that information. Bus stop (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Bus stop: What "encyclopaedic value" do you feel these names have? How are they pertinent? (except to those few who might know them) and we certainly do have a policy prohibiting this, see WP:NOTOBITUARY. - wolf 15:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)