Talk:USS Turner Joy
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Turner Joy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
Other interesting facts to be included?
editIn January 1973, TJ was involved in several "Operation Linebacker" strikes on North Vietnam, including one dubbed "The Battle of Brandon Bay", reported to be the largest naval engagement since WWII.
TJ fired the last naval salvo in support of the ARVN, one minute prior to the ceasefire.
206.176.227.44 (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Tim Campion
Tim, I edited the artitcle to include the 10k rounds fired, and last round fired. I used the 72-73 Wespac Cruise book as ref. I am sure the National Archives have our log entries. Regards Dave Ginsburg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stream-enterer (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Chapter about Gulf of Tonkin Incident, The truth was very different
editRead 30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War
View Gulf of Tonkin - "War Made Easy"
The Pentagon Papers also revealed the text of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was drafted and ready months before the actual fabricated incident took place. Johannjs (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
June 20, 1982 Attack on the USS Turner Joy
editAccording to the 1982 CINCPAC Command History (p 386-387), the USS Turner Joy was attacked with small arms fire from a Vietnamese vessel on the evening of June 20, 1982. The vessel was struck in the hull and superstructure, causing only superficial damage. The USS Lynde McCormick and USS Sterett were also fired upon hours later in the morning of June 21. --D.E. Watters (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Possible COPYVIO detected: emphasis rather that "quotation" of technical term
editWotcher, the standard for describing technical terms in non-technical texts is to "quote" them. I detected and edited an emphasis on gunline as a technical term of naval deployment to quotation ("gunline"). That we had gunline indicates that someone may have pasted gunline from a source without editing ``text\'\' properly. This indicates a copyvio by pasting may have occurred as the editor did not paraphrase their source. I'm noting this as I don't have the time to conduct the research (or obviously log in), as I'm mobile and not actively editing. If someone could check against source to see if the technical term indicates a paste, rather than out of style presentation of a technical term. Also, possibly, a more naval oriented editor could consider whether we have an article on gunlines and wikilink for the interested reader fascinated by the technical term. 120.18.212.18 (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to have been introduced here [[1]] by an IP editor as a style issue. The prior read shore bombardment duty. I'm suspicious that both the emphasis and language expressive style "gunline" is less clear than "shore bombardment duty." I lack adequate expertise in the presentation of naval technical issues to the general reading public to observe the superiority of one over the other, but would observe that we don't have a gunline topic, and it is obtuse compared to shore bombardment duty. 120.18.212.18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)