Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)/Archive 1

The Senator
I know that John S. McCain Sr. is the father of the Republican senator from Arizona. I also know that it is very rare for a ship of the fleet to be named for a living person. However, as he was a prisoner of war for over five years, could the ship also be named for him by any chance? Thanks. (USMA2010 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC))
 * The current Senator is John S. McCain III, and he only attained the rank of Captain before leaving the Navy. McCain Sr. was his grandfather, and McCain Jr. was his father.  I find it unlikely (though possible, I suppose) that this ship was named for him at all, especially since his grandfather earlier had another ship named for him alone.  Though the next USS John S. McCain, who knows...  --Xyzzyva 11:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The ship was named after JSM Senior and Junior, not Senator McCain. Portraits of both elder McCains hang in the ship's wardroom. (Sonlee 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC))
 * how can a ship be named after two people with the same name? either one or the other it can't be both riffic (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? There's a college at Yale named after two Timothy Dwights, father and son, who were both Presidents of Yale. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should research the ship USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguy73 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mary Kate & Ashley US Navy Adventure worth Mentioning?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrbU__EcNYY&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLD72CADDE471C7E27 Is this worth mentioning in the article? This crappy kids film was filmed on the USS JOHN S MCCAIN.

65.50.17.6 (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)John65.50.17.6 (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110323003053/http://www.seawaves.com:80/japan2011.asp to http://www.seawaves.com/japan2011.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Second collision since Trump's inauguration
Would it be accurate - or even interesting - to say that this is the second warship collision the Trump administration has suffered? (I'm thinking of the USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision, of course.) What is the annual collision rate for the US Navy? (And is Trump's rate any higher or lower than Obama's, Bush's, or Clinton's?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

NO. Utterly irrelevent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.97.226 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed, no relevance Lahaun (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, utterly' irrelevant. Any direct influence a single president would have is likely swamped by quantum noise. As to any "annual collision rate": most years it is zero, and this year's two cases are such thin data as to be statistically meaningless. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Three if you include USS Lake Champlain (CG-57) vs a fishing boat, four with USS Antietam (CG-54) parked on the bottom of Tokyo Bay. Still utterly irrelevant to Trump. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll grant you three collisions. (Same result.) But running aground? Both could be errors of navigation, but of a totally different kind. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Collision
So it was the McCain that was at fault? The article doesn't actually say so, nor specify what the action was that caused the collision. nor what it should have been instead. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No one, and I suspect that includes the US Navy, knows for certain yet. She appears to have lost, then regained steering but how and why will be the task of the enquiry.  The point of impact was on the port, so the navy ship would appear to be the "stand on" vessel and the tanker the "give way" (rule 15 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea).  Notwithstanding that, Rule 17 requires the stand on vessel to take action if the other is not.  However this only applies to a simple situation, without knowing the courses prior to impact, sound signals emitted and radio traffic no-one can say with any degree of certainty.  The tanker doesn't appear to be a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre or a vessel constrained by her draught (Rules 3 and 18) but again, without access to the run-up and detailed charts we can't tell at this stage.   HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Right. It's way too early to say who was ultimately at fault; we just don't have the full story yet. There is a (yet unsubstantiated?) story the McCain had a "steering malfunction", which would certainly be a major factor, but I haven't seen confirmation of that yet.


 * By the way, I removed the bit about the Navy "looking into the possibility" of a cyber attack. That is extremely speculative, and (as far as I have seen to date) has absolutely no evidence. Someone (I forget who) mentioned it, the admiral, perhaps feeling compelled to respond, said only that they "haven't ruled out the possibility". (Or something like that. Close enough.) Well, hey, at this point they haven't ruled out anything, including space aliens. Plucking that out of the rest of the CBN story is cherry picking, and not even accurate. So far that is unfounded just salacious titillation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The collision was reported to be east of Singapore, but was it in the Singapore Traffic Separation Scheme and subject to its rules?
 * I'm not aware that the exact coordinates have been released. In any case Rule 10(a) "This Rule applies to traffic separation schemes adopted by the Organization and does not relieve any vessel of her obligation under any other Rule."  Furthermore, whilst 10(e) prohibits a vessel from entering "a separation zone or cross a separation line" it continues "except: (i) in cases of emergency to avoid immediate danger;".  If the navy ship was crossing the TSS then nothing in rule 10 either imposes or relieves either ship of compliance with the usual rules.  To quote "JJ" above: "It's way too early to say who was ultimately at fault; we just don't have the full story yet."  Possibly frustrating but at least with an international incident you can be sure the enquiry and report will eventually be published. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Navy has released (yesterday) their "Memorandum for Distribution" from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Department of the Navy, dated 23 October, covering both the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions. And it is not looking good for the Navy: some pretty egregious failures. See it here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Details of the so-called "loss of steering"
Oh my. That's my summary of the the McCain's collision. And yes, there was a problem with the steering system. Not any kind of cyber attack, just system complexity (and lack of training) reminiscent of "The Wizards of Pung's Corners". Following are the essential details, from the Navy's report.

At 05:19 in the morning, as the McCain was about to enter the Singapore Strait Traffic Separation lanes, the CO "noticed the Helmsman was struggling to maintain course while simultaneously adjusting throttles. The CO ordered steering control separated from propulsion control." Here it should be noted steering) and speed are controlled from a large console on the bridge with several computer screens. The helmsman had been controlling both; now the lee helmsman had (nominally) control of speed. However, the propulsion systems had previously been shifted into "split plant", where the port and starboard shafts are driven independently of each other, and no one realized that lee helm had control only of the port (left side) shaft/propeller. The shift in helm caused the rudder to move amidships (not steering to the right or the left).

At 05:21 the helmsman reported a loss of steering. This while the McCain's engines were ahead full, making 20 knots, and turning slightly to port (left) due to currents. The Alnic was about 600 yards to to port, and slightly ahead of the McCain, but moving at only 9.6 knots. At 05:21 the order was given to shift steering to "After Steering", a backup control station near the stern of the ship. At this point the CO ordered the speed reduced to 10 knots, and then to 5 knots. However, because of misconfiguration only the port shaft was slowed; the starboard continued to push ahead, turning the ship to port.

Then come some interesting operator synergistic effects. The helmsman on the bridge managed to get control of steering in "Backup Manual" mode, only to have the Aft helmsman (probably wondering "wtf???") retake control at 05:23:27. An order of "right rudder" then checked the McCain's left turn, but by then it was directly ahead of the Alnic, which impacted at 05:23:58.

A veritable farce (and that was only the highlights), arising from a simple task of splitting helm and lee helm. As summarized on page 47:

Yeah, like "we never lost control, we just couldn't find it".

I'm going to let you all figure out how to put that into the article. While this left-hind leg is starting to wag the dog, it does seem to be the most notable aspect of the McCain. The story itself is an interesting object lesson, and might eventually warrant its own article. But not yet, as so far there is only this one source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've made a start but am off to bed (UK time). Will continue at lunch time if no-one else has done it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC) ✅ Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Loss of steering" as an epistemological object lesson
"Loss of steering" as an epistemological object lesson

Several days ago I passed by a mention of "multiple reports" of a steering failure on the McCain. On looking into this I see there are, indeed, hundreds of such reports, many from ostensibly reliable sources. But it appears they all are just repeating (with variation) a single report from CNN on 21 August that cited an unidentified "Navy official" that the McCain "did lose steering power right before the collision ...."

That is a single, anonymous, and unsubstantiated report, hardly worth mentioning, and repeating it a thousand times would not improve it. I point this out as a caution against believing what "everyone says", and underlining why we should always look for the original source, not the echoes.

There may have been a steering failure, but we have no reliable reports of such, despite the contrarian cacophony. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that the phrasing in the article makes it clear that CNN (usually reliable) is quoting 'an unnamed "Navy Official"' and that even CNN wondered "why the crew couldn't use the ship's backup steering systems". Repetition does not come into it, a reliable secondary source mentions it and it is reported as a direct quotation.  Many journalists have "off the record" sources which are knowledgeable and reliable; until CNN retracts the claim or the board of enquiry reports I suggest that we leave it just as it is. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you miss my point. We have one report on this, which is entirely anonymous. The CNN reporter has not indicated why this one officer's comment (and as far as we know it might have been just off-the cuff) has any better information than anyone else; it is an unreliable report as it stands. But my main point is that repetition of this report does NOT make it any more reliable, authoritative, or acceptable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think he missed your point. "Reliable" has a special meaning on WP, as explained at WP:RS. CNN is considered a reliable source for our purposes. We haven't repeated anything, just cited the one CNN report. You may consider this report WP:UNDUE, and we can talk about that. I agree with Martin that we should leave it as is. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of navigation in ship articles
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history relating to this ship and USS William P. Lawrence an possibly other ships not yet identified. The issues in both cases are essentially identical and involve the same two editors in the first instance. I propose a central discussion here with a notification to the other ship's talk page. I intent to copy the discussion to date to here for continuity of an ongoing discussion (up to but not including my last edit there in which I intimated such an action as this might be appropriate. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion to Date
The undertaking of Freedom of navigation missions, and specifically governmental responses to them, has come up on some US warship pages, like USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). Basically, should the wording be something like 'USS Foo sailed within x-nm of Foo reef. The Chinese government expressed "strong dissatisfaction." The US government stated that USS Foo was operating in international waters.' Or should it be simply 'USS Foo sailed within x-nm of Foo reef.' The latter seems insufficient explanation to me about why being within a certain distance of some marine landmark should be particularly significant. And the fact that the warship's actions cause a response at the highest governmental level is relevant to an article on that ship. But I would like some more input from experts. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am no "expert" in this context (or many others) but, I make the following observations. For the proposition:'USS Foo sailed within x-nm of Foo reef. The Chinese government expressed "strong dissatisfaction." The US government stated that USS Foo was operating in international waters.' If the statements: 'The Chinese government expressed "strong dissatisfaction"'; and, "The US government stated that USS Foo was operating in international waters"; are both supported by reliable sources, the statement, of itself, is not in question and is reasonable (and perhaps necessary) to add depth and meaning - as you suggest. With this rider, the catch lies in the preamble and post-amble and how the act and response is dealt with in the article. Are these consistant with WP:NPOV and WP:synthesis? IMHO Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use "freedom of navigation" - as that is POV stmt regarding the dispute (it would have to be prefixed by so called or "termed by" or something). I would go for something like "USS Bar sailed within X-nm of Foo reef, contesting Y's claim of sovereignty". To that you can hang on responses (such as Y's strong dissatisfaction, or US stmts of international waters) and/or operational details (e.g. warned repeatedly by radio, tailed by Y's ships, warning shots, actual shots, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * To give an actual example, see this diff with the wording "In August 2017 John S. McCain sailed past Mischief Reef in the South China Sea. China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction"." or this on USS William P. Lawrence - "On 10 May 2016, it was reported that William P. Lawrence had tested the People's Republic of China's claim to Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea by navigating within 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) of it, provoking the PRC's official "dissatisfaction and opposition"." (Both are cited in the article with references such as http://www.news.com.au/world/china-protests-challenges-us-warship-near-its-artificial-islands/news-story/43784e65f8ab6461cbfad7d5a748775e . In both cases the parts such as "China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction" and "provoking the PRC's official "dissatisfaction and opposition" were removed as not being relevant to the article. I consider them to be relevant and actually necessary to the context, per the reasoning above. In the example of the John S. McCain article, this leaves it with the rather bare statement "In August 2017 John S. McCain sailed past Mischief Reef in the South China Sea." without any clue as to why navigating past this feature is any more significant than any other feature the ship has ever sailed past. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add "contesting PRC's claim of sovereignty" (and not testing - this is not an actual test, as an alleged sovereign may choose not to exercise his alleged right to shoot). The PRC's counter-response to the mission is relevant in my eyes, but could be summarized in this case as "The PRC protested via diplomatic channels".Icewhiz (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a ship person but it seems to me that there has to be something special about navigating within 12 nm of anywhere to be worth noting in anything but the ship's log, let alone a wikipedia article. It is the political context which makes this notable, so should be referenced. Monstrelet (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For 12nm see Territorial waters - that the sole significance (obviously shoals and depth are an issue close to features, but often not an issue 12nm out and sometimes much farther out (South China Sea in particular has various shoals, rocks, and reefs in various spots)).Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps we can find consensus for an addition along these lines, for example 82.39.49.182 (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)"'In August 2017 John S. McCain sailed within 6 nautical miles of Mischief Reef in the South China Sea, as part of the United States' 'Freedom of Navigation' program. China expressed its 'strong dissatisfaction'. A US Navy representative reported that a Chinese frigate had sent at least ten radio messages warning that the John S. McCain was in Chinese waters, to which the US replied that the warship was 'conducting routine operations in international waters.'"

With regard to this issue, has been persistently removing information on the reactions to such operations, with the argument that "the article is about the ship and what it/was doing not the reaction of another government to it" - latest edits here and here. At least three users have been adding the mention in various forms, but since I am one of them, I would rather some other eyes looked into this, performed any necessary reverts, and perhaps informed Wingwraith that these edits are now becoming disruptive? 82.39.49.182 (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The edits reverted are with the summary: "the article is about the ship and what it/was doing not the reactions of another government to it". I would disagree to the extent that the consequences of the ship's actions are of as much significance as the actual actions - be they political or military. The sinking of one ship by another can have ramifications beyond the "simple" act of the action that are noteworthy. The sinking of the Bismark comes to mind. It is then a matter of weight and POV - provided that the weight is not undue (ie it does not shift the focus unduly away from the primary subject) and it is presented neutrally, I would consider that the material should be retained and, at face value, these conditions have been met. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and at the moment, while not in breach of WP:3RR - the user does not edit that frequently - Wingwraith is certainly editing warring about this issue on articles like USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and USS William P. Lawrence. I would revert and warn myself, but since I am one of the involved editors, I would ask some members of Milhist to enforce the consensus here. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus regarding article content is reached on the article's talk page. The discussion here is longer than those at the talk pages of Freedom of navigation (none), USS John S. McCain (about half this), and USS William P. Lawrence (none). Also, asking others to revert for you is about as non-neutral as a request can get. Primergrey (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to write about the state reaction(s) to the FONOPS, there are other articles (Freedom of navigation, Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, etc) where it'd be more appropriate to include that kind of material. Amalgamating them with a description of the ships' operations when each and every item of the ships' operational histories hasn't been described in that way on their respective articles before isn't and in any case just has this coatracky feel to it. Bear in mind that the controversy is not about the ships' operational activities, but the overarching US foreign policy objectives in the SCS which govern their content, character and nature. Wingwraith (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion
I would observe that the revert in the case of the McCain has left the article in an unsatisfactory state since it has removed the context for the action having occurred such that the reason for including the mention of the event appears meaningless. In the case of the USS William P. Lawrence, the reverts have left the article in a better condition. If I have this right, the consequences of the actions in each case have been stated in a single sentence. As I understand it, coat-racking is a matter of "undue weight". To quote from WP:COAT: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." I have suggested that the consequences of the act are of some significance to the article and, a single sentence of relevance to the subject article does not unduly shift the focus of the article. IMHO Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that this should go back in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I also agree. ✅ Davemck (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Kendall-K1 and @Davemck, this is a centralised discussion that also relates to a near identical issue wrt USS William P. Lawrence. It would be useful to make your views clear and explicit in this broader context. Do you also agree that the material there should go back too? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I see there has already been a partial removal of material and a source citation. I have reverted this. I suggest we leave the material as-is until we arrive at consensus on the wording. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted you back. It's just too obvious that I'm in the right - which is also why I didn't explain my initial edits here. I revised this article in the same way that I revised the Lawrence article which lead the OP to say that "In the case of the USS William P. Lawrence, the reverts have left the article in a better condition" so unless there's something specific about that which you object to then there's no reason why your reversion should stay. It should also be noted that, as per my argument in the preceding sub-category, none of the ships' operational activities that have been documented in this article has been described in a way that includes a state reaction so I don't see why an exception has to be made for this particular operation that the ship undertook. Unless there's something legitimate that you are trying to prove with your reverts, this really is just a storm in a teacup. Wingwraith (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To say something is "not as bad" is not the same as saying it is good. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They're evidently good enough to you because you haven't reverted them. Wingwraith (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not done so because I believe it would be inappropriate to replicate such behavior at this juncture. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why the wait? Why don't we just debate whatever it is that we need to debate "at this juncture" and get it over with already? Wingwraith (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Wingwraith's reasoning that this article is solely about the ship, not China's reaction, seems to me rather absurd (his "it's just too obvious that I'm in the right" is an alarm bell). Warships' raison d'être is as instruments of foreign policy, and that would reasonably include both their activities and foreign governments' reactions to them. Certainly the issues could be treated at greater length elsewhere, but a sentence or two here with a wikilink to the fuller article is entirely appropriate. In any case, the consensus for including mention of China's reaction seems pretty clear by now: numerous editors vs. one. And if Wingwraith persists in edit warring, WP has well-developed procedures to deal with that. Davemck (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not my reasoning which, as you unwittingly intimate, is just besides the point. The question is the inclusion of state reactions to the ships' operational activities that have been documented in this article - which for good reasons (e.g. WP:COAT) has never been done before and for which neither you nor anybody else in this discussion has provided any good reason to justify this exception to the practice. As I implied in the preceding sub-category, since the state reaction pertain to the FONOPS, it belongs there and not to this article. You say that "Certainly the issues could be treated at greater length elsewhere, but a sentence or two here with a wikilink to the fuller article is entirely appropriate"; in that case, what would you have to object to this edit? Your final point about the consensus is misleading: it was about "the context for the action" not the inclusion of state reactions to the ships' operational activities. Wingwraith (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The post which starts this section (and also mentioned in the previous section) indicates both a lack of context and the appropriateness of mentioning the consequences. @Wingwraith, you acknowledge a consensus wrt context but not consequences yet there is nothing in the consensus that would support your view wrt one but not both - pls see WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Being the case, what do you think would be a reasonable and appropriate response from the community at this juncture in regard to actioning this consensus? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I revised this article in the same way that I revised the Lawrence article which lead you to say that "In the case of the USS William P. Lawrence, the reverts have left the article in a better condition" so unless there's something specific about that which you object to it would just be a waste of time for me (and you) to continue this discussion. Wingwraith (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal
So it looks to me like we have consensus to restore this version:
 * In August 2017, John S. McCain sailed past Mischief Reef in the South China Sea, whose sovereignty is disputed by China, Taiwan, Philippines, and Vietnam. The U.S. considers the ship's course to be permitted by international law, but China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction".

Does anyone other than Wingwraith object to this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how content dispute resolutions work. Wingwraith (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Cinderella157 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I revised this article in the same way that I revised the Lawrence article which lead you to say that "In the case of the USS William P. Lawrence, the reverts have left the article in a better condition" so unless the discrepancy between what you wrote in your OP and your support for this version of the text can be explained, your support for this proposal cannot be valid. Wingwraith (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose (FTR) Wingwraith (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Davemck (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You said that "Certainly the issues could be treated at greater length elsewhere, but a sentence or two here with a wikilink to the fuller article is entirely appropriate"; in that case, what would you have to object to this edit? Wingwraith (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That edit does 3 things:
 * 1) Removes the point that sovereignty is disputed.
 * 2) Removes the point that the U.S. considers its actions lawful & China disapproves.
 * 3) Adds the point about FONOPs.
 * I oppose removing 1) & 2) but support adding 3). In other words, I support all three points being in the article. Davemck (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? If the readers want to know more about the state reaction to the FONOPS and the background information about the sovereignty disputes which gave rise to the program, they can find more about them by clicking on that hyperlink. Amalgamating them with a description of this ship's operations when each and every item of its operational history hasn't been described in that way on the article before isn't and in any case just has this coatracky feel to it. Bear in mind that the controversy is not about the ship's operational activities, but the overarching US foreign policy objectives in the SCS which govern its content, character and nature. Wingwraith (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've taken this to the DRN; please do not proceed any further with this proposal. Wingwraith (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop your disruptive editing until consensus is reached. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG Wingwraith (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Beyond claims of coatrack, which are ridiculous, there seems to be a WP:POV from Wingwraith to keep mention of the FON operations and the responses they provoke out of any and all articles. At first this was under the rationalisation that these were 'simply not relevant', now its because that information is available elsewhere, and that each and everything else in the ship's history needs to be covered in at least as much detail before this information can be added. These last two arguments are as ridiculous as the one that they are not relevant. 82.163.247.154 (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why can't this edit work? Also given your editing history, there's reason to suspect that you are the same editor with the 82.39.49.182 IP address. Wingwraith (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why suspect? I am that same editor. As to why your edit doesn't work, the reasons are the same that Davemck and Kendall-K1 gave. Trying to come up different reasons to take out certain details you for some reason don't like isn't hiding the fact that the one working against consensus here is you. --82.163.247.154 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly you'll want to create a Wikipedia account because the edits looked like they constituted a case of sockpuppetry. Secondly the reasons that Davemck and Kendall-K1 were not just non-reasons: they eventually became non-responses. Thirdly consensus isn't a numbers game, you need to at the very least address some of the criticisms that I've made of your preferred version of the text if you want to legitimate its claim to commanding consensus.Wingwraith (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comparable articles
Destroyer Squadron 60, 1988 Black Sea bumping incident, 1986 Black Sea incident, and USS Caron are articles containing similar incidents to those being discussed here. These US/Soviet incidents also involved close encounters between US & Soviet forces, and consistently, diplomatic positions of both sides are reported. My tentative conclusion is that in line with previous precedent, reactions by both sides' diplomatic and/or military authorities are a fitting inclusion in the articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986) and USS America (CV-66) contain actions and reactions by both sides during the FON actions of 1986. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally, WP:ARTICLE says "The article should contain a readable summary of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say." Reliable sources (our internet news reports) have almost invariably covered both the U.S. ships' FON actions and the Chinese reaction. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Buckshot06, if you didn't notice, this is being discussed at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've read that section. I was not sure whether discussion at that page was continuing. Happy for you to copy over my statements to there should you wish. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The DRN case has been closed as failed to resolve., , , , , and , I would all appreciate your views on my thoughts above. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I stopped participating at the DRN because: 1) I have achieved my goal of stopping Wingwraith's disruptive editing and 2) it's clear that Wingwraith will continue to block any amount of discussion or moderation, so the only way forward at this point is rfc. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not fully understand Kendall-K1. I am an administrator, I have taken an interest in this case, putting some thoughts out on the matter, and following consideration and consultation, I am quite prepared to take administrator action, up to and including blocks. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not know that. As I said I have not been following the discussion, so I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to comment, but I agree that "reactions by both sides' diplomatic and/or military authorities are a fitting inclusion in the articles." Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is pretty much what most editors have been trying to say in response to the objections by Wingwraith. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the evident consensus that reactions can be included (I think it was evident even before the DRN). Buckshot06, glad to see your examples of precedents. Davemck (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As indicated at DR (and notified to Wingwraith) the matter was taken to ANI and (following advice there, to ANRFC). I note the most recent comments at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Incidentally, I have notified at ANRFC that there is ongoing discussion here. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The incidents that you mentioned are not comparable to the McCain FONOP incident (and for that matter the other naval FONOPS that have been conducted under the Obama and Trump administration) because they did not involved either a direct (Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986), USS America (CV-66)) or close (Destroyer Squadron 60, 1988 Black Sea bumping incident) encounter between a US and Soviet/Libyan military asset. The only example which is remotely comparable to what happened with the FONOP is the 1986 Black Sea incident and even then the comparison fails because it differed not only in terms of the significance of the response but also its nature which in that case involved the issue of innocent passage and not freedom of navigation. There's also a problem of consistency: none of the operational activities of the USS John S. McCain nor the operational activity of the other ships (USS Lassen, USS Wilbur Curtis and USS William P Lawrence) whose participation in the same FON program of which the USS John S. McCain's Mischief Reef FONOP was a part have been documented on their corresponding Wikipedia pages has been described in a way which amalgamates a (let alone the PRC's) state reaction with it, so why does an exception have to be made for this particular operation that the ship undertook? For example the documentation of the operational activity that "In April 2013, John S. McCain was sent to South Korea during escalating tensions between the Koreas." does not include the reaction of either the South Korean or North Korean government but provides enough background information to let the reader understand the rationale for the deployment, so why can't this description template be used for the McCain FONOP? I reiterate in closing that I'm not against the inclusion of the material in dispute; I just argue that there are other articles (Freedom of navigation, Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, FONOPs during the Obama Administration) where it'd be more appropriate to include that kind of material. Wingwraith (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments Wingwraith. I believe it would be most appropriate to continue with drafting mutually agreeable text, which is underway below. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward
Now that we have an even wider consensus, and an acknowledgement of that, we can discuss what sort of mention we can put in. Any further edit warring on the part of a certain editor will just get short shrift and the disruption can be kept to a minimum. A while back I proposed wording along the following lines. It seems to me to be neutrally worded, proportional, contains relevant information for understanding the situation, and both sides' interpretations. I am of course happy to hear suggestions for altered wording, or any further opinions. "'In August 2017 John S. McCain sailed within 6 nautical miles of Mischief Reef in the South China Sea, as part of the United States' 'Freedom of Navigation' program. China expressed its 'strong dissatisfaction'. A US Navy representative reported that a Chinese frigate had sent at least ten radio messages warning that the John S. McCain was in Chinese waters, to which the US replied that the warship was 'conducting routine operations in international waters.'"

I'd also say that now we can go back to the other articles involving FONOPS and include similar details, now that Wingwraith's view has been decisively rejected. From the list that user kindly drew up, these are at least USS Lassen (DDG-82), USS Curtis Wilbur and USS William P. Lawrence. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 82.39.49.182, I requested the input of all the parties to the dispute, as well as a couple of senior Milhist editors. I especially need to hear from Wingwraith. In my view it is probably premature to go ahead with wordings before everybody's had the chance to put their point of view. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you are quite right, but I thought perhaps it would be a good starting point to have some wording to debate. I might however note that despite inviting everyone else involved in this debate, you did not invite me, despite me being the one who made the original post to MILHIST that sparked a lot of this. Please remember that IPs are human too. I reiterate that I am entirely content to wait for input. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did note your "exclusion" but was prety certain you would be following. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The text proposed above seems a bit silly: why China objected obviously needs to be explained (China doesn't really care where the USN sails most of the time). It's also important to flesh out the Chinese perspective a little bit more to avoid having a DANFS-style account presenting only the USN view of history. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies 82.39.49.182, I had no intention of excluding you or anyone else. Oversight on my part. No doubt if I had looked closer I would have seen you were contributing. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposed text for the most part is fine, but to address Nick-D's request for specificity I propose the following (modifications are in bold):

"'In August 2017 John S. McCain sailed within 6 nautical miles of the disputed Mischief Reef in the South China Sea, as part of the United States' Freedom of Navigation Program under the Obama Administration. China, an island claimant to the dispute, expressed its 'strong dissatisfaction'. A US Navy representative reported that a Chinese frigate had sent at least ten radio messages warning that the John S. McCain was in Chinese waters, to which the US replied that the warship was 'conducting routine operations in international waters.'"


 * I would also propose that the reaction and further reactions to the other FONOPS be for purposes of clarity centralized under the FONOPs during the Obama Administration article (preferably under a new section entitled "Reactions") instead of the need to individually insert such similarly situated details on the other articles of the naval assets which partook in the FONOPs under the Obama Administration.Wingwraith (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While not expressing an opinion on this proposal myself at this point, I would note that since January 20, 2017, none of the FONOPs concerned are under the Obama Administration - rather the Trump Administration. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @(talk), If we are moving into a phase of discussing proposals, I might make some contribution but I am holding off until you give a green light. A better link might be to Freedom of navigation - at least in this case. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for one more Milhist eminence gris,, to review the discussion and give his point of view, and then I'm entirely happy to move towards drafting compromise text. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the proposed text above incorporating Nick D's comments. (Use the convert on the nautical miles.) There are some articles that list exhaustive international "reactions" that are little more than pro forma statements. But in this case, noting the response (and the reasons for it) seems relevant. MRDA only if you know about the dispute, and a reader coming to the ship article after hearing about a collision with a tanker may not. I think it is important that a reader senses that the destroyer does more than run into tankers. This article should note the incident, but there is no need to go into further detail about the South China Sea disputes, or the absurdity of the US demanding that other nations adhere to a treaty it refuses to sign, for which the reader can follow the blue links.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The following is the text from the article that was reverted by Wingwraith. I will see if I can't improve on the suggestion. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a proposal for an alternative wording. The the original reference might also be incorporated at an appropriate place. My only thought is a tweak so that "claim" and "claiming" don't appear in such close proximety. I have made a small correction in that the McCain replied to the Chinese destroyer.

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been following this as an interested observer. May I reinforce the point that Hawkeye7 made: "a reader coming to the ship article after hearing about a collision with a tanker may not [know about FONOPs]". I was such a reader and followed the blue links, that is the strength of WP and a good reason to keep a summary sentence or two in; sufficient to outline and leading to more detail when required. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The text proposed by Cinderella157 above looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for making that point. What do other interested editors think of Cinderella157's proposed text? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I support Cinderella157's text. One tiny point: I would add "|agency=AFP" to the ref to make it clear that's where the article came from. Davemck (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pls do. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Following opinions from two senior Milhist editors, discussions here, and delays to allow further comments to be made, I believe we are nearing the point of agreeing on wordings., unless you have further comments, I intend to give the editors here the go-ahead to roll out this wording across the applicable USN destroyer articles. I would kindly request you participate in the discussions on wording here, as we appear to be getting towards an acceptable compromise wording. Lack of participation here, and then reverts or other disruption later, risk being interpreted at WP:IDHT. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "...I intend to give the editors here the go-ahead to roll out this wording across the applicable USN destroyer articles" Why? I was under the assumption that this wording applied only to this article due to the temporal proximity of the FONOP to the tanker collision. Wingwraith (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought it was reasonably obvious that what Hawkeye7 wrote about justifying the American and Chinese reactions applied to all the destroyers involved in the sovereignty patrols. I intend to give them the go-ahead to amend all the applicable articles. Do you have any last suggestions on the wording? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would observe that the proposed edit is specific to this article in its content but the discussion I started was notified as a more general discussion. The results indicate a general consensus as to what would be an appropriate mention in the other ship articles. The Lawrence and reverts made there was specifically mentioned in starting this discussion. Edits to other article involved in FONOPS that closely follow this example (with reasonable allowance for the specific details of individual ops), are covered by this. This is how I understand this assessment of consensus arrived at by User:Buckshot06, after having engaged those immediately involved and two senior editors. Hope this is of help. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I proposed in one of my aforementioned edits that "the reaction and further reactions to the other FONOPS be for purposes of clarity centralized under the FONOPs during the Obama Administration article (preferably under a new section entitled "Reactions") instead of the need to individually insert such similarly situated details on the other articles of the naval assets which partook in the FONOPs under the Obama Administration," and nowhere do I see how there's been a general consensus that it would be appropriate to mention this type of material across the other articles. With specific regards to Hawkeye7's comment, I read it to be ambiguous on which description template to use: we can agree that he OK'ed the inclusion of the proposed edit for this article (But in this case, noting the response (and the reasons for it) seems relevant...a reader coming to the ship article after hearing about a collision with a tanker may not. I think it is important that a reader senses that the destroyer does more than run into tankers.) but his statement that "There are some articles that list exhaustive international "reactions" that are little more than pro forma statements." neither rules out what I proposed either nor suggests a preference for the description template that you're intending to use. Can you (or he) clarify how you read what he wrote to be "reasonably obvious" that it justifies including the reaction material to the other destroyer articles? Wingwraith (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Drop it. You're wasting everyone's time. We've had consensus for weeks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You say that but that's because you think that it's true. My points still stand though and if the consensus was obvious enough then you should be able to answer them. Wingwraith (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And we're back to tendentious editing again. I hoped we were past that. It seems very clear to me that the discussion has been about the mentioning of FONOPS, state reactions to them, etc in general on ship articles, like this one. And there is a very clear consensus that applies to ship articles, of which this is just one of. This desperate fighting to keep a veto over other articles after having lost it on this one is extremely disruptive. I think we are well past having to provide reasoning and justification to you. Certainly the claim that the wording can only be used on this article because of the later collision, two events that had absolutely no connection, is absurd. I can't see any indication where anyone else thought that this was what was being proposed, until you brought it up. And I reiterate, this seems to me to be a rearguard action to continue your disruptive editing with regards to ship articles that has been going on not just on this page, but on the USS William P. Lawrence as well. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "And there is a very clear consensus that applies to ship articles, of which this is just one of." Then you shouldn't have a problem telling me where it is. Wingwraith (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So can we roll this out now? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kendall-K1 I believe we can. As both 82.39.49.182 and Cinderella157 recognise, of course this is intended to cover all the ship articles., we have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the very least, of all the other editors, excluding yourself, backed by two other non-involved Milhist eminence gris who I specially asked to comment here, and have backed the inclusion of such sections in each ship article. If the wider community had the chance to endorse it in some way, it probably would. Please recognise the consensus and respect it. As I indicated as I became involved, I am an administrator, and am prepared to take administrator action on this or any other issue, when necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear: I am not objecting to what you are proposing for the sake of vanity. I've already acknowledged that there is consensus for the inclusion of the material above which I rejected so I think that that is sufficient evidence that I'm not here to edit in bad faith. Similarly, I am making a good-faithed, genuine argument which I am putting forward, which is that, as I explained above, I just don't see where what the "non-involved Milhist eminence gris" said could be construed as making the case for rolling out the wording that has been proposed across the articles. I've asked you and others to clarify this point on multiple occasions and the the only response that I've gotten from the involved editors is the bare assertion that it is reasonably obvious that that is the case. There's no way that a legitimate consensus can work like that where genuine objections to it just go essentially unanswered. So can you or one of the other Milhist contributors who have contributed to this discussion please clarify this point or do we have to do the roundabout to ANI all over again? Wingwraith (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Hawkeye: "There are some articles that list exhaustive international 'reactions' that are little more than pro forma statements." The consensus here is not for an exhaustive list. Hawkeye continues: "But in this case, noting the response (and the reasons for it) seems relevant." - and for other similar cases, since an uninformed reader coming to a ship's page may have arrived there for reasons unrelated to FONOPS (such as running over a tanker). Hence also, the reference to MRDA. This is what appears to be quite apparent to everybody else. If you can't see that, then I am at a loss as to how it might be otherwise explained except to suggest that your POV is blinkering you to what is otherwise obvious (WP:IDHT). I have responded because you have made what I believe to be a genuine appeal for clarification; however, it is now past time to WP: drop the stick. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "The consensus here is not for an exhaustive list" Then can you please justify this because that is what the disagreement is about and is at any rate for the record not a point of view that he explicitly endorsed. What would you write on the other ships' pages about the reaction that would be more than a pro forma statement? At least with this case it makes sense to include the reaction, partly because there's something notable about the reaction: namely the fact a Chinese frigate had sent at least ten radio messages warning that the John S. McCain was in Chinese waters. The uniqueness of the reaction and its correspondence to the specificity of the language that he used ("But in this case," "This article should note the incident") is also why I dispute your assertion of implication that he wrote could be generalized to the other pages. Also: MRDA? How does that even apply? Wingwraith (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that MRDAapplies to you, though perhaps not directly. Do you really want to go back to ANI? I would think very carefully about the response you got there last time. Looking at things objectively and the responses you have received from two admins already, I would think that you are in peril of disappearing down the rabbit hole. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misrepresenting what he wrote when you implied that it applied to just me; "MRDA only if you know about the dispute" sounds like a generic statement that would apply to all the contributors here. Regarding ANI it'd concern the "exhaustive list" part not the wording in this article. Wingwraith (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. I have not "implied" it applies just to you. Please see text now in "boldface". Your accusation that I have "misrepresented" this as applying just to you is incorrect - to say the least. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So you claim. To be clear I'm not saying that that's what you said when what I'm saying is that that's what you implied, which when taken into context wasn't wrong and on the contrary in fact was a perfectly reasonable conclusion for me to draw. In any case I see that you've finally gotten around to my previous comment to you as part of your tag-team reversion of my edit on the William P. Lawrence page so do address the questions that I raised in opposition to the arguments that you seemed to refer to in your edit summary to justify your Lawrence revert. Wingwraith (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wingwraith, I did not request Nick-D nor Hawkeye7 to give complete binding judgments on all aspects of this issue. I asked to contribute so that I could get a broad idea of their thoughts - their points of view. I made the decision after that, bearing in mind what they had said, which gave support to the idea of mentioning the issue. The responsibility is with me, and I declared the local consensus, as you saw. However, of course, you are quite at liberty to individually seek further guidance or clarification from either Hawkeye7 or Nick-D, or any other Milhist expert who might have something worthwhile to say. As, , , and implement this wording, I would kindly ask you to avoid actions that appear to resemble WP:IDHT and WP:Tendentious editing. Some of your recent posts appear to sail close to the wind in this regard. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As Wingwraith has noted, he has been again involved in reversions on the William P. Lawrence - and I think on the talkpage reveals the origin of this consistent WP:POV pushing that has resulted in this long debate "There's no need to give every perfunctory shit (yes that is what it is) that the fascist government of the PRC (yes that is what it is again) puts out there in reaction to the FONOPS special attention just because...why? Is it because you think that the #1 enemy of the USA is the PRC?". This really is WP:IDHT to a new level, but I would like to give his thoughts, and indeed anyone else. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While you're at it maybe you can explain why you are adding that kind of no-less-POV-pushing material into the articles; of all the participants in the discussion it's just you who cares to do that. Wingwraith (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I made the edit but of course am open to reasonable changes to the wording. I do think that FONOPs during the Obama Administration should be renamed and expanded to include all recent FONOPs so that it can be used as a central location for information that all the individual ship articles can link to. Which is not really appropriate to discuss here, but I would encourage anyone who is interested to tackle that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a matter of record that I started this discussion here explicitly as a "central discussion" for such issues applying to involved ships in which the McCain an Lawrence were specifically named. Notifications of this discussion were made at Milhist and Lawrence and reported here in initiating this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Buckshot06 per previous edit in time (3 up). See also edit at Lawrence. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with MV Alnic MC
This article isn't really stand-alone notable; it's only notable due to the accident in 2017 with USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). Proposing merge into the relevant section. Osarius - Want a chat? 12:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest holding off until the final report is issued. At the moment it appears as if the USS John S. McCain was the guilty ship (particularly since it is always the duty of an overtaking ship to keep clear "until safely past"), and therefore of more interest.  However, there could be issues not yet visible to the public that might make a more extensive article on the MV Alnic MC possible, we'll have to wait for Singaporean or Malaysian report. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with merge as that page stands now. It's not an article, it's a section that can be moved here. But there's no rush. If after the final reports come out, and there's significant enough additions to make that page into a article, then leave it be. So we wait... - the WOLF  child  21:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * [ec] There would not be much to merge, as the Alnic's sole claim for notability is the collision, and giving it a separate article an over-reach. Regardless of fault (which does seem to be entirely the McCain's), I think the Alnic's role and significance is so slight it could be adequately covered here. But not so much a "merge" of this and that article, but incorporation of the very little content of the other article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good points. You know, there's nothing stopping anyone from just boldly merging the content of that stub into this page... - the WOLF  child  21:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. Merge completed. MV Alnic MC now redirects here to the section on the collision. - the WOLF  child  22:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)