Jump to content

Talk:Action of 18 March 2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I dont think this ariticle should be merged, it already has a version in the french wikipedia that is longer than the english version, if anything please help to expand it! Unsigned comment posted by user:67.84.178.107 00:11, 11 July 2007

Why is the pirate flag here?

[edit]

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

Further reasons not to have the ‘pirate flag’
The popular image of pirates, which the Jolly Roger represents, in the popular imagination, is nothing like the reality of pirates operating of the African coast in the 21st century. The only reason as some have said for having Jolly Roger is that it represents pirates. But modern piracy is a world apart from the popular myths or reality of 18th century piracy.
Further, two different pirate flags have appeared at different times, so there is no single common pirate flag. And no ‘official generic pirate flag’.
It has been said that Islamic terrorists don’t fly the flag of jihad. If that is the case, then that is a reason not to have the flag of jihad.
It simply isn’t encyclopaedic. Chwyatt (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The pirate flag is there because the Jolly Roger is known throughout the world as the symbol of piracy. Most pirates back a few hundred years ago did not fly the Jolly Roger just as pirates do not now. Either way the Jolly roger is known to symbolize pirates and that is why it is here, that is also why the most commen form of the Jolly Roger is used in these articles.--Aj4444 (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"first action of the 21st century"

[edit]

I can't find a citation for this. I suspect it isn't true. I seem to recall that the U.S. Navy ships attacked Iraqi small craft during the the Iraq War which would predate this incident. But I can't find a source for that at the moment either. Rmhermen (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't a US Naval vessel's motorboat intercepted by the Iranian Navy at some point? I'm pretty sure before those British sailors got arrested / kidnapped a similar incident occured with a US Naval vessel. Sure, its hardly a fire-fight but it does constitute "action". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed the first surface action of the 21st century. The first incident mentioned by Rmhermen was the bombing of a Ridgid Hull Inflateable Boat of the USS Firebolt. The second incident mentioned involeved British personel in 2004 not us personel See 2004 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. User:XavierGreen —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sinking of the RHIB of USS Firebolt actually counts as a "surface action". The DoD casualty release for the sailors killed on 24 April 2004 reads: "They died April 24 in the Northern Persian Gulf as a result of a waterborne attack.", which we know by other reports that was carried out by a suicide motorboat. Clearly a surface action. We need, however, a source mentioning the specific fact.--Darius (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added in-line citations using the already-present sources and another one, but I wasn't able to find a citation for the "first action" quote either. I've left the claim in the text but used the "citation needed" template on it pending a source. If nobody's able to come up with one, the claim should be removed to avoid specious claims.RTBarnard (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was in fact the first surface action for the US Navy in the 21st century. The terrorist detonation of a suicide bomb on one of our patrol boats cannont be considered a surface action. A surface action implies fighting, in this incident, only the terrorists fired, (The fire being the suicide bomb). The U.S. did not fire back, obviously which means there was no fighting, it is simply a massacre, a terrorist attack. Would you consider 911 to be a land or air battle?--Az81964444 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is not what is or is not an action, but whether it can be sourced or not. When i origonally wrote the article i added that statement without providing a source and as such it was removed. If you could find any source to support it im sure it would stay in the article. You'll be hard pressed though, i tried looking once and couldn't much.XavierGreen (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Daniel Randall Jr.

[edit]

Why has Commander Robert Daniel Randall Jr. been removed from the commanders section of the campaignox?

A veteran of the engagement personally told me Robert Randall commanded USS Gonzales at the time, he also said he was among a squad of men fired apon while attempting to board the pirate boats. I know the commander of the other U.S. ship should be listed in the commanders section but I dont know his name. --Az81964444 (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Seriously, this is the best name that we have for the article: "Action of 18 March 2006"? Sbrianhicks (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Action of 18 March 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Action_of_18_March_2006&oldid=1217144207"