Talk:HMS Amethyst (F116)

Untitled

A few words about the ship's cat, Blackie (or Simon) would be appropriate, methinks. I see the link, but something more substantial, maybe? Guapovia 11:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a link on the bottom to a seperate page which lists the British losses in the crisis and gives a small chronology. I felt that this list was too big and would swamp the article if placed below it, so I gave it its own page.--Jackyd101 02:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The account starts with the words "At about 09.30" but doesn't give the date which was April 20th 1949. Later on the chronology seems to get out of step with "On April 26 an attempt to free the Amethyst from the mud was successful" followed later by "... refloated Amethyst on April 22"

I'll fix this Bastie 17:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yangtze Incident

I added some view from Chinese side. 71.218.49.186 01:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very laudable, but these and subsequent changes have introduced false claims, inaccuracies, and contradictions with the British perception of events. In particular, all this talk about the artillery batteries "asking" or "demanding" and Amethyst "refusing" is nonsense, as it implies a communication that was not assumed to have taken place. The initial salvo of ten shells at 08:31 cannot in any circumstances be portrayed as a single "warning shot," and neither can the second salvo which hit the ship an hour later and further up the river. I am therefore reverting most of it and adding more detial about what actually happened. If someone wants to add the Chinese version, it should be clearly differentiated as such, and we will do the same with the British version. Nick Cooper 11:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Who started it?

The statement "One interesting fact is that the captain of the HMS Amethyst admitted that it was his troops[?] that fired first[citation needed], but he didn't reveal this until recent years." seems difficult to credit given that the Captain was killed in the initial action, or am I missing something? I'll remove this and suggest that it only be replaced when a)clarification and b)attribution can be given. User:Mercury543210 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now found that the original 'confession' was that the PLA commander 'admitted' that the PLA fired first! Again no attribution but it is odd that this was 'converted' by an annonymous contributor to a confession by the [long dead] Captain. Clearly this is still a sensitive topic! Mercury543210 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'm proposing the merging of the Simon (cat) article into this article because the Simon bio has no notability, or very little, and no significance without this article. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 07:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Simon was the only cat to be awarded the Dickin Medal - the "Animal's VC" - so is notable by default. By your logic, we would have to merge the pages for VC winners into the page devoted to the specific action - or wider conflict - for which they were awarded it, which would clearly be wrong. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that the case with notability generally? That if something is unique, it is by default notable? I was unaware of that policy. Could you direct me to that? Thanks! Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 10:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is one aspect of his notability, and other Dickin Medal winners have their own pages. Simon is mentioned in the many published accounts of the Yangtze Incident, but there have also been publications specifically about his role in it (e.g. Vera Cooper's book). We clearly already have more text on Simon that can could be properly amalgamated into the ship's page. This is quite apart from that fact that we really need is a separate page for the Incident itself, rather than having information scattered around this page, HMS London (69), HMS Black Swan (L57), etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

perhaps no recipient of the DickinMedal should be notable if that is the primary cause. I would think that a pigeon or cat would have to be HIGHLY exceptional to be notable, and that receiving a private award couldn't meet that standard. If I hand out certificates of achievements to dogs they aren't notable for having won the Geofferic Certificate of Fuzziness. Pardon the cheek. Winning a Nobel Prize is notable. There is an element of intent involved.these animals are no more notable than any random pet. They put forth no effort to save a ship or life other than, perhaps, their own. Their learned behavior happens to have been of use- not brave. Are there casesofindividual hard hats being notable for having saved a life? Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 01:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide that an award is not notable, simply because you don't agree with it. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

no doubt. In much the same way that the 'award' is not notable simply because someone thinks it is. In what way is it notable? Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Winning the Dickin Medal is notable enough, I feel. Mcewan (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Split

I think the part about Amethyst Incident should be moved to an independtent article because it's a big event in China's war. In addition, the article in other language version Wikipedia which connected to this article is called Amethyst Incident but not HMS Amethyst (F116). This could result in some mass. So I think it should be splited from this article.--A20120312 (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. --MtBell 01:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Crew

The names "Weston" and "Kerans" appear out of the blue, without explanation of who they were. NeilHoskins (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Amethyst (F116). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150414010949/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/AMETHYST.htm to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/AMETHYST.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)