Talk:Fairway Rock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name of Article/Move Discussion

Should the article name have the word island in it? All the references I find online refer to it as just Fairway Rock, which makes a lot more sense to me. In fact, the online version of The Columbia Gazetteer of North America refers to it as Fairway Rock. If that is its proper name, does anyone know if there's some policy concerning articles on islands to tack the word island onto the article even if it's not in the name? I'm not sure if I'd agree to such a policy, but it would be nice to know. We may need to get this article moved. --Tox 05:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Peter 2005 created Fairway Rock then created Fairway Rock Island and did a cut-and-paste move. However, the real name of the island is Fairway Rock. The Columbia Gazetteer's article as cited in this article, lists the name as Fairway Rock, and a perusal of the gazetteers listed on Wikipedia easily confirms the name. As I thought, Wikipedia Naming conventions are clear on the matter. Furthermore, rock is a geographical term in its own right, so the title makes as much sense as Fairway Rock Rock. —Tox 17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Move Votes

• Support see above —Tox 17:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Olessi 20:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Wechselstrom 06:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Waterguy 06:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Tom1907 06:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Outcome

I fixed the cut-and-paste move first, then moved the article as requested. Rob Church ^Talk 07:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Human Habitation

exactly how small does an island have to be to be to small for human habitation? Gringo300 07:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, that makes no real sense. There probably are legitimate reasons why the island's not suited for human habitation (or at least not practical for it), but the island is supposed to be a mile long, so if it has any width at all you could build a house on it. I'm going to remove that statement. --Tox 05:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul Martin's changes

I reverted the page, because Paul Martin's changes involved:

• Deleting my numbered reference to the geographical info in the intro. See Wikipedia:References for why that's bad.

• Altering the citation to the Columbia Gazetteer which was based on what they recommend. Okay, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on exactly how to write up references (Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style), and some flexibility may be in order here, but it seems to me that the URL should be written out in the references, especially if someone goes to print out the page or this goes into the print edition. And again, my citation is based on what the source itself recommends.

• Changing the direction of Fairway Rock from Little Diomede from SSE (as found at the Columbia Gazetteer) to East South-East 3/4 South. There is no such term that I know of in English (see Boxing the compass).

• Mentioning an obscure nautical unit, the cable length. I fail to see how that improves this article, other than to highlight just how obscure Florencetime is. This all begs the question of why this meridian should even be mentioned here. There is no mention of the "Florencetime main meridian" on the page about Florence.

--Tox 15:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tox,

• I deleted your reference in the intro because this was the same page given below as references. This link, of course, I let it on the page. It is good use in Wikipedia to give references at the end of the articles, not (or seldom) in the article. The same reference twice in a very short article, is not useful.
• I changed "www.bartleby.com/69/8/F00208.html" into "Fairway Rock" because only the last year number 2005 switched to an other line on my 1280 px screen. I shortened, because I considerated the reference "The Columbia Gazetteer of North America" was given and the exactly URL will appear on following the link. But your printing argument is good.
• "There is no such term that I know of in English" (cf. [1])  But here a big thanks to you! I verified and "Fairway Rock" is actually about South-East by South 3/4 South of Little Diomede. This is only 2°.8125 different of SSE, so South South-East is okay. Excuse me and thanks again.
• The cable length is not "an obscure nautical unit", but 1/10 nautical mile. I studied the "Operational Navigation Chart, Sheet C-8" published by the Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, St. Louis, Missouri 63118, revised June 1987, Edition 5 and if we can trust this publication, Fairway Rock seems to lie very, very close to 168° 45' West of Greenwich. Tiger Map (1) and Tiger Map (2) give the same result, even with exactly 168°.75 West. Further more accurate measures will be necessary.
  But it's shure, it is rather a fraction of one nautical mile.
  Even the Settlement Act writes in §1424, Tract eight: "Fairway Rock located within Teller Quadrangle 65 degrees 35 minutes north, 165 degrees 45 minutes west."
• You are right, the Florence Meridian should be added in the Florenc article.

Have a good day Tox, bye --Paul Martin 03:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You can move "Fairway Rock Island" to "Fairway Rock" if you want.

References at the end of an article aren't useful at all without footnotes within the article showing what information came from what sources. That's not "the same reference twice". That's just proper citation. --Tom1907 06:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Tox is suggesting that the "Florencetime main meridian" be added to the Florence article. Rather, he points out that it should be removed from the Fairway Rock article. The article on geographic coordinate systems removed any mention of it for the same reason Tox suggests (see the talk page). It is an obscure system that does not appear to have any following or adoption among more than a small group of enthusiasts. Therefore, I am removing it.

--Wechselstrom 09:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Paul Martin's revert on 18 November 2005

Congratulations, Paul Martin. You figured out my real name. For your information, Tox is my brother, not my sockpuppet. I don't know who the other users are, and I resent your accusation that they are sockpuppets. I don't imagine they would appreciate it, either. You need to be careful about making such serious claims.

--Wechselstrom 11:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wechselstrom,

So, Tox is your brother Tom?, rather than Scott. To have sockpuppets, in fair use, itn't illicit. That was not the "accusation". The fact that you imagined a hexclock in 1997, effects my consideration for you and not my hostility.

But, as a good chess player, you have to be able to not overturn the chessboard, if the game turns not in your sense. Shooting around all chessmen.

You have to recognise that the system made by my friend Micheal F. (I know him personally since about three years) is much better and much more complete than your hexclock. If you want to sell hexclocks in 2006, I suggest you to integrate the omni-literal digits, if not you'll not sell many of these.

For West Cape of Fairway Rock, Tiger gives about 168° 45' 20" and for the East Cape about 168° 44' 30". But even if, one day new surveys would show that 168° 45' passes only near-by, it's always worthy to mention the Anti-Florence Meridian in this article.

Florencetime has nothing of obscurity. Quite the contrary, it is lucid and obvious. Item it will win! Thitherto, it has to struggle against all attempts of censorship. Just like the so called "Arabic digits" vs. "Roman digits" (positional arithmetic with algorithms has been ostracised during almost 500 years before the Renaissance.) Just like Copernicus who published his "Commentariolus" already in 1509 and still in 1633 Galilei was censored for these "new and unproofed ideas".

I hope we buried the hatchet. Then it will be always a great pleasure to discuss with you Wechselstrom.

-- Paul Martin 13:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul Martin,

First of all, I don't have a brother Tom. Secondly, this forum is not the place for a discussion of my family. I would appreciate it if you would refrain.

The issue at hand is whether or not to mention Florencetime on a page about Fairway Rock. You misunderstood my meaning of "obscure" in regards to Florencetime (see definition 3). Florencetime is not an accepted standard, but rather the work of an unknown. You imply as much in your last paragraph: "...it has to struggle against all attempts of censorship." You should read What Wikipedia is not. It clearly states that Wikipedia articles are not the place for advocacy or promotion of unaccepted new ideas. Other Wikipedia articles (e.g. Geographic Coordinate System, Prime Meridian, and Hexadecimal) have all concluded that Florencetime and Omni-Literal digits are not worthy of inclusion on that very basis (see Talk:Hexadecimal for specifics). Florencetime doesn't belong in an article about Fairway Rock, either.

If you wish to discuss hexadecimal time further, we should have that discussion on the Hexadecimal Time talk page.

In the meantime, I move to delete the reference to Florencetime from the Fairway Rock article.

--Wechselstrom 14:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Wechselstrom, for having waiting longly for my announced reply.

In these days I'm involved into a discussion with colleague Jimp who recently posed me a "disputed-tag" at Ancient Roman units of measurement. Link to the respective talk page.

To our different:

To fend off all attempts of censorship, in science, it's a civic duty and has nothing to do with "advocacy" or "promotion".
This is commanded by the defense of freedom in ideas and for scientific researches, finally by the "love to the truth".

The hexadecimal system in units of measures is not a "new idea". In its contemporary form, it has been developed in 1989 by Micheal Florencetime, Paris (France).
If you enter the term "florencetime" in a search engine you get hundreds or thousands of related links, always with the main site www.florencetime.net at the top.

Even if the main language of this site is still French and not the English language, it remains, that the French language is main languagues of the world, official languague in many countries. It's also one of the about six main languagues recognised by the United Nations. An English introduction of the site is however present. Really many, many persons all around the world ever heared or this new proposal; in spite of the inique, nearly completive media "black out".
(In the opposite: paradoxically, each crackpot idea is longly related by the press.)

To the respected colleague Joe Kress, who deleted the "proposed hexadecimal earthgrid" at Geographic coordinate system, I posed him recently this message. For the short Prime Meridian insertion: This was only a little link to that article. The article Hexadecimal accepts since long time a link to the "omni-literal digits" in the article "Hexadecimal time".

If now you can live, finally, with the link from the "Fairway Rock" article to "Hexadecimal time", I will appreciate. If not, let me know this, for further argumentations.

Sincerly, have an excellent day, good old "Alternating Current",  Paul Martin 20:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul Martin,

Because this argument is going on ad infinitum, and you have already accused me of conflict of interest, I recuse myself from tampering with the mention of Florencetime on this article. However, as an admitted friend of Michael Florencetime, you have a personal interest here. Wikipedia would be best served if a neutral third party viewed this page and made the decision to keep or remove any mention of Florencetime. I make my final rebuttal and leave my words for a third party to contemplate:

• Your "civic duty" to science and your "civic duty" to an encyclopedia entail two completely (even at times antithetical) responsibilities. Science seeks to further knowledge by means of observation and experimentation. An encyclopedia seeks to catalog existing knowledge in context through reference and citation. Take careful note of the difference. I laud your sense of duty to science, but you must have an equally vigilant duty to the values of an encyclopedia. Once again, I urge you to read What Wikipedia is not.

• In another discussion, you yourself stated that Michael Florencetime's proposal "has not the right to be presented. Not even in Wikipedia." Furthermore, you said that "since almost 15 years Michael tempted without success to publish his researches and proposals in French medias." In other words, his ideas are unpublished except on his own webpage. This does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion on this article.

• As you suggested, I did a Google search for "Florencetime". I got exactly 794 hits. Some of them are nothing more than Wikipedia pages, including this very talk page, which ranks 4th in the search listing. With the exception of Michael Florencetime's personal website, the rest of the search results seem to be nothing more than directory listings of websites. It appears that someone added Michael Florencetime's webpage to hundreds of internet directories in an attempt to popularize his proposal, but I can find no websites that actually discuss his system, let alone advocate it or suggest that it is being used by anyone other than your friend Michael Florencetime. Related searches for the phrases "omni-literal hexadecimal system", "Florencetime main meridian", and "Florencetime meridian" return 23 hits, 11 hits, and zero hits, respectively. As near as I can tell, all of these hits are either Wikipedia pages or verbatim copies of Wikipedia pages. Florencetime does not pass the Google test.

• The only reason the hexadecimal article has a reference to Michael Florencetime's "alternate, unambiguous set of hexadecimal digits" is because you added it using your sockpuppet Match 213. It has not been there "since long time" as you claim, but only for about a month. You yourself participated in the conversation in which it was decided NOT to include Michael Florencetime's ideas in the hexadecimal article. Then, long after their deletion, you added his ideas back to the article using a sockpuppet.

In conclusion, this is an article about a rock in the Bering Strait. Florencetime does not have sufficient notoriety to warrant inclusion in this article. I have nothing further to say on that matter, and I feel that a third party would best be consulted.

--Wechselstrom 00:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Received your reply. --Paul Martin 01:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am, for the record, not a sockpuppet. I don't want to embroil this page in discussion of Paul Martin's accusations, so I've posted my defense here. --Tom1907 17:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

References

Look, references that are just listed in the reference section are useless to anyone coming to the article. They in no way indicate which information in the article came from that source. Furthermore, Paul Martin needs to read the guides I pointed out to him: Wikipedia:References and Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style. Yes, these are guides and not policy, but they back up what I'm saying. Putting numbered links throughout the article does not clutter it up, but at the same time a full citation must be placed in the references section at the bottom. Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? Tom1907 (who is not a sockpuppet) agrees with me. —Tox 15:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Coordinates of Fairway Rock

FWIW, according to the USGS[2], it was "named in 1826 by Capt. Beechey, RN". The co-ords they give are: 65.6263889/-168.8416667; 653735N/1685030W. Also, "10 mi SE of Little Diomede Island and 18 mi W of Cape Prince of Wales". Waterguy 06:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

My search keeps timing out at the USGS page, so I can't look at the information you quoted. Can you get a direct link to it? If you can, I think you should go ahead and change the article to indicate Capt. Beechey named it. There's no source listed for Capt. Cook.

Anyway, everyone's coordinates are very similar. We don't know exactly which point on the island the coordinates correspond to—it's a mile long after all. The exact center of any island would be impossible to determine. I'd say we shouldn't specify any more than the minutes. I really don't care exactly what's listed beyond that, as long as we have a good source. The only reason I changed them was to match the Columbia Gazetteer, since no source was cited previously. Both USGS and the CG are trustworthy.

As for Paul Martin's sources mentioned in the above discussion (Paul Martin's changes), they are not useful. The Settlement Act appears to be listing the coordinates of the center of the Teller Quadrangle, since the longitude is 3° off, which is significant. The Tiger Map is at the US Census Bureau. On the map you set the red pin where you want it. In those links Paul Martin has set the red pin. Granted, he has set it near the center of the circle marking the island, but clearly the accuracy can only be trusted to a certain level. And, it means he's using himself as the source that the island is "exactly 168°.75 West". The island can never be said to be at any exact coordinate, because it is not a point, it has length and width.

So, in summary, I say stick to the coordinates at either the Columbia Gazetteer or the USGS (if we can get a good link) and only go out to the minutes. —Tox 14:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Unfortunately, the GNIS doesn't have any info about the search in the URL (just a transient session ID), so I don't believe there's any way to link to the 'details' page, or anything else but the 'doorway'. Google did find this Tiger link, which seems a bit more precise than the current one. Searching "fairway rock" beechey didn't find any confirmation, so I'm not sure I'm confident enuf to put it in. Waterguy 08:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Waterguy, as it shows this "zoom in" of your Tiger link, it's evidently an error. Territorial water and even the island itself is situated at the good place, only the marking point and the name of the island is shifted westwards by about 0.093 degree.

Coordinates of the island Fairway Rock in the Bering Strait according to Tiger Map. For all the four Capes the map was centered to 65° 37'.5 North, 168° 45'.0 West of Greenwich.   With the approximate center, both the map and the red pin is setted at 65°.62569 and -168°.74861.
	North Cape  65° 37' 42".744 N  (lat. + 65°.62854)
West Cape  (lon. –168°.75539) 168° 45' 19".404 W	Approximate Center  65° 37' 32".484 N 168° 44' 54".996 W	East Cape  (lon. –168°.74179) 168° 44' 30".444 W
	South Cape  65° 37' 22".188 N  (lat. + 65°.62283)
But, like User:Tox said it properly above, "accuracy can only be trusted to a certain level". Thus the coordinates 65° 37'.5 North, 168° 45' West of Greenwich are the good coordinates.

 
Furthermore:  If there are one ore more independent sources to indicate Captain Richard Brydges Beechey (1808-1895) and no one for Captain Cook, like Peter 2005 wrotes, indeed this should be changed.  [P.S.  I reread: You said "so I'm not sure I'm confident enuf to put it in". Me too, I'll make further researches on this topo.]

Then, Waterguy excuse, please look there. What I said for Olessi, I say it for you in the same terms.

-- Paul Martin 11:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

PS2:  Just an other source, confirming that the rounded value  65° 37½' North, 168° 45' West of Greenwich is situated clearly inside the island:
GIS Maps and Data Server: You have to zoom to the map N° 686531, then to the Fairway Rock Area N° 686533, up to the ScaleFactor: 1.06253. In the status line of your window appears the coordinates of your cursor. There, the approximate center of the island is situated at around 65° 37'.52 (= 31".2) N, 165° 44'.86 (= 51".6) W.
Remark:  If you attribuate a supposed accuracy of ± 0'.05 to these sources, (and not only about ± 0'.25 like me I do), I don't see any hindrance to give 168° 44'.9 West.

I got the USGS search to work in a different browser, but I can't figure out how to get a good link for it. I'm also concerned because it gives the elevation as -7 ft, which is clearly wrong. It would be great if we could get something to clear up why the Columbia Gazetteer and the GNIS at the USGS page disagree on the distances to Little Diomede and Cape Prince of Wales, but I can't find anything. The only thing I can see is that the GNIS is a compilation of information from various sources, since citations are given at each entry. The information on the GNIS is from 1981; I don't know when the info at the Columbia Gazetteer was collected (though the edition of the Gazetteer is 2000).

Paul Martin's sources are not useable. Neither Tiger Map nor the other one listed above actually label Fairway Rock, and the coordinates of the center of the island come ultimately from user input, either where you place the red pin at Tiger Map or where you have the cursor at the GIS map. Furthermore, the sources are respectively a census map and a shellfish/groundfish map. The purpose of both maps is not geographic information. Frankly, this argument is becoming a major waste of time. We are not creating a nautical map for navigation here, we are just trying to give an approximate location in an encyplopedia article. I don't understand why Paul Martin is so hung up on these coordinates that we can't just leave the ones obtained from the Columbia Gazetteer.

I vote for just leaving the data from the Columbia Gazetteer and using that as our reference for the coordinates and distances to nearby places. —Tox 15:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tox,

• I don't know which brower you use, but the USGS page given above by Waterguy and me should appear at this link.
  USGS also uses the very good Tiger Maps. But only USGS setted an erroneous "Large Red Dot" at 168° 50' 30" West of Greenwich.
  This is an evidence! I don't understand, why you don't will understand this. Is that intentionally?
• The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries also uses the very good GIS (Geographic Information System) Maps,
  just like the American Gouvernment.
• Your quotation: "I don't understand why Paul Martin is so hung up on these coordinates..." The contrary is true! The very first stub this article marked 67° 37'.5 North, 168° 45' West. The revision of 06:19, 14 November 2005 edited by yourself gives 67° 37' N, 168° 44' W conformly to the Columbia Gazetteer. That's your right. I restored the original values by giving two independant sources, Tiger Maps, also used by USGS and GIS Maps, also used by the US-Government. (The fact that they not lable Fairway Rock is without signification, as long as anyone can review where the red pin or the center is setted. Both is the case!) That's you who is so hung up on the (false) Columbia Gazetteer coordinates...
• Me, I do not even pretend that the point of confluences 65° 37'.5 N, 168° 45'.0 W is located at the island. (Even if this is an interesting detail. Further, very high accuracy geodetic surveying will surely determinate this soonly.)  I only say - with two illustrious and trustworthy sources - that Fairway Rock is closer to 168° 45' West than to 168° 44' West and neither 65° 37' N nor 65° 38' N are good values for the latitude of the island, because it is located at about 65° 37'.5 North. That's all.

      -- Paul Martin 17:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, Paul, you are the one who is setting the red pin marking the center of Fairway Rock in the links to Tiger Maps that you provided. Anyone who knows CGI can look at the URL and see that. And anyone can go to the interactive map at Tiger Maps and set the red pin themself, like this. So, you are the source of the coordinates for the red pin. Furthermore, as I said, Tiger Maps does not label Fairway Rock (probably because the map is intended for census data and no one lives there). So, in order to have any idea that that blue circle is Fairway Rock you have to already have a reference for the island's coordinates. Therefore, Tiger Maps is not a valid reference.

I came to this page and saw that it needed a lot of work. Since I have an interest in the Arctic I decided to fix it up. When my friend found a source for the location of the rock, I used it. For some reason, you came along afterwards and reverted the coordinates. Then you began a huge argument over them in which you continually search the Web for sources to prove the exact coordinates in the original stub. I do not know why you are obsessed with values that were not even your own to begin with, and to the point that you accuse everyone involved with this page of being a sockpuppet.

The only other valid source that anyone has suggested is Waterguy's USGS source. I am willing to consider it, if anyone has some rational arguments in favor of it. My current reasoning on going back to the original source cited (the Columbia Gazetteer) is that we cannot get a direct link to the USGS source, I can see that the elevation at that source is definitely wrong, and it appears to be a compilation of sources done 25 years ago or more. But, if a consensus is reached that we should use that data I could go along with it. I will never agree to using an interactive map that doesn't label an island as a source. —Tox 06:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Tox, that's true. In your example you setted the red pin at about 65° 37' 28".9 N (lat. 65.6247025) and 168° 44' 49".9 W (lon. -168.7471924). Me, as user, I can verifie this immediately (even without CGI, because Tiger Maps themself give openly this information at the page!) If your scale would be quite better, me like everyone, could judge "de visu" if you setted the red pin to the approximate center of the island or not. That's in this manner everyone works with the good, high resolution, modern, scientific online maps like Tiger or GIS.

That the USGS label 168° 50' 30" W is an error, that's evident, like you can see it at this better zoom. There are too many sources situating Fairway Rock more than 5° eastern. You see what bad labelings are worthy!

You "will never agree to using an interactive map that doesn't label an island as a source."  If I gave you only one low precision commercial online map, then I would understand you. Then you would be in your right. But I gave you two high precision scientific online maps!  Both in essential concordance.
Now I'll give you a third one:  USGS Map: Fairway Rock  There the approx. center of the island should be something like 65° 37' 33" N, 168° 44' 38" W.
Also in this USGS Map, the island is situated clearly closer to 168° 45' West than to 168° 44' West of Greenwich!

You can continue to cleave to your false Columbia Gazeteer value. But I showed you by three renamed scientific online maps: Tiger, GIS & USGS, that the original value of User:Peter 2005 is the good one, is the better one. Give up, your narrow-minded formalistic objection of "not-labeled sources" is discovered: You pretend that you are here for your "interest in the Arctic." Poppycock! The main reason why you are here is that you are the Chief Editor of intuitor.com and the Hexclock of Intuitor not matches with the hexadecimal Meridian Zero of Florence and its opposite, the Meridian of (or next to) Fairway Rock island.
Everyone has understood this!

You know as me and as any attentive reader of this talk page, that the rounded coordinates of Fairway Rock are indeed 65° 37'.5 North, 168° 45' West.
If you want you can go back to your false Columbia Gazeeter values:  65° 37' N, 168° 44' W.  I'll not restore the truth twice.

But at your place, I would await some independent opinions of users, not nearby Intuitor, like you Tox, Wechselstrom and Tom1907. In any case – and for that you can be sure – soonly, like you and like me, also all the geodesists and all the cartographers of the world entier will be interested in exactly this question. In history of this Wikipedia page will rest (if you dare to restore your false value) that it was Tox, against all evidences, against all proofs by three scientific high resolution online maps, who twice introduced a false value with (I repeat me) narrow-minded formalistic arguments and by an evident personal interest.

-- Paul Martin 16:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Beechey, and the naming of Fairway Rock

I found a source for Beechey having named Fairway Rock -- namely, Beechey himself. For what it's worth, Beechey also gives coordinates, but I'm sure modern sources are more reliable for that. --Tom1907 16:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

A very good research, Tom1907.  Bravo! You climbed up in my consideration.  --Paul Martin 16:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

With the distance of four weeks, I have the conviction that you are not an SP. So too to you, I can present you my apology, also in your case.

Please understand, I couldn't occur the risk, that Tox or Wechselstom bat their leg, me, excusing me, before their own created other pseudo. I'll hope – between us – all's cleared. Paul Martin 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Soviet submarine monitoring

Does anyone have a good source indicating who thinks Fairway Rock was used to monitor Soviet submarines? Or are we starting the rumor ourselves? The US Navy site, of course, only discusses the RTGs and never says anything about Soviet submarines. —Tox 16:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the rumor, since no one ever posted a source and I could not find one in my Google searches. —Tox 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A teacher working since years at Little Diomede however told me this rumor too. So, it well exists! Nevertheless, for having certitude, we must ask Mr. Rumsfeld or await the opening of confidential archives in – to tell the truth, I don't have any idea of such like US-laws – about fifty years.
Paul Martin 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Related discussion

For anyone who would watch, follow or participate to that related discussion, I recommend the Talk: Hexadecimal metric system.
Paul Martin 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)