Talk:USS Columbia (SSN-771)

message: Why is the fact that the USS Columbia is missing blanked out of this
article and the fact that it was involved in the sinking of the south
Korean ship Chonan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.121.49 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Slave Ship"?! What's that about? SubEWL (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: After they reinserted unsourced information into the article,  asked me to bring the matter here. The current section about the naming convention of upcoming US submarines reads with an aside about the projected longevity and inserts a tidbit about age of other boats in the current Columbia's class at their retirement. However, neither source gives any information to this end or specifically comments on the age of the boats at retirement. The more recent US Navy source does give this quote: "…consequently overlapping with the existing USS Columbia (SSN 771)". One might read this as state the current vessel will be in service, but why extrapolate when one could closely follow the original source? The current unsourced material violates textbook WP:NOR principles—particularly WP:SYNTH.
A far more suitable passage might simply say the Navy has stated the new intended to prevent violation of rules wherein two vessels can not share a name. The original research is muddying the point, especially considering the only other (albeit dated) source for the section explicitly states that the current boat will likely be out of service. In fact, per the new Navy source, the implication is not that the current boat will overlap with the new District of Columbia in active duty, but that the June keel laying was the point of overlap that necessitated a different name. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant and useful to indicate why the sub was renamed, that there is another active sub that currently bears the same (original) name, and that deapite that sub's age and the planned commissioning of this sub, it was possible that there would be two active subs with the same name with is both prohibited by law, and somewhat silly. Pointing to the list of LA-class subs which lists the age of every single sub, to the day, all sourced, simply supports the facts, which is neither wp:nor or particularly wp:synth. If you would like to suggest a re-write, instead of just blanking that info, I think that would be more useful. - wolf 11:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Recalling your last dispute on this article, I think I am well within the standards to remove unsourced information that no reliable source has found necessary to comment on. Also, yes, without a single reliable source making the same point, the whole thing about the submarines' ages is original research. Unless you can provide sourced information that explicitly makes that synthesis between the naming and the potential longevity of the active Columbia, the section will need to be either rewritten or deleted entirely. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "" - I will again request that you focus on edits, not editors. Personal snubs like this are needless and accomplish little. - wolf 05:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Here's a Defense Department statement explicitly making the connection: "The decision to name SSBN 826 is to alleviate any name conflicts with the already-commissioned USS Columbia (SSN 771). §10 U.S.C. 8662(a) states that not more than one vessel of the Navy may have the same name." Once we add that, it will be useful (to readers) and trivial (in the mathematical sense) to state that such a conflict might only arise if SSN 771 is still in active service when SSBN 826 arrives, and to note—as documented by the linked list of 688 boats—that few of them last that long. So I suggest restoring the text, and appending the DOD statement to the following paragraph (after "On 3 June 2022, the Navy announced...). PRRfan (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Mmmm. The cited Navy press release says, "The Columbia program was named in 2016 with the lead ship projected to enter service in 2027, consequently overlapping with the existing USS Columbia (SSN 771)." That's pretty explicit about the conflict being related to, well, entering service. It could have said "...with the lead ship projected for keel-laying in 2022...", but it does not. PRRfan (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also this freshly updated report on ship names by the Congressional Research Service, which says: "On June 3, 2022, the Navy announced that it was modifying SSBN-826’s name from Columbia to District of Columbia, so as to avoid an overlap in names with USS Columbia (SSN-771), a Los Angeles (SSN-688) class attack submarine that was named for Columbia, SC; Columbia, IL; and Columbia, MO. SSN-771 entered service in 1995, and its final years of service may overlap with the initial years of service of SSBN-826. Such an overlap would pose an issue, as 10 U.S.C. §8662(a) states..." TL;dr: CRS thinks the overlap pertains to commissioned service. PRRfan (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, with the congressional source, we have something explicitly that countermands the 2016 citation. If you haven't added it already, I'll do that. Another footnote helpfully notes that this has been a discussion on the backburner with the Navy since 2018 but appears to remain only a notional overlap rather than a planned one and as such still provides absolutely nothing about the total years of service relative to other vessels (so still WP:SYNTH) and still doesn't explain insistence from the other editor on unsourced inclusion or the deletion of relevant tags. PRR, if you have a preferred rewrite, I'll probably defer to it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would make the final paragraph this: "On 3 June 2022, the Navy announced that the new sub would be named USS District of Columbia to eliminate the possibility that two ships in commission might bear the same name, which is forbidden by federal law." And I would leave the penultimate paragraph as it is now, to provide basic context about just how such an overlap might come about. PRRfan (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Gently, I would suggest that we are not at an impasse; two editors think something's a good idea, one doesn't; life goes on. But I'm glad that we have worked together to improve the final graf. Cheers! PRRfan (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I had already suggested a possible re-write above, and have appreciated the efforts you're making here, , despite the fact that the other editor involved here seems quite intractable on the matter. - wolf 05:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research