Talk:Action of 3 June 2007

Untitled
I dont think this article and combined task force 150 should be merged, combined task force 150 should be an article regarding a military unit and this article should consist of information about an action fought by that unit, consider the differnces between the articles for the US First Army division and the Battle of the Bulge Unsigned comment by User:67.84.178.107 16:23, 9 July 2007


 * With respect, I don't think that either this or the Action of March 18 2006 can be compared with the Battle of the Bulge. The Combined Task Force 150 already contains details of several similar actions like this so adding two more is a logical next step. Neither this nor the Action of March 18 2006 are capable of much expansion and combining them avoids duplicating intro material etc. R OGER   TALK 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Roger. This is in no way comparable with the Battle of the Bulge. This would be better placed as part of CTF-150, as well as a mention in the War in Somalia article Chwyatt 09:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a better comparison would be with the article in the somali civil war campaign box Fall of Kismayo, just because an article is small does not mean that it should be considered for deletion. Also the article combined task force 150 does not contain any information about actual combat. At the very least i think that the article Action of March 18 2006 be retained because of its historical importance of being the first naval action fought by the united states during the 21st century. XavierGreen

Pirate flag?
Isn’t that a little silly, unless those Somali vessels were flying the Jolly Roger. Chwyatt 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the pirate flag here?
Unless there is evidence that 21st century Somali ‘pirates’ are flying 18th century English pirate flags, I cannot see a reason to add that flag. And if those 21st century Somali ‘pirates’ are not flying a flag, why add a flag that is nothing to do with them? There is no official pirate flag.


 * Further reasons not to have the ‘pirate flag’


 * The popular image of pirates, which the Jolly Roger represents, in the popular imagination, is nothing like the reality of pirates operating of the African coast in the 21st century. The only reason as some have said for having Jolly Roger is that it represents pirates. But modern piracy is a world apart from the popular myths or reality of 18th century piracy.


 * Further, two different pirate flags have appeared at different times, so there is no single common pirate flag. And no ‘official generic pirate flag’.


 * It has been said that Islamic terrorists don’t fly the flag of jihad. If that is the case, then that is a reason not to have the flag of jihad.


 * It simply isn’t encyclopaedic. Chwyatt (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The pirate flag is there because the Jolly Roger is known throughout the world as the symbol of piracy. Most pirates back a few hundred years ago did not fly the Jolly Roger just as pirates do not now. Either way the Jolly roger is known to symbolize pirates and that is why it is here, that is also why the most commen form of the Jolly Roger is used in these articles. Am I going to have to write this on every page with the pirate flag?--Az81964444 (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

rename
I have renamed this article to its proper U.S. Navy name. Ss this arlticle is clearly associated with the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Navy name of the battle should be used as the title. Unless the actual operation name is found. (if there is one in the first place) I am sure someone would agree, Xavier Green, whats your thoughts?--Az81964444 (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the Action of (insert Date) since that is the convention used for every other naval action without a name on wikipedia. I'm sure many of the military history folks would agree as well.XavierGreen (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks XavierGreen for your input.:>)--Az81964444 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Action of 3 June 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422014620/http://www.netmarine.net:80/bat/fregates/lamotte/histoire02.htm to http://www.netmarine.net/bat/fregates/lamotte/histoire02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Action of 3 June 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010111047/http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/articles/2007/172.html to http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/articles/2007/172.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)