Talk:USS Columbia (SSN-771)

Untitled
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)
 * "Slave Ship"?! What's that about? SubEWL (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Shooting
First off, "edit warring" is by far an inappropriate accusation for one revert with explanation, followed by additional sourcing. If I accused you of "edit warring" with your two reversions, you'd probably be offended (and very rightly). In the future, please take the prerogative and open a discussion on the talk page yourself. We should tend towards civility and AGF, something evidently not present in your edit note. Second, sources repeatedly associate the shooting with the vessel. The US Navy's own report implicates the shooter's stationing on that submarine as a mental health factor in the shooting and the vessel as a point in the shooting timeline. Unless you can find explicit rationale to delete this information, there are numerous WP:RSs that discuss the shooting in the context of the ship. For examples of somewhat similar inclusions, consider the inclusion of mention for one suicide that occurred during the British invasion of Iceland. Multiple reliable sources attest to it and associate it with the invasion, even if the relationship is not exactly direct. In this instance, sources are far more certain about this shooting being proximate and related to the vessel described in this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Information about a 2019 incident in which a Columbia sailor shot three people has been added with proper citation, removed by an anon editor to "protect the identity of others", readded because "Reason for blanking provided unclear", removed by anon because "Inappropriate", restored ("Rectifying unexplained content removal"), removed ("not about the boat"), restored with another cite added, and removed ("This is not about the boat") with a suggestion to discuss on Talk. So let's talk. (Here's the latest version before its removal: "On 4 December 2019, a 22-year-old sailor stationed on the USS Columbia killed two civilians and wounded another before killing himself during a shooting at the submarine's homeport at the Pearl Harbor naval base. Later investigation by the Navy determined that the shooter, Gabriel Romero, was 'likely unfit' for service on submarines. ") Romero was on Naval Base Pearl Harbor, but not in a location unrelated to the submarine; he was quite literally steps away from it, on guard duty. He had weapons because they were given to him as part of his duties as a Columbia crew member. Moreover, the Navy's investigation found that Romero's chain of command—that is, other senior enlisted and officers who had served and sailed with him aboard Columbia—failed in various ways to communicate and identify the sailor as mentally troubled. So we have a Columbia crew member who was guarding the submarine using the submarine's small arms, thanks to shipmates who had failed to take action. Seems a pretty good case for inclusion in the submarine's article. PRRfan (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Talk about same chain of thought. I was about to post something very similar. Again, I would like to reiterate that "edit warring" is a fairly serious charge and should only be brought up in actual instances of its occurrence. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we could find all kinds of news stories about incidents that involved people that at some point served in the Navy (or Marines), and during that time served aboard a ship or two, but we don't add content about those incidents to those ship's articles if they didn't actually take place aboard any ships, as is the case here. As I stated previously, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam would be the more appropriate article for this, along with perhaps Mass shootings in the United States and United States military veteran suicide. Articles about ships should generally be about the ships*, not incidents involving otherwise non-notable crew that happened "near" the ship (as in not actually aboard). *I didn't just make this up, it has been discussed at wt:ships before. Also, no need to get all riled up about the edit-warring comment, in the future, just follow wp:brd, instead of repeatedly reverting your edit back it. - w o lf  22:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your standard of including that material on other articles but not this one is arbitrary at best and, again, unsupported when compared to the standards of inclusion established on this website in both guidelines and precedence. Once again, you also don't hold yourself to the same standards as others—instead of repeatedly reverting your edit back, you could have opened this talk. And there is every reason to be riled up: you are an experienced editor and should absolutely know better. As it stands right now, two editors disagree with you on grounds we can support, but you refer to previous conversations without links nor specifics. Barring any reasonable defense for the exclusion of reliably sourced information presented in the context of the topic of the article, the material will be reinserted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, since responding editor failed to ping anyone, the above is the reverting editor's response. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear your argument that because the sailor was a relative nobody who wasn't standing on the deckplates at the time, the incident shouldn't be part of the ship's article. But "people that at some point served in the Navy (or Marines), and during that time served aboard a ship or two" is not a useful way to describe Romero, a ship's guard on ship's duty armed with ship's weapons. Sadly, the incident is quite directly tied to the ship—a conclusion espoused by the Navy itself, whose investigation concluded that the shooting was inextricably linked to shipboard events and actions that took place over the course of months. If you prefer phrasing that makes it more explicitly about the ship, we could start this passage by saying, "In 2019, some of Columbia's officers and senior enlisted sailors failed to coordinate action on a troubled junior shipmate before he shot three civilians and himself while on duty, according to a Navy investigation into the murder-suicide." PRRfan (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Prbritti, both you and PRRfan have already posted here, so pinging either of you (the way you keep pinging me) seems needless. You're already engaged in this discussion and it should be on your watchlist, as it is on mine. (and pinging anyone else could be construed as canvassing). In short, further pings are not necessary, imo. And you repeatedly mentioning who should've done what, and being upset about the edit warring comment is a needless thread derail. You added content. It was removed. You then should've gone to the talk page as the WP:ONUS is the editor seeking to include content. So with that, I think we should just move forward, and avoid any circular debates. I specifically mentioned WT:SHIPS, if you doubt what I stated previously, we could always take the discussion there and seek further input. I'd be fine with that. @PRRfan, you do bring up some good points, (that are thankfully on topic) that under other circumstances, would make for a good argument for inclusion. But, as you may notice, the history of this particular boat is sadly lacking. Twenty-seven years in service and not a single entry. Adding just this entry would be extremely undue as far as weight goes. This is another reason I mentioned the three other related articles as possible pages to note this incident on (there could even be more). Yet both you of you failed to even acknowledge any of those articles. There is a potential resolution there. - w o lf  06:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By all means, contribute more to the history of this vessel. But in my trying to add something relevant to the history section—especially something with many reliable sources available—it was deleted. You argued it wasn't relevant at all until just now, changing your stance to it being an example of undue weight (which, on here, typically refers to issues of source balancing rather than importance of material). In any case, the fact that this is among the most discussed incidents in the ship's career alone justifies it for inclusion, especially inclusion in a nascent history section. As an addendum, if you are so interested in this incident being included on those other articles, your own logic dictates that you should be the one who adds it there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be noted that you contributed uncited material this page about other vessels, so I am at a loss for why you want to avoid including the shooting when it is sourced and more relevant than a WP:SYNTHed factoid (cool as it is). ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oy... this is just the kind of disingenuous nonsense I was referring to in my post below. Please. Stay. On. Topic. Thank you - w o lf 08:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti - And again you ping me. If I hadn't made it clear enough in my last post; pinging me is not necessary. As an active participant in this discussion, the page is on my watchlist. So please... stop pinging me, thank you. Additonally, splitting this "discussion" off to my talk page with needless, concdescending, baiting comments was entirely needless. I would prefer that you stay on this page, and try to stay on topic. I had asked that you discontinue edit warring, which you took umbrage with, and I've already responded to that. I will again ask that that you stay on topic and discuss the issue at hand, instead of continually focusing your hostility on me with these accusations and mischaracterizations of my edits and comments. Can we please just stay on topic and try to work towards a resolution to this content dispute? I think that would be best, thank you. - w o lf  08:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thewolfchild: I acknowledge that this incident could be mentioned on other pages; I argue that it belongs on this ship's page. You are certainly correct that this article ought to have more about the sub's history, and so I have added what I can find. (Subs being the "Silent Service", there's going to be a dearth of publicly available info; this page is never going to be as long as, say, a typical surface warship's.) Would you prefer to start a passage about the incident along the lines of "On 4 December 2019, a Columbia sailor on guard duty killed two shipyard civilians and himself..." or "In 2019, some of Columbia's officers and senior enlisted sailors failed to coordinate action on a troubled junior shipmate..."? PRRfan (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @PRRfan, thank you for going to the effort of adding some deployment history to the article, it certianly helps. If the shooting incident if added, then at least it won't represent the sum total of the boat's history. I made some minor copy edits, the only one of significance being the list of commanders (see WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS). If any of her CO's were notable, or had contributed to a notable event in the boat's history, I would've relocated them and/or the event chronologically to the prose of the service history. If you aware of any such notable COs or events, please do add them, the more the better. As for this event, I don't think it belongs, but I alone don't have the say and don't wish to belabor this any further. I wish there were more editors taking part in this discussion, but c'est la vie. So again, if this incident must be added, then I would go with your first suggestion of: "On 4 December 2019, a Columbia sailor on guard duty killed two shipyard civilians and himself...", keeping it brief so as not to overwhelm the boat's history, but again, I would prefer to see it added to the base article instead. If anything, mention of this incident definitely belongs there. That said, thanks again for all your efforts here. Cheers - w o lf  18:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the expansion. Regardless, the graveness of this incident and its relative significance in sourcing suggests that a subheading on the article might be appropriate. My proposal for the text is as follows:
 * "On 4 December 2019, while the Columbia was in dry dock, 22 year-old Machinist Mate Auxiliary Fireman Gabriel Romero shot and killed two civilian employees and injured another before shooting and killing himself. Romero had been assigned to the Columbia and been assigned to the armed Topside Roving Patrol aboard the vessel; both two weapons involved in the shooting were issued from the Columbia. Later investigation by the Navy determined that Romero was "likely unfit" for service on a submarine and that officers aboard the Columbia had failed to recognize signs of Romero's degrading mental state.
 * I hope that a comprehensive addition such as this further emphasizes the importance the vessel and her crew played in this incident in order to prevent IPs from misunderstanding and deleting in the future, as was a problem previously. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How about: "On 4 December 2019, while the Columbia was in dry dock, a crew member on guard duty shot and killed two civilian employees and injured another before shooting and killing himself. Machinist's Mate Auxiliary Fireman Gabriel Romero, 22, used duty weapons issued to him as a member of the submarine's Topside Roving Patrol. Later investigation by the Navy determined that Romero was "likely unfit" for service on a submarine and that officers and senior enlisted sailors aboard the Columbia had failed to recognize and coordinate action on his deteriorating mental state." PRRfan (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks great! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Added. Thanks, all. PRRfan (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Original research
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)
 * 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. - w o lf  11:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "Recalling your last dispute on this article..." - I will again request that you focus on edits, not editors. Personal snubs like this are needless and accomplish little. - w o lf  05:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

Both of you seem to misunderstand the sources. The overlap has already occurred via the keel-laying. While somewhat goofy—and perhaps overly circumspect of the Navy—the renaming has nothing to do with an overlap of commission (something neither source even comments on). Neither source "explicitly" says anything other than they don't want two Columbias on the books, irrespective of whether there is even any openness to overlapping commission. Anything more is inserting one's open interpretation onto the sources and this constitutes WP:NOR in of itself, long before one even delves into the unsourced addition of the aside about ship ages. Sorry about the pinging on this comment alone; uncertain if both have this on your watchlists right now. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Yeah, still disagree with that. There is absolutely no need for this excessive synthesis; a reader can comprehend the idea that a boat might be in service at the same time as another without a synthesized claim about a specific age that it might achieve in service. We're at an impasse, I won't comment on the matter further, but I appreciate the new sourced passage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. - w o lf  05:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)