Talk:USS Bagley (DD-386)

Page started

Wheh... ok, so I just started this page, and wow, I took the text from it's DANFS entry as I normally do for ships like this. But look at this. This is the most ridiculously long DANFS entry I've yet come across. Whoever wrote it is far too long winded for his own good. Given lots of it is an interesting read, but there is alot of info there that is all about the other ships the Bagley is with and not so much about the Bagley. So I editted the hell out of that article, and I chopped and chopped and tossed many a paragraph. If you feel more up to editting this better than I, by all means edit this as you see fit. -- Malo 04:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Friendly Fire Theory on the Canberra

At 14:21, 5 April 2006, 136.1.1.101 changed [1] the article to say:

It is likely that one of these torpedoes exploded instead against Canberra's starboard side, as she soon developed a list to that side despite facing her port side to the enemy

As it lacked any supporting source citations, I reverted this claim of friendly fire. In reviewing the "official" accounts of the battle, I cannot find any confirmation that Bagley torpedoed Canberra. While there are allegations [2] making this claim, others [3] dispute any friendly fire. While it is technically possible that Canberra was struck by a friendly torpedo, I do not feel we can honestly say that she was likey struck by Bagley. Doing otherwise strikes me as being a poster child for what wikipedia is not. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I added references and text giving more detail on the "friendly fire" theory. Cla68 00:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)