Talk:HMS Amethyst (F116)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale

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)

[edit] 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)