Jump to content

Talk:USS Edsall (DD-219)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of the Java Sea

[edit]

The ship was sunk in an action independant of the Battle of the Java Sea by two battleships and four cruisers. The Japanese had no battleships in the Battle of the Java Sea proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.43 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Right, DD 219 was sunk the day after the proper battle of the Java Sea. She was engaged by two Battleships and two heavy cruisers and over 20 divebombers from Kido Butai. The men o war could not score a hit after firing over 1300 rounds and the divebombers only got one hit which damaged the steering of the ship. This was the only US Naval ship to directly engage Kido Butai. For more info see Don kehn's "On a Blue Sea of Blood", published by Zenith and due to release summer 2008. -James Nix, grandson of Lt. J.J. Nix, the last skipper of the USS Edsall, DD 219.Jamestnix2054 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck has been discovered

[edit]

[1][2][3] DigitalPanda (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did WWII start?

[edit]

That's something User:ChemicalBear wants to know. He just added the information that WWII broke out in December 1941. Please talk to him. --91.5.99.247 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know you've been editing in good faith, but please don't take this any farther. Your edit was undone several times for being grammatically useless. Again, earlier in the paragraph, it already refers to Pearl Harbor being the start of the war, as Hubbard is American and so is the USS Edsall. It's grammatically silly to reiterate that point again with your edit
Besides, the reference this Hubbard claim comes from specifically says "the Navy had him in training at the start of the war" (paraphrasing as I'm not looking at direct source rn)
Therefore, until you can proved and prove this change necessary, as by WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCE, please stop changing and promoting an edit war. And please make your edit summaries helpful to your changes. "Must have been written by an American" is not a good edit summary and can be seen as a negative attack/vandalism by other editors ChemicalBear (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the change twice, with weeks in between. How is this "promoting an edit war"? The first time I was reverted giving my edit comment as a justification. Now that I brought the issue to the talk page you actually want to silence me? Are you serious?
  • "Grammatically useless", again are you serious? What is that even supposed to mean? Here is the sentence I added: "Navy records show that Hubbard was in training in New York when the attack on Pearl Harbor started." - What, specifically is "grammatically useless" about this sentence?
  • If earlier parts of the article refer to Pearl Harbor as "the outbreak of WWII", they should also be fixed. Doh. (They are not however. I have NO idea what you are talking about.)
  • I have a WP:BURDEN to show that WWII did not start in 1941? Once more, are you serious?
  • Look at my poposed change again. Sleep on it, then please tell me what's so fantastically wrong about it. Specifically, as wrong as the current version, giving a false date for the most consequential event in human history.
  • The only part of your comment which might be useful is your quote from the source. So, is your claim (or Hubbard's claim, or the Navy's claim, or anyone's claim) that Hubbard was in training in September 1939?
If my edit comment or indeed this comment is strongly worded then because the entire thing is just silly. WORLD WAR II DID NOT BREAK OUT IN 1941! What is going on here FFS? --91.5.99.247 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! No one is trying to silence you. I've simply asked you to prove this necessary change is needed
You have WP:BURDEN to show that your change is necessary and can provide a source that supports your change. The current source supports the current variation of the sentence. Again, this whole claim revolves around it be American-centric, so it would be applicable to say the war "starting" did occur with Pearl Harbor, as America wasn't involved until that point
Again, the source, in direct quotes, says "According to Navy records, however, Hubbard was training as an intelligence officer in New York when the war broke out." Both in this paragraph and in the original source, it is already very clear to the reader that it is referring to the American start of the war, Pearl Harbor.
Thanks! I know the actual war didn't start in 1941. However, from an American perspective, the war effort didn't start until Pearl Harbor. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is bizarre.
You are defending the notion that WWII broke out in 1941.
I actually don't give a flying intercourse whether or not your source makes the same factually incorrect claim.
I have the same lack of any intercourse to give about the distinction you make here on the talk page: You make the claim that WWII broke out in 1941 in the article, and that's the only thing that matters.
I also don't give a flying intercourse whether or not USAians think that WWII broke out in 1941. It did not.
No, I'm also not providing a source to counter the claim that WWII broke out in 1941, because this is just a ridiculous distraction.
Please do not continue to put the false information in the text that WWII broke out in 1941. (I honestly never expected that I need to ever write this sentence. It's bizarre.)
You are in fact trying to silence me by asking me to "not take this any further" when no escalation on my part was in sight.
You freely invent stuff, just to achieve the superficial impression that something would be wrong with my change. "Grammatically silly", srsly?
WP:BURDEN does not mean that I have to provide a source for the fact that an article needs a change. It only means that the information I add to the article needs to be verifiable. You also link to both WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCE, and I advise you to read both those articles to deepen you knowledge about WP policy. (Yes, both. Ironic, isn't it?)
It follows that you are asking me to provide a source for the fact that WWII did not start in 1941. This is just bizarre.
You also freely invent that the article makes the connection between that outbreak of WWII and 1941 earlier, which is simply false. To the contrary, the only other time "war" is mentioned in the section under discussion, it explicitly refers to "World War II". Did you even read the section?
You also freely invent the claim that US war effort starts with Pearl Harbor, just to defend your false claim that WWII broke out in 1941. US war efforts started before Pearl Harbor, just look up the occupation of Iceland as an example.
You bizarre claims prevent me from fixing other stuff in the section in question. That's on you.
In conclusion,
  • Please step back from your bizarre claim.
  • Please avoid false claims about me, the content of the article or about history.
Thank you. --91.5.99.247 (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]