Talk:Haze gray and underway

"Tribal" wording

This is the place to discuss the use of the word "tribal" in this article. The article reads, It is a term of tribal pride and identification, e.g. surface ship crew use it to distinguish themselves from submarine crew or aircraft carrier crew. User:JamesMadison asks, "(Tribal? At sea?)". This is an anthropology comment. A tribe is "a social division within a traditional society consisting of a goup of interlinked families or communities sharing a common culture and dialect." Doesn't "interlinked ... communities sharing a common culture and dialect" describe the Navy (and Marines, and web programmers, and opera singers, and many other social groups)? --Jdlh | Talk 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW the "Talk" page is the right place to discuss wording of articles. These comments don't belong in the text of the article. --Jdlh | Talk 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• You correctly moved my comment to this talk page, Jdlh; it did not properly belong in the body of the article, I'll grant that. However, in my defense, there was no talk on this page 24 hours ago. Well, there's some now: we both get credit for that. As for my comment, it's about the word "tribal." It must be a generational thing, and I'm assuming you are a younger man than I (my impression obviously based solely on your written words). As for me, I did 7 patrols on a boomer (sea duty 1982-85, North Atlantic & Arctic). "Haze gray and underway" and the Submarine Service's "pokin' holes in the ocean" in my age were expresssions of disgust at our long deployments coupled with our pride that we were the guys tough enough to do it. My beef is with the word "Tribal"; it reminds me of a CBS reality series, or a shitty Venice Beach "tribal" tattoo around the bicep. I guess the word "tribal" is cheap to me, but my sea-duty isn't. You may think otherwise and you're as right as I am. Anyway, that's my two cents: I had it, you got it. - JamesMadison 09:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• JamesMadison, thanks for your reply. You guessed right, I'm probably a bit younger than you (44 years old), and I certainly have less Navy experience than I do (none). I'm willing to look for a different word than "tribal" that conveys the same meaning of "social division... common culture and dialect". If you think the word "tribal" is cheap, maybe other people do too, so maybe a different word will be better. Also, I like your description of the term as expressing "disgust" and "tough". I'd love to find a way to express that in this article. Any suggestions for alternate wording? Any ideas for references that talk about this, which we can cite? Let's work together to improve the article. --Jdlh | Talk 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with any assertion that tribal implies cheap in any way. The RN and later the RCN, RAN and other commonwealth navies were proud to assign the name Tribal to entire classes of ships. Don't try to tell their sailors there was anything 'cheap' about HMS Zulu, HMCS Haida, HMCS Iroquois, etc. Change the usage if you must, but please don't try to degrade the term.LeadSongDog 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Idiots... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.47.129 (talk • contribs) April 22, 2007 11:56 (UTC) [I moved comment from head of section to here, but didn't edit its charming wording. --Jdlh | Talk 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]

Aircraft carriers not part of "haze gray and underway"?

The impression I have is that "Haze gray and underway" is in part a reference to the "real Navy", and parts of the Navy don't count as "haze gray and underway". The McKellar, Bob (1996) reference says that aircraft carriers don't count, because "Real ships ... don't allow airplanes to play on the roof!" But I've seen two edits by anonymous editors which seem to say that aircraft carriers do count as "Haze gray and underway". Rather than delete the reference to aircraft carriers, can we add a paragraph which cites some reliable sources that talk about carriers as "haze gray and underway"? Note that I'm not a subject expert, and these editors are probably more expert than me. I'm just trying to get this article to tell the story of this phrase as its really used, and to follow Wikipedia policy about attribution to reliable sources. --Jdlh | Talk 17:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I had understood (from some discussion on one of the Usenet groups, probably sci.military.naval, that "Haze Gray" referred to the color of diesel smoke when the fuel/air mixture is correct, the engines are properly maintained, etc. Thus "Haze Gray and Underway" means that everything is "ship shape" and the ship is moving. Thus carriers certainly qualify. 128.107.248.220 (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with the user/member above. However I will correct him a little. Fuel / air mixture on a diesel engine user will not normally adjust this. On boilers, the fuel and air mixture was originally manually controlled. The cold war built ships had some automation of this but still a required an easy adjustment for the operator. Ideally topside shipboard personnel would prefer the perfect mixture of pure clear stack exhaust- but very hard. The operators preferred their exhaust slight gray. The fuel/ air ration band for clear is very narrow. A high air to fuel mixture creates a white smoke- This creates some aerosolized, unburnt fuel in stack exhaust spaces, very susceptible to a explosion with a spark. The newer aircraft carrier by this definition did not qualify as there was no exhaust stack since there was a reactor instead of a boiler. By staying very slight haze gray exhaust- safely away from white smoke and potential explosion - real close to pure stack to make topside happy. - another factor. Up into the 1960 steam plants usually burned ah heavy thick fuel, at that time they sifted over to a fuel real close to diesel fuel, which made this controls even easier.Back in that era of steam plants all the destroyers, most cruisers, the frigates (or destroyer escorts depending on time frame) had steam plants. - BTW since about 1995 for the US Navy all combatants (destroyers, most cruisers, the frigates) are now gas turbines Wfoj2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

The website Hazegray.org

The website is a rich resource for researchers, but often does not provide citation of its sources. Photographs are often identified but not credited, and the copyright status of those photographs is usually ambiguous at best. Although photos from the site normally have official origin, (who else would be allowed to fly over and photograph a warship?) this is seldom spelled out, deterring re-use of the photos by those who, like wikipedia, scrupulously observe copyright. Further, the site blocks direct links to photos, so they must be linked through the (copyrighted) web pages. Has anyone attempted to address this issue with their webmaster? LeadSongDog 14:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not. --Jdlh | Talk 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You might have trouble getting much out of the site as it looks like it has not been updated for some time. Some areas show 2003 as the last update, some pages say 2005 and some say 2001. Basically, the site no longer appears to be active. --Wootonius 22:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine says otherwise, but changes at the top level are few, mainly because the site was fairly comprehensive already. They seem to have had ongoing server issues with their search engine for a while now.LeadSongDog 23:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas why the website has not been updated since 2005 or so? Andrew still posts to sci.military.naval, but has not mentioned the site since September 2006. 128.107.248.220 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I conducted a google search for A.T. and found this page http://128.121.102.226/faq.html with this bit of information: Andrew Toppan used to maintain Haze Gray and Underway, which is probably the most comprehensive warship data site anywhere on the net. That site has since been incorporated into the United States Naval & Shipbuilding Museum and USS Salem.

I visited the USS Salem site but found no trace of Haze Gray information.

Sv1xv (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The last update on the site that is shown by The Wayback Machine was 24 June 2007, as of January 2008 (Wayback embargoes everything for six months.) Just because the index page copyright notice isn't updated doesn't mean the site isn't. The USS Salem link you're after is this.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the referance to the hazegray should be dropped, or at least qualified, because it's fleet lists are so rapidly aging they can no longer be relied on. For example, the Australian Fleet list is over 5 years out of date, and shows several now decommissioned vessels, as well as omitting several newly commissioned ones. Nudge67 (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. Last update in "What's New" [1] was on January 15, 2006. Sv1xv (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to adding an annotation indicating that the site's contents are not current if you can find a WP:RS that says so. It's basically a history site, and its utility as a reference on WP is in that context. For many WWI and earlier ships, it is the best source accessible online. My earlier comments still hold. It is references on a very short list of four high quality general military history sources by the Library of Congress here. The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine now shows the latest update to the site as 2 October 2007 (See the asterices here). The USS Salem United States Naval Shipbuilding Museum link is here. Either of these alone would establish notability. Have a look at them.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we put an annotated entry about A.T.'s "hazegray.org" in an "External links" section? There is no need for notability for an entry under "External links".

Sv1xv (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with notability. It is established. There is an unchallenged (but also unreferenced) assertion that hazegray.org is not a comprehensive source for the recent past. History, after all, is not News.LeadSongDog (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a different argument for why the description of http://www.hazegray.org/ should remain in this article. It's not because the website is a reliable or current source. It's because the site is something notable out in the world which is identified by the term "Haze gray and underway". The purpose of this article is to inform the reader who comes here asking, "Tell me about 'haze gray and underway'". I think the answer should include two points: "it's a rich and interesting Navy saying", and "it's the name of a notable website". --Jdlh | Talk 06:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is very much a problem with notability. It is not remotely established. Please see the bottom of the talk page. The Land (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Addressed in my 16:17, 3 August 2008 post above. Unless one contends that the Library of Congress is an "internet directory", I don't see how the 19:50, 4 July 2008 post pertains. I note at this index that there are presently 1375 wikipedia references to hazegray.org in twelve languages. By itself this doesn't meet the formal criteria for notability, but it certainly speaks to utility. As to the content, you have already removed it, but I'll assume you were simply following the WP:BRD cycle. It wasn't really necessary to do that prior to getting a concensus here, so I'd appreciate if you were to self-revert until there is one. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the link from the Library of Congress website has to do with it. It is essentially another web directory listing. To justify an article, WP:WEB says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" - emphasis added. I.e. not "Here is a link to a website which says X" but a discussion of the content of the site. Hence why Slashdot (say) would qualify. Thsi particular website doesn't. The Land (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:WEB is that it is intended to prevent WP degenerating into a linkfarm to commercial sites and blogs. That clearly is not what the para you deleted was about. It was a form of inline disambiguation, stopping short of creating another complete article specific to the website. Press articles such as this, books such as this and online articles such as this have credited the site. Google books shows 58 citing books. It is an honest-to-goodness useful source of obscure information.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:WEB is about what websites should be covered in our articles. WP:EL deals with linkfarming. I imagine the bulk of links from Wikipedia to hazegray are actually in breach of WP:EL, which says something like "only link to websites which are a better resource than the Wikipedia article should be" - however I have argued in the past we should give such resources the benefit of the doubt *as external links*. WP:WEB is quite specifically a notability guideline, and pertains to what we should be covering in the encyclopedia. There is no point having an article which covers the phrase and the website - Wikipedia decided very early on to have one article per Thing not one article per name.

What WP:WEB says is that the site must have been the subject of several nontrivial articles/papers/books/whatever. The links you provide are to things which refer to hazegray: fair enough, but the content needs to be about hazegray for it to matter for purposes of notability. The Land (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I follow what you say, but at root I see it as a technicality. If the editors of thousands of individual articles thought that it was a WP:RS, guidelines aside, that says to me that the site is notable. WP:WEB isn't intended as a hard and fast rule set, it is supposed to guide choices. This is one occasion on which intelligent application of considered judgement will lead to a different choice than the hardline reading of a ruleset. If we were to ask at Talk:WikiProject Military history I think the result would be unequivocal.LeadSongDog (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_historyLeadSongDog (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of news:sci.military.naval

While most mailing lists are questionable, this one is (and was) a moderated group with a very low noise level tolerated. The citation is part of a lengthy discussion involving multiple posters, several of whom confirmed the statement that it referred to the colour of exhaust gasses at optimum efficiency. For the purpose of identifying the usage of a common sailor's expression, I can think of few more appropriate sources. Deletion should be discussed, not summarily done.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Per policy, these are not acceptable. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). Also, please see the Derek Smart arbitration case, where the committee clearly took the stance that newsgroups are not verifiable. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you're not familiar with the way it works, what you need to do to include that is find a reliable source (such as a reliable website, or print document) that either says the same thing, or that discusses the newsgroup findings specifically on this topic, and then it will be acceptable. However, just because it was on a mailing list does not make it ok, since there is no REAL way to judge the reliability of the posts on the the list, the identities of the authors, or the truthfulness of the information. That's why Wikipedia prefers fact checked reliable sources for information like this, especially given the terrible rep that newsgroups have as being the breeding ground for conspiracy theorists, false information, and troll memes. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I read through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) but found nothing applicable to the above discussion. Perhaps I'm just not getting it. Can you quote the relevant bit please? I'm not even completely sure what makes the statement controversial enough to require referencing at all. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

News groups are "self published sources". Per the relevant bits:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations."

From WP:NOR

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability for exceptions."

Newsgroups are not an exception allowed on WP:V. From WP:RS

"Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.

The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.

Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it." Most importantly, from Wikipedia:Reliable source examples,

"Are USENET postings reliable sources?

Posts on USENET are rarely regarded as reliable sources, because they are easily forged or misrepresented, and many are anonymous or pseudonymous.

One exception is that some authorities on certain topics have written extensively on USENET, and their writings there are vouched for by them or by other reliable sources. A canonical example is J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of the television series Babylon 5, who discussed the show at length on Usenet. His postings are archived and authenticated on his website, and may be an acceptable source on the topic of Babylon 5 under the self-publication provision of WP:ATT."

and

"Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence."

and

"Usenet is typically only a reliable source with respect to specific FAQs, specific usenet administration groups (when discussing usenet administration), or when discussing persons who have become well known through their usenet activity. (such as, for instance Kibo)".

The usenet post in question does not seem to meet any of the exceptions for allowing USENET posts. It's not an issue anymore, since it looks like the changes you made recently include legit sources. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that pretty much lays it out. Some of the arguments are not valid, but I won't dispute the basic point that the discussion was held. Usenet posts are routinely archived on google and topica, so the assured persistence shouldn't be an issue. Authenticate attribution is the tough nut to crack, so you can't quote the post even if you can cite it. Guess I'll just let the nice pooch snooze. LeadSongDog (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Website notability

The National Geographic ought count to establish notability of the website. See also The History Highway 3.0: A Guide to Internet Resources By Dennis A. Trinkle, Scott A. Merriman, Published 2002, M.E. Sharpe, page 413, ISBN 0765609037 The US Navy Freedom of Information Act website also regards hazegray.org as notable. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a defunct website. It doesn't belong here. This is the article for the term, not for the website.SpartanPhalanx (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The website was working just fine as of 17 Jan 2008, it's not defunct. It was previously alleged to be orphaned, but a check at www.archive.org shows that it has been updated within the past year (archive.org doesn't show changes newer than six months for any site). A wikipedia search shows it has been used 142 times in articles. A wikiwix search shows 208 times. If you think the discussion of the website belongs in a different article, the mechanism for doing that starts with the {{split}} tag. Otherwise we have chaos.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on here at all because it fails WP:WEB, specifically the WP:NOT segment for "Internet Guides". SpartanPhalanx (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It also fails the requirements at [2] which state that to be noted on Wikipedia, a website should have a Google PageRank of 8 or above. HazeGrey.org only has a PageRank of 2. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything on how to query google's PageRank, but perhaps if you check it with the correct spelling for hazegray.org the results would differ. In any case a google search for "Naval History" returns hazegray.org as the second-highest non-official site (one specific to the RN comes higher). Further, the "simple rules" at [3] fall far short of being editorial policy that justify deletion of existing content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I see. To query PageRank, google requires that you install and use their toolbar. Not an acceptable choice. Anyhow, I think the Library of Congress research guide is about as good a source as we could ask for to establish notability. Restoring.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no. "National Geographic once linked to this website" does not satisfy WP:WEB. Nor does "This site was mentioned in an internet directory.": Indeed, trivial mentions (defined as: "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores") is specifically excluded. Time to remove it. Please do not replace without addressing these points. The Land (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)