Talk:Sturgeon-class submarine

January 2004
The Narwhal was NOT a sturgeon class submsrine, nor was it an S5W propulsion plant; it was a one-of-a-kind ship with an S5G propulsion plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.247.241.20 (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. All of the descriptions of Narwhal in this article are factually incorrect, in fact grossly so. The Glenard P. Lipscomb was based on the Sturgeon-class, aside from the engineering space, and she had the same beam. Narwhal was totally different internally, and had a beam 6 feet larger than the Sturgeon-class. The sail location was different, the ballast tank arrangements were different, the only commonality was with the electronics suite. Narwhal should be mentioned here only to correct the misconceptions in this article.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You do realize you're replying to a post from 2004, made by an ip-user that hasn't posted since 2010? I only mention it in case you're expecting a reply... - wolf  04:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see I got a reply from the person I was expecting, even if it was not to the subject. Now that you have replied, could you engage the issue? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For what purpose? From what I can see, the "issue" described above has already been addressed. See: USS Narwhal (SSN-671) - wolf  16:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The text on the Narwhal article "very little of her design was based on the contemporary Sturgeon-class submarine. Her power plant, engine room, and forward compartment layout were unlike any other U.S. submarine" is in direct opposition to the text in this article (e.g., "Several Sturgeon boats and related submarines were modifications of the original designs to test ways to reduce noise[:] Narwhal...", and "Two other Navy vessels, both considered one-ship classes, were based on the Sturgeon hull, but were modified for experimental reasons: Narwhal..."). There is no way to sugar-coat it: Narwhal was not related to nor based on the Sturgeon-class, and therefore this article is in error. Citable resources such as Friedman agree. The only truth here is that Narwhal's design and construction was contemporary to the Sturgeon-class, in the same way that Tullibee and Thresher were contemporaries. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, are you proposing changes to this, and possibly the USS Narwhal (SSN-671) page as well? What changes are you considering? And with what refs? (I'm just asking out of curiosity, it's not as if you need my permission to edit). - wolf  04:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm making such a proposal. I do not want these proposed changes to surprise anyone. I would like to get some concurrence on this. BTW, nearly every pre-1970 reference calls Narwhal a Sturgeon (I spent the day on the USNI web site looking them up), while the best later references all say she wasn't. I suspect this pre-1970 documentation was half disinformation and half oversimplification, but it is still quoted. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, WP is governed by sources, we go by what they say. If you find there is conflicting info in the reliable sources on a topic, then see if you can present a rational explanation for the conflicts. (jmho) - wolf  04:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I will give it a go. I just am concerned that the line between 'rational explanation' and 'original research' is very thin in this case. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I recommend that the Narwhal section be deleted or reduced to a single sentence (something like "The Narwhal was developed at the same time as the Sturgeon class and was broadly similar to the Sturgeon-class forward of the reactor compartment, but was a separate design incorporating..."). The idea that her mistaken identity was due to deliberate obfuscation is not correct.  Here is a Navy press release on the Narwhal dated 28 July 1964: https://i.imgur.com/WnLJSed.jpg.  Note the line "a nuclear powered attack submarine of new design."  In any case, you can use Hanlon's razor. Vepr157 (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be kept for the very reasons you seem to take issue with it, in that it explains how Narwhal was considered a Sturgeon-class at one point, but now that thinking has changed. Encyclopaedic and instructive are not mutually exclusive. - w o lf  23:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point. In any case, I have revised the paragraph to remove the mention of SCB 188M (almost certainly an erroneous number; it does not appear in the Bureau of Ships files at the National Archives) and the unfounded speculation about disinformation. Vepr157 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sturgeon class as Spy Ships
I was wondering if anyone had any info on the "Holystone" modification some subs of this class had and exactly what it entailed system-wise.Lastcharlie 16:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo
The photo in this article appears to be USS Richard B. Russell (SSN-687), not USS Sturgeon as indicated in the caption.76.166.178.78 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced content
- you added content without a reliable source attached, (per WP:CITE). You then re-added the same content, again unsourced. There are several problems with that; first editors are expected to follow a process known as WP:BRD: you "B"oldly made an edit, it was "R"everted, if you disagree, you then "D"iscuss it on the talk page. Instead, you just reverted again. That is the first step in what is known as edit warring. That's not allowed. Additionally, when you reverted, you added the edit summary: "I served on the Batfish for over 3 years, performed maintenance on and took logs from the conditioners during that time, how do I cite that as a source?" As you were already advised, that is known as original research. It's not permitted. All content on Wikipedia must be sourced. I don't doubt you served in the Sub Service, but we can't just accept unconfirmed content from anonymous editors, surely you understand that? Additionally, there is a potential Conflict of Interest issue here. You are personally invested in this material and this article, which along with the sourcing issue is precisely why we have a COI policy. You should declare on the talk page your connection to the article and the content you wish to add. If you find sources, great. If not, request help and a more experienced editor will assist you. You can use either the Help me or Edit request templates. If you need any further assistance, consult the notices of your talk page or contact the Help Desk. - wolf  16:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC) You have again added the same unsourced content, this time with the edit summary: "My DD-214 showing the dates of my service and that my NEC 3354 was for a nuke EM are registered with the Wake County NC clerk of court. Does wiki not currently have a means for someone with my documented experience on this sub and with these power conditioners to make an edit?".

There are a couple issues here. First, content issues are not discussed via back and forth edit summaries, while said content is continuously re-added and removed. That is what talk pages are for. Second, the same sourcing policy applies. The onus is on you to find and attach appropriate sources to content. Preferably WP:SECONDARY sources, but WP:PRIMARY ones will do in some cases. If you want to edit articles on Wikipedia, you need to read and understand the relevant policies & guidelines, specifically in regards to sourcing, but also the basics of editing (all this and more is found in the "Welcome" message at the top of your user talk page). You can't just repeatedly add the same unsourced content, claim it's factual because of your personal experience, and then expect others to go out and verify your work history to support said content. That's just not how it's done. (And also on that note, again see Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline.) Please read the linked pages for more information, and if you have any additional questions, you contact the Help Desk. Thank you - wolf  15:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't make many edits on wiki and clearly I am ignorant of a fair amount of the guidelines, I appreciate the info. As a novice wiki user I can say some of what seems obvious to experienced users may not be to others ( ...something to keep in mind ).  Originally the talk section was not obvious to me and I missed it.  As I get time I will do some reading and address the issues you've raised hopefully.  It's probably reasonable to classify me or any other nuke that served multi-year tours on that particular boat as experts to a degree, at least in terms of configuration, maintenance, and operations, I'll look into how that translates to being a source and possible ways to cite our particular experiences correctly. Now that I'm aware of this "talk" location I'll use it.  I'm guessing having trained nukes from these boats make edits would be advantageous for wiki users, I can reach out to others about possibly making edits here and on every other Sturgeon class submarine.  Fellow NNPS graduates that went on to other submarine classes and surface plants can look into those as well.  Thank you. -  Reactorred  26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * In terms of Conflict of Interest, how should a wiki article get information about the submarine? I'm not sure how stating the physical configuration of a mechanism onboard a submarine has a COI issue in this case.  The guidelines reference common sense, for this case a simple statement that power conditioners were on Batfish seems to have no COI issue by common sense measures Conflict of Interest External Ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.84.26 (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it helps to have people who are familiar with the topics they edit, expert or otherwise, but all changes to articles need to be supported by reliable sources. There is no exception to that. In regards to to COI guidelines, in that you identified as US Navy personnel and are editing US Navy articles, based on your experience in the Navy, I thought it prudent to make you aware of the guideline. I'm not suggesting that you can't edit these pages, just that you read and understand the guideline. Again, common sense is important on Wikipedia, but sourcing is mandatory. -  wolf  20:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I agree all changes need reliable sources, a given I think, if that is not clear so far I'll attempt to make it so going forward. Are sources limited to internet accessible sources only?  For that matter, if there is a record of my service on this boat, does that form a basis of believing what I state.  Technically anyone that was on the boat could lie or just unintentionally be wrong about something.  COI understood and most likely not applicable in this case honestly.  I'll read as much of the guidelines as practical, but realistically I don't have time to devote to this fully, if making a statement of about a power conditioner unit located AMR2LL of the Batfish requires too much work then I might just let wiki go on without the benefit of that info.  I totally understand the need for enforcing accuracy and authentication of sources, I deal with authentication and authorization as a software engineer often enough, but it may benefit wiki to come up with ways to aid in verifying sources of this nature.  I wonder what would happen if Buzz Aldrin added to the Apollo 11 article :)  The 4 tilde thing is such a hack...  Reactorred (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the rules, I just check changes made to articles on my watchlist to make sure they comply with the guidelines. When changes are made by new users and there is an issue, I try to let them know let them know what the issue is, what guidelines apply and give them some general info (such as 'welcome' templates, etc.) If Buzz wanted to edit any articles, he'd have to follow the rules, just like everyone else, and if he wanted to edit an Apollo article, or any page related to him, he'd need to be (or at least should be) made aware of the COI guidelines as well. -  wolf  14:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note originally I read the article and saw "Batfish was outfitted with SHT (special hull treatment) during a non-refueling overhaul, which reduced noise and the submarine sonar profile."... so I thought why not add that Batfish had the power conditioners like Puffer did, seemed logical. This all brings up the question - where in this article is it cited that Batfish had SHT ( which it did by the way ) or that Puffer had power conditioners itself?  Shouldn't those statements be removed as well? Reactorred (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Any content that is not supported by sourcing can be removed, or at least on discovery should be tagged as "citation needed", which will hopefully encourage someone to either source it or remove it if it is not correct. -  wolf  14:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)