Talk:Haze gray and underway

message: This is the place to discuss the use of the word "tribal" in this article. The article reads, It is a term of tribal pride and identification, e.g. surface ship crew use it to distinguish themselves from submarine crew or aircraft carrier crew.  User:JamesMadison asks, "(Tribal? At sea?)".  This is an anthropology comment.  A tribe is "a social division within a traditional society consisting of a goup of interlinked families or communities sharing a common culture and dialect."  Doesn't "interlinked ... communities sharing a common culture and dialect" describe the Navy (and Marines, and web programmers, and opera singers, and many other social groups)? --Jdlh  | Talk 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must disagree with any assertion that tribal implies cheap in any way.  The RN and later the RCN, RAN and other commonwealth navies were proud to assign the name Tribal to entire classes of ships.  Don't try to tell their sailors there was anything 'cheap' about HMS Zulu, HMCS Haida, HMCS Iroquois, etc.  Change the usage if you must, but please don't try to degrade the term.LeadSongDog 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tribal" wording 

message: The impression I have is that "Haze gray and underway" is in part a reference to the "real Navy", and parts of the Navy don't count as "haze gray and underway".  The McKellar, Bob (1996) reference says that aircraft carriers don't count, because "Real ships ... don't allow airplanes to play on the roof!" But I've seen two edits by anonymous editors which seem to say that aircraft carriers do count as "Haze gray and underway". Rather than delete the reference to aircraft carriers, can we add a paragraph which cites some reliable sources that talk about carriers as "haze gray and underway"?  Note that I'm not a subject expert, and these editors are probably more expert than me. I'm just trying to get this article to tell the story of this phrase as its really used, and to follow Wikipedia policy about attribution to reliable sources. --Jdlh  | Talk 17:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft carriers not part of "haze gray and underway"? 

message: While most mailing lists are questionable, this one is (and was) a moderated group with a very low noise level tolerated.  The citation is part of a lengthy discussion involving multiple posters, several of whom confirmed the statement that it referred to the colour of exhaust gasses at optimum efficiency.  For the purpose of identifying the usage of a common sailor's expression, I can think of few more appropriate sources.  Deletion should be discussed, not summarily done.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per policy, these are not acceptable. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). Also, please see the Derek Smart arbitration case, where the committee clearly took the stance that newsgroups are not verifiable. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you're not familiar with the way it works, what you need to do to include that is find a reliable source (such as a reliable website, or print document) that either says the same thing, or that discusses the newsgroup findings specifically on this topic, and then it will be acceptable. However, just because it was on a mailing list does not make it ok, since there is no REAL way to  judge the reliability of the posts on the the list, the identities of the authors, or the truthfulness of the information. That's why Wikipedia prefers fact checked reliable sources for information like this, especially given the terrible rep that newsgroups have as being the breeding ground for conspiracy theorists, false information, and troll memes. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) but found nothing applicable to the above discussion.  Perhaps I'm just not getting it.  Can you quote the relevant bit please?  I'm not even completely sure what makes the statement controversial enough to require referencing at all.  LeadSongDog (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: News groups are "self published sources". Per the relevant bits: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations." From WP:NOR "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability for exceptions." Newsgroups are not an exception allowed on WP:V. From WP:RS  "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.
The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it."
Most importantly, from Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, "Are USENET postings reliable sources?
Posts on USENET are rarely regarded as reliable sources, because they are easily forged or misrepresented, and many are anonymous or pseudonymous.
One exception is that some authorities on certain topics have written extensively on USENET, and their writings there are vouched for by them or by other reliable sources. A canonical example is J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of the television series Babylon 5, who discussed the show at length on Usenet. His postings are archived and authenticated on his website, and may be an acceptable source on the topic of Babylon 5 under the self-publication provision of WP:ATT." and "Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence."  and "Usenet is typically only a reliable source with respect to specific FAQs, specific usenet administration groups (when discussing usenet administration), or when discussing persons who have become well known through their usenet activity. (such as, for instance Kibo)".
The usenet post in question does not seem to meet any of the exceptions for allowing USENET posts. It's not an issue anymore, since it looks like the changes you made recently include legit sources. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that pretty much lays it out.  Some of the arguments are not valid, but I won't dispute the basic point that the discussion was held. Usenet posts are routinely archived on google and topica, so the assured persistence shouldn't be an issue.  Authenticate attribution is the tough nut to crack, so you can't quote the post even if you can cite it.  Guess I'll just let the nice pooch snooze. LeadSongDog (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability of news:sci.military.naval

message: The National Geographic ought count to establish notability of the website.  
See also The History Highway 3.0: A Guide to Internet Resources By Dennis A. Trinkle, Scott A. Merriman, Published 2002, M.E. Sharpe, page 413,  
The US Navy Freedom of Information Act website also regards hazegray.org as notable. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a defunct website. It doesn't belong here. This is the article for the term, not for the website.SpartanPhalanx (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The website was working just fine as of 17 Jan 2008, it's not defunct.  It was previously alleged to be orphaned, but a check at www.archive.org shows that it has been updated within the past year (archive.org doesn't show changes newer than six months for any site).  A wikipedia search shows it has been used 142 times in articles.  A wikiwix search shows 208 times.  If you think the discussion of the website belongs in a different article, the mechanism for doing that starts with the  tag.  Otherwise we have chaos.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't belong on here at all because it fails WP:WEB, specifically the WP:NOT segment for "Internet Guides". SpartanPhalanx (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It also fails the requirements at  which state that to be noted on Wikipedia, a website should have a Google PageRank of 8 or above. HazeGrey.org only has a PageRank of 2. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen anything on how to query google's PageRank, but perhaps if you check it with the correct  spelling for hazegray.org the results would differ.  In any case a google search for "Naval History" returns hazegray.org as the second-highest non-official site (one specific to the RN comes higher).  Further, the "simple rules" at  fall far short of being editorial policy that justify deletion of existing content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see.  To query PageRank, google requires that you install and use their toolbar.  Not an acceptable choice.  Anyhow, I think the Library of Congress research guide is about as good a source as we could ask for to establish notability.  Restoring.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Erm, no. "National Geographic once linked to this website" does not satisfy WP:WEB. Nor does "This site was mentioned in an internet directory.": Indeed, trivial mentions (defined as: "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores") is specifically excluded. Time to remove it. Please do not replace without addressing these points. The Land (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website notability