Talk:USS Bremerton (SSN-698)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Red October

I'm removing the reference to the USS Dallas. As neither the book, the movie nore the sub are directly related to this article's subject, it has no relevance. --LeyteWolfer 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oldest sub

Now that the Los Angeles has been decommissioned, Bremerton is the oldest in active service (there are older subs in commission but they're not in active service). If someone can find a source, this info should be added to the article. Rees11 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But in the article it is mentioned as "the oldest commissioned" submarine. And that is wrong, isn't it? It's Philadelphia. And what about Memphis? It's article says it is still active.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The oldest reference is incorrect. Memphis was the oldest in the fleet until April 1, 2011. Maybe they meant West Coast? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.35.25.186 (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Major content addition - 4 May 2018

A significant amount of content was added with this single edit today by this IP user; 73.254.47.110 (first and so far only edit). While no refs were attached to the content, the edit summary stated; "extracted data from www.uscarriers.net". I had a quick look at Bremerton's entry on that site but only found a brief list of stats. I did not see any of the content this user claims they "extracted" from there. I have reverted for now due to several concerns; I'm not sure of the reliability of this site. Does anyone know if it's used here on WP for other navy or ship articles? Also, by "extracted", does this user mean "copied"? In which case there could be a copyright issue. Lastly, there were several problems with the way the content was written, eg: no italics for ship names, using "the" before a ship name, no mark-up or templates where needed, mostly point form instead of parahraph/prose, so a lot c/e would be req'd if kept. I will leave a note on the IP user's talk page (since they can't be pinged) inviting them to comment here and see if they can provide more info. Meanwhile, if anyone wants to go over this content and re-add, I won't object as long as it's properly written and sourced and complies with WP:RS and WP:COPY. - ^theWOLFchild 05:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Decommissioning

@Thewolfchild: Despite accusations of an "edit war" and not having served on this submarine in over 10 years, the information being presented is factual. The site you reference states that it was late updated in 2019 (almost 2 years ago). The article I shared was from DVIDSHub, a government contractor for military public affairs. Here are 2 more links (This is SUBGRU9 - the parent command of ``Bremerton``'s Official Facebook page that also links DVIDSHub . The second link states it's official affiliation with Defense Media Activity (DMA), despite not being .gov. There are other links that amplify the validity of this (none of which am I affiliated with): Jocephus865 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)jocephus

Sources

It's not an "accusation", you are in fact edit-warring. You even reverted again just now before posting here. We have long used the NVR as the source for USN ship status. The site is updated regularly, I believe you're referring to Bremerton's page which hasn't been updated since 2019, but once there's is an update, such as the Navy officially decommissioning the sub (not just a ceremony), then that page will be updated and so will this one. I realize you're new to WP, but there are many editors here that have been maintaining the ship articles on this project since before you claim to have served aboard that boat.

Now, you made an edit. It was reverted. Following that, if you disagree with the revert, you don't continue making your edit, that is called edit warring and you can be blocked for that. Instead you're supposed to discuss the matter, collegially, on the talk page. While that happens, the article remains at WP:QUO. If editors involved in a content dispute can't come to an agreement, and the first editor is still unhappy with the QUO version, then the next option is dispute resolution. Meanwhile, as I said, I realize you're inexperienced here, and that's why I added the 'welcome' template to your talk page. I strongly suggest you read it and all the links it contains. There is a great deal of useful information there. You should really get to know the policies & guidelines here, if you're going to continue editing. - wolf 18:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Here is a screenshot from today of the NVR site you're citing. This is the problem. It is not up to date and the boat;s parent command has announced the formal decommissioning. This is the part that most concerning. Your source is 18+ months ago, the sources I am citing are from the past week.

File:NVR.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocephus865 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The picture is interesting... but not typically how things are done (link would suffice). Anyway, if you wish to challenge the reliability of the NVR, a site we use for pretty much every USN article on WP, the Reliable Source Noticeboard is the place for that, and it's right over here. Good luck - wolf 20:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I do not dispute the reliability of the site in general. I am saying that you're challenging things I have cited from the past week with something that hasn't been updated in 18+ months. I would have just shared the link, but you've ignored the updated date at least 3 times now, so I escalated to the image. Hearing from the parent command of the submarine is about as authoritative as one can get, but you choose to ignore those sources. Jocephus865 (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)jocephus

I am not "ignoring" anything, I disputed your edit and reverted it. You chose to edit war, and then be WP:DICK about it by posting insults in a hidden personal note (in an article!), and then you create this "picture", solely to make a WP:POINT.

I don't dispute that there was a decommissioning ceremony, nor that the sources you've cited state one took place (on 21 May apparently). I'm just saying that we typically use the NVR to show changes in ship status. You keep claiming it's "out of date", which is disingenuous, as the site is current and the Bremerton page will be updated when there's an update. Not a report of ceremony, but when the Navy officially decommissions the boat. When that happens, the article will be updated, just like all the other ship articles here. - wolf 21:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The site is not current. The site states it was last updated on 5 Dec 2019. I’ve not personally insulted you. I questioned the integrity of your sources and provided more current sources. You’re the one running the WP:EDITWAR and being a WP:DICK. I’m simply providing more up to date information and you’re choosing this as a hill to die on. It’s okay to not be “right” from time to time and it seems that you’re struggling with this.

The Captain of the ship released a formal message (released to the public on bremertonreunion.net) and SUBGRU9 posted that she has formally been decommissioned. That’s what you’re purposely ignoring. Just because you rely on NVR for historical information doesn’t mean that it’s up to date *right now.* COVID has caused a lot of publications in the military to fall behind due to HPCON.

I posted the picture because you were beating the “NVR is up to date” drum when the site says otherwise. That’s my main issue here. Jocephus865 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Do you seriously need me to post pictures now? Is that the only way you'll see that the main page of the NVR clearly states: "Site Updated: Tuesday, May 18, 2021"...? Or that it's just the Bremerton page that hasn't been updated since 2019? (because that's that last time there was an official change in boat's status from the Navy)

Earlier today you posted the following;

"to Thewolfchild - As a former crewmember of Bremerton, your senseless changes are disturbing and childish. ... Please take more care in validating information before you undo someone's changes.".

So, stop lying. Stop being disruptive. Stop acting like before you came along, nobody else knew how to edit this project. You have all of 66 edits, half of those are from edit-warring on this article and arguing on this talk page. Slow down, learn your way around. The world didn't suddenly come to a stop because other ship articles here waited for an update from the NVR. This page is no different. (And you wonder why we have a conflict of interest policy... ) - wolf 00:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Saying ones behavior is childish and suggesting you perform more thorough validation isn’t a personal attack. 66 edits, sure. I don’t live on Wikipedia. I work in the Intelligence field and understand the process of validating intelligence and information. The fact you’re doubling down on using NVR as valid when presented the last date of update for the page you’re referencing is negligent. It’s not the end of the world, but speaks more volumes about your willful efforts in ignoring more recent information from veritable sources in a quest to be right. I am not saying this as an attack but as an analyst myself, but it seems that you struggle to be introspective in someone saying your behavior is childish or calling your references into question. It happens. Review all information available, analyze, disseminate and move along. You’re choosing to hang up on the single reference as opposed to other reputable sources from the DOD. That’s my main issue, nothing more.

I’m not the best at editing here, but if I see something incorrect, I have no issue in respectfully fixing it. I don’t want to WP:EDITWAR but alas.

I’m not pushing for a COI. I’m pushing for the most timely and accurate data to be posted without ego. Nothing more. Jocephus865 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"Saying ones behavior is childish ... isn’t a personal attack." - actually, on Wikipedia it is.

"I don’t live on Wikipedia." - so, by implication I do. (Just. Stop.)

"I work in the Intelligence field" - I don't believe you, but regardless, that is completely irrelevant here. Unless you try to edit an article related to the Intelligence field, in which case you would then likely have a conflict of interest. Again.

"The fact you’re doubling down on using NVR as valid when presented the last date of update for the page you’re referencing is negligent." - the fact that you somehow seem to keep missing the point about the update status of the NVR is both a sad commentary on your ability to validate intelligence and information, and... exhausting. And now, along with everything else, I'm apparently "negligent" as well. But that's not all, 'cuz you also go on and on all about my;
"willful efforts in ignoring more recent information from veritable sources in a quest to be right.". - who's the pot and who's the kettle in this scenario?

"I am not saying this as an attack..." (oh, here we go) "...but as an analyst myself, but it seems that you struggle to be introspective in someone saying your behavior is childish or calling your references into question." [sic]. - lol, so are you saying this in your capacity as a spy for the CIA, or are you claiming to be a psychologist now as well?

"I’m not the best at editing here..." (now we're getting somewhere) "...but if I see something incorrect, I have no issue in respectfully fixing it. I don’t want to WP:EDITWAR but alas." - yeah, but alas, there is no exemption in the edit warring policy for guys "just 'cuz they think they're right". In a content dispute, somebody always thinks they're right, that's why there's an edit warring policy.

"I’m not pushing for a COI." - well, why would you? If anything, it would be me "pushing for a COI". I haven't ruled that out yet.

"I’m pushing for the most timely and accurate data to be posted without ego. Nothing more." - yes, pushing your way into breaking several WP policies, while being rude and disruptive, with WP:IDHT & WP:IDLI arguments and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

Now, when are you going to "push" your way over to WP:RSN to challenge the validity of the NVR as source, (which I've already suggested), a source, btw, that's used on hundreds of USN ship articles here? (That's a rhetorical question, the preference being you just go and do that. But if you must reply, and continue with this debate, I must ask that you stay on topic and keep your personal "analysis" to yourself (focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS and all that). - wolf 02:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay dude, you're right. Enjoy your validation. I am done. I have more productive things to do with my time. Never did I say or imply I was a "CIA Spy." There is a lot more to Intelligence than the government space but okay. Have a good night. Jocephus865 (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Now she's decommissioned. - wolf 18:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

References