Talk:USS Richard M. Rowell

...in the merry merry month of October

Fitzsimons dates it 23 Oct, an obvious contradiction... Knowing how unreliable Japanese records are, it's hard to say who's right. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Since all our articles on this are the same (The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors) and you haven't provided a reference for anyone to check, I think the tag is unwarranted. Weakopedia (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Haven't provided a source? Look down the page: "* Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare, Vol. 13, p.1409, "I54". London: Phoebus, 1978."

This needs sorting. The section says that the battle started on 25th, that Rowell fought off a kamikaze attack on 26th while attacking a sub she sank on 23rd - it is a nonsense. Can someone provide me with a citation for the sinking on the 23rd and for the attack of the 26th, please (complete with page number etc). Not just a vague "it is what Fitzsimons says". Also, are there any other sources than Fitzsimons for these events and, if so, what timeline do those give. If the two citations do indeed contradict each other then I'll re-word the entire section to accommodate the discrepancy. Thanks. Sitush (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me the easy thing to do would be say "fought off kamikaze while attacking I-54, which she sank 23 October", except, as already noted, it's likely they didn't happen the same day. Failing that, "sank I-54 23 October & fought off kamikaze 26 October", which seems to agree with both sources...except DANFS could be wrong on the date of either or both. Since you appear disinclined to believe Fitzsimons (which I have a copy of), since the original date contradicts Fitzsimons (which was my original problem with the passage...), & since I've caught DANFS in other date contradictions, I don't see how we resolve this. (I wouldn't trust the Japanese records as far as I could throw a research librarian.) Got anything on the sinking of I-54? Dull? Ito? (I took a swipe at Google Books & got nothing...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:30 & 20:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me about this. It is not that I do not consider Fitzsimons to be reliable etc but rather that there does seem to be a genuine issue here with dates and, as you said some time ago, the discrepancy may be in primary sources. Hence, rephrasing would be my preferred route to resolve this. I will have a think - what is certain is that it cannot be left like this. Have you considered actually explaining the issue of sources inline? I did this for an assertion from the historian Rolt in Churchill Machine Tool Company. Sitush (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Explain how? Fn to say "DANFS conflicts with Fitz"? My problem remains changing it without knowing which is right, tho I suppose it's no worse if it's reworded with an error, & less confused than now... If that's what you mean, I'll happily fix it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would opt for your ""sank I-54 23 October & fought off kamikaze 26 October". As you say, this fits both sources. Just because you are aware of unreliability in DANFS elsewhere doesn't mean that it is unreliable here. The test for WP, as I am sure you know, is whether it is verifiable and encyclopaedic - an internal contradiction is obviously not the latter, and whether or not the statement is true is irrelevant per WP policy. It may be daft but ... Sitush (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Suits. It's "reliable" I'm thinking of, here, & it appears DANFS isn't entirely reliable. I was hoping for a source that would support one date or the other before changing it. :( Since I take it you're OK with a fn explaining the contradiction, I'll change it as such. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, fn and all. If something stronger comes along later as a source then we can use it. Understand your concern re: reliability but we either use the source or we don't: can't cherrypick when it suits.

Oh, agreed, a weak source beats none at all. I live in hope of a better one. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed - first kamikaze attack

I'm not quite sure how a kamikaze attack can not be "intentional", so there is a potential issue here which needs either clarifying or resolving by removing the word. More importantly, saying that it is the first demands, I think, a specific citation at the end of the sentence. It is a pretty major claim to make. I note that other WP articles also make this claim, but not for the same attack (they could be wrong also, but I can't go running off round them all so let's get a citation for one place & then I'll take a look at the others). An example elsewhere is this. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Any takers? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm removing the word. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)