Talk:USS Robert Smalls

October 2006

Page needs to be updated as C'ville no longer is homeported in Japan and has different commanding officer from crew swap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.39.111.20 (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Confederate victory"?

The lead includes this statement:

She is named for the Confederate victory over Union forces under Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Chancellorsville, Virginia.

Is there a citation for this odd assertion? The USS Pearl Harbor article, for example, does not claim that that ship honors "a Japanese victory".

This page at Navy Dot Mil says that the ship is named after the Battle of Chancellorsville. That seems more like it. If nobody objects, I'll edit this article to say the same. TypoBoy (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@TypoBoy: I don't know that there's anything odd about it. Chancellorsville was a Confederate victory. This may be the only US warship named after a US military defeat. Pearl Harbor is probably named after the military installation and not the Japanese attack. The unusual nature of the Chancellorsville's name has received some coverage in reliable sources, for example [1]. Incidentally, it appears the Navy has taken down all the text about the battle from the linked page. Mackensen (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Useful source on ship-naming in general, and discusses the Chancellorsville: [2]. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

WOW, thank you for the insightful (and timely) links. I was assuming (or perhaps I mean wishing) that the naming of the Chancellorsville was intended as praise for United States forces' gallantry in defeat, rather than glory for the enemy. That Navy Times article in particular shows that I was in a fool's paradise, and that it was of a piece with other thinly-veiled expressions of contempt for civil rights.

It would be great if we could find sources to add some of this to the article TypoBoy (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Name change

Some eager users have been making edits that claim the ship has already changed names. It hasn't. The decision to change the name was announced only few days ago, and as per the USNI News source (dated 27 February 2023) attached to the article supporting the announcement;

The Navy did not give a timeline for formally renaming the ship, which is currently based in Japan.

“The logistical aspects associated with renaming the ship will begin henceforth and will continue until completion with minimal impact on operations and the crew,” reads a statement from the Navy.

When the actual name change takes place, I'm sure there will be a formal announcement, and possibly a ceremony, which will be reported in reliable sources, at which point, the appropriate changes will be made to this and other related arricles. - wolf 03:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The Navy's official website and Facebook page for CG62 has already changed the ship's name to the USS Robert Smalls. I suggest this page reflects the Navy's change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:681:7FD0:81F9:D05A:1FED:F70F (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The Naval Register, which is the Navy's bible for which ships are on the books, has already been updated as of 1 March to reflect the name change.

What people are waiting on is a name-change ceremony. This is not as relevant as a Commissioning (when the sponsor orders the crew to "Man our ship and bring her to life." The bureaucratic parts of the name change are already done. The website is of much less significance than the Naval Register. And the Facebook page is either managed by the command PAO (an overburdened junior Officer with other primary duties) or the Ombudsman (the spouse of someone on the ship). Hardly a reliable source at all.

So I concur that the name change has happened. When official documents are running with the change, it's happened. As far as the navy is concerned, the Robert Smalls is CG 62. 216.24.45.10 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to see the link to the Naval Register: https://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_CG_62.HTML

Again, the Navy has already acknowledged the name change. Internal documents are already reflecting this. The public might be waiting on a ceremony, but the DoD is not. 216.24.45.10 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree the name has been officially changed and I have noted it in the article, both lead and body. I would'a thought the Navy would have ceremony or skmething, perhaps they still will at some point, but for now there it is... - wolf 16:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems fine to move it now based on the above and the ship's website. Probably rename the History section to History as USS Chancellorsville and start a new section for History as Robert Smalls. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dual Freq: If you mean move this page to USS Robert Smalls, I'm not sure about that. Other than the annoucement that the name was going to be changed, we have nothing else in sources, with the exception of the NVR that was used to base today's edits on. But this ship has been known by it's original name for something like 35 years. Based on commonname, I'm not sure we can just move the page. When HMS Ocean (L12) was sold to Brazil, we ddin't move that page, at first we had a second career added to the infobox, as we often do, then some created a second page for her time in the Bazillian Navy as Atlântico. - wolf 23:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

So you have something in mind like USS New York (ACR-2)? There are a lot of inconsistencies within the encyclopedia, though. For example, USCGC Munro (WHEC-724) is currently a terrible rename. The whole article is about the USCGC, but named SLNS Vijayabahu (P627). IMHO, there should have been a second article made for the career in the Sri Lanka Navy, but in real time we have no idea how long that career will be. Renamed to USS Robert Smalls, this article would be more or less like Russian cruiser Moskva with a Slava section and a Moskva section, though I concede there is not much planned service remaining for CG 62. I would think a same Navy rename would an easy decision to move an article. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I have posted a comment regarding the name change at WT:SHIPS, seeking feedback from the community, that may hopefully lead to a consensus on how to proceed.

hydrothermal vent

Though on a personal note, I think the Navy screwed up here. Given all the effort that went into the commission, and what is at stake regarding it's decisions, not to memtion the ridiculous choice to name this boat after this man. He deserves to have a new ship named for him, like one of the John Lewis-class or something. He earned it. Instead, they give him this rusted out cruiser, past it's life span, that will be scrapped in a couple years. What kind of message does that send? They should've just stuck a generic name like "Liberty" on thiw ship and be done with it. What a farce. Sorry... end of rant. Thanks - wolf 05:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Note

I have also posted a link to the WT:SHIPs post at WT:MILHIST. fyi - wolf 05:32 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Futher to this note, another ship, USS Maury (T-AGS-66), is facing the same name change situation, so as I've suggested on that ship's talk page, (and at the wt:ships), I believe we should continue any discussion there, at a central location, in hopes of finding a consensus-backed resolution for both ships. - wolf 13:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

At present more than half of the Lead is about the ship renaming. It is supposed to be summary of the main content - at present it is the wrong way round.Davidships (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Davidships: Agree 100%. It seems the name changing have all but taken over the content of both articles and they are both in need of a clean-up. I've notice the effort you put into fixing some sourcing, and chance you might want to work on the prose in one of the articles? - wolf 14:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, since you were working on this page, I let it be and worked on the other ship page. Cheers - wolf 14:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'll do something, but not while the first flush of discussion is on - so will come back to it tomorrow. Davidships (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Move

Are y'all kidding me? What valid reason do you have not to move the page? As stated in the article, the rename was made without a ceremony, and all official records online have already been updated. It's time this is too. ɱ (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

---

USS Robert Smalls → USS Chancellorsville – The requested "new name" is actually the original name. It was changed despite an active discussion taking place at WT:SHIPS that the mover was aware of and choose to bypass. There are other options that have been used in identical situations that should be given the opportunity to be discussed and considered, (eg: USS New York (ACR-2), HMS Ocean (L12) & Atlântico, USCGC Douglas Munro (WHEC-724) and MV Astoria), to name a few. If a decision, supported by consensus, isn't forth-coming after seven days, then (as I have already suggested) the issue should go to an RfC. (Or RM, but this same issue involves two articles, so an RfC could apply to both). The mover cited "wp:namechange" as a reason for the move, without clarifying how it applied. When asked earlier, another user's reply would fail wp:crystal. However, this move does fail wp:commonname and for all these reasons, it should be moved back. Thank you. - wolf 06:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I oppose this requested move as the person who moved the article to USS Robert Smalls. WP:NAMECHANGES gives clear instructions on what to do in a situation like this, and sources like The New York Times are already using the new name. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support as the one who posted this RM. This ship has been known by it's original name for 35+ years, which bolsters the wp:commonname policy argumemt. The only sourcing that mentions this ship so far is in regards to the name change. This ship is scheduled to be scrapped in a couple years. While any further info published about the ship in that time (typically home port changes, going out on deployment, returning from deploymemt, and if something interesting happens, perhaps it gets published as well.) But wagering on possible items that may be published in RS in the future is a violation of wp:crystal. Based on what we currently have in the article, commonname says the original name should be the title. But there are options, as I noted above. We can make it very clear, and accessible, for anyone interested that the ship has been given a new name. It's unfortunate that a couple of users have taken to calling editor who didnt't unquestioningly call for an immediate name chamge, to be "racists". It's possible this will habe a chilling effect on potential supporters of this move back and further discussion of potential solutions. Something I believe the closimg admin should take into consideration. Thanks - wolf 07:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NAMECHANGES. The ship has been renamed, and the new name is now being used in reliable sources so there's no reason to think that they'd stick with the old name for some reason (it's hard to see why any sources would do this). See Google News for other examples of the new name being used in reliable sources. The examples noted by Thewolfchild in the statement at the top of this discussion are not relevant here as they were for instances where ships were transferred from one navy/owner to another, which led to a new name: in this case the navy that owns the ship has renamed it. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The first ship I named was USS New York (ACR-2), how do explain that? And while you and other keep citing namechanges, what part of namechanges supports this immediate move? Thanks - wolf 04:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nick-D: It's been almost a week, can I expect a reply? Thank you - wolf 11:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose in line with WP:NAMECHANGES, a policy; and precedent regarding multiple and frequently issuances of news regarding US cruisers. Thus the new name will as of routine be covered in all manner of new material, meeting any perceived breech of COMMONNAME within probably weeks or months. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The vessel, originally named for a Confederate victory in the Civil War, was renamed in honor of a hero of that conflict (who likely would have earlier had much more recognition were it not for his race). We should not second-guess or disregard the fact that the ship no longer bears the former name, and the redirect is more than adequate to handle a search for it. Kablammo (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nick-D, basically. The WP:CRYSTAL carve out in WP:NAMECHANGES applies to situations like Burma/Myanmar or Kiev/Kyiv, where there is actual disagreement over what to call something (or how to spell it). That's not the case here, with a straightforward (and obscure) name change like this one. DOD sources will obviously use the new name, and the media will follow suit; neither of these requires one to look into a crystal ball to figure out. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose also per Nick-D. And I'm not familiar with the other examples - but the HMS Ocean & Atlântico analogy doesn't help the argument; the article on Ocean covers her construction and Royal Navy service. The Atlântico article covers the service of the renamed ship in a different Navy - this is perfectly logical. The USS Robert Smalls is the same ship, in the same navy, just with a rename. Not analogous. Mark83 (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose it was clear choice for the article name based on the official renaming. ɱ (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changing the history?

@The ed17: - the entire history of the ship has been changed, removing instances "Chancellorsville" and replacing them with "Robert Smalls", and not just before the name change, but all the way back to the comissioning?

• "Robert Smalls was commissioned at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss, on 4 November 1989."
• "Robert Smalls was next deployed from February to August 1993, to the Persian Gulf as part of the Nimitz Battle Group."
• "On 26 June 1993, Robert Smalls launched strikes on the Iraqi Intelligence Center in Baghdad with nine Tomahawk missiles in retaliation for the aborted assassination attempt on former President Bush."

USS Robert Smalls didn't do those things, she didn't exist before 1 March 2023. Every sourced entry in the history up until that date is about USS Chancellorsville. I get that name puts a lot of people off and we're all glad it been changed, (yes me included), but these changes to the history are wrong, they're disingenuos, confusing, and they are not supported by the sourcing. The history should be changed back to the way it was.

Just as a suggestion, perhaps have two sub-sections under "History", one as "USS Robert Smalls: 1 March 2023 to present", where we add sourced entries about USS Robert Smalls activities, as they become available. The other one is "USS Chancellorsville: 4 November 1989 to 28 March 2023" where we add all the sourced entries of USS Chancellorsville's activities. I think that'll make more sense. We can just pretend Chancellorsville never existed, and the ship was named Robert Smalls since the beginning. - wolf 11:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree the article should be named USS Robert Smalls, but I don't understand why we are retroactively renaming the ship back to its construction. Seems like the cruiser Slava/Moskva article's treatment is the better example. USS New York (ACR-2) service section, also. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah "Robert Smalls was commissioned at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss, on 4 November 1989" is so wrong. Mark83 (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

No objections/these arguments make sense! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Your logic is inconsistent with the way Wikipedia handles trans people. Every reference on Elliot Page (save for a "Formerly Ellen Page" at the very top of the article is changed to reflect Page's new name and gender identity.

It's also inconsistent with how the military treats decommed and transferred vessels. A ship that is decommissioned and slated for scrapping, reefing, or a SINKEX becomes the ex-SHIP NAME. Once a vessel is sold to a foreign Navy, the US Navy offices that provide ongoing support refer to the ship by the name is was commissioned under by the new nation.

Since we are talking about naming conventions, following the conventions of the US Navy seem appropriate here. And as far as the US Navy is concerned,he ROBERT SMALLS was commissionned in 198. It's no different than when a trans person changes their name.9e

It's also inconsistent with how the military treats decommed and transferred vessels. A ship that is decommissioned and slated for scrapping, reefing, or a SINKEX becomes the ex-SHIP NAME. Once a vessel is sold to a foreign Navy, the US Navy offices that provide ongoing support refer to the ship by the name is was commissioned under by the new nation. Since 216.24.45.39 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

On one hand, any change in bios about transgender people fall under WP:BLP, which obviously is not the case with a US navy cruiser. On the other hand, you should provide a link or reference to the Navy's procedures regarding naming conventions.--Darius (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about a trans person or a decommissioned or sold ship. So I’m struggling to understand the relevance of your comments? Mark83 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)