Talk:HMS Kingston (F64)

message: "...she was hit by a 15-inch shell fired by the Italian battleship Littorio which passed right through the ship...", then "According to some authors, like James Sadkovich and Vincent O'Hara, she was struck by an 8-inch round...".
I find it rather strange that a hit by a 15 inch shell is disputed for a hit by an 8 inch projectile. I'm no expert, but surely the damage caused would be obviously different? Or is the wording of that section not up to scratch?
RASAM (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hits

message: I have read numerous accounts of this action, of which I have only cited 5 sources in the article, but I can cite more if needed. None of these accounts state damage inflicted on HMS Kingston from RIN Sagitarrio. I have footnoted and cited Italian sources to have inflicted damage and hopefully this will be the end of this discussion.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the Italian statement should stand inline with the proper attribution, since British sources don't deny damage during the naval engagement (which would constitute a case for WP:UNDUE), they simply don't mention it.--Darius (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would "British" sources deny something that never happened?  It is exactly because of WP:UNDUE that minority viewpoint sources are not given equal weight to majority viewpoint sources. Placing the claim for damage in a footnote with a brief explanation gives the reader access to the sources that claim damage, and informs the reader that this claim is not supported by the weight of evidence. Additionally, British sources indicating no damage to British ships must be given greater weight than Italian claims of damage to British ships and vise versa, since authors, generally, have more access to the history of their own armed forces and thus knowledge regarding events on their own their own nations' ships. Damwiki1 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Damage on HMS Kingston actually happened on 22 May according to the British, the contradiction between both versions is the cause of the harm (naval gunfire or airstrike). I agree that the Italian claim must be given lesser weight than British sources; my only concern is that the Italian claim, with the proper attribution,  should be shown inline and not as a nota bene, no matter how overwhelming is the support for the Royal Navy's statement.--Darius (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you can state, here, your proposed wording?Damwiki1 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording should reflect the prominence of the British report(s), mentioning in second term the Italian claim, simple like that. We cannot deny not confirm the Italian statement unless a reliable source explicity makes that analysis, so the phrase "Kingston suffered no damage from the naval engagement" must be removed as per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. My proposed wording is: "Kingston suffered damage during the ensuing German airstrikes. The Italian navy claims that the destroyer was instead hit by Sagittario´s return fire."--Darius (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I cited the official RN damage report summary, which lists even very minor damage to RN vessels so it is not WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to say that Kingston suffered no damage from Sagittario and numerous other British accounts do not state damage either. However it would be WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to state "The Italian navy claims that the destroyer was instead hit by Sagittario´s return fire." since the Italian claim might have been that the damage was in addition to that caused by the Luftwaffe. Can you post verbatim quotes, here,  from the two sources? I am sure we can work something out.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sagittario