Talk:HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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

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: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	Dutch military history task force

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Outcome of discussion - No concensus to merge, no new comments for well over 4 weeks. - BillCJ 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Strongly disagree, the two ships have their history (and up to recently their photos) so they will remain separate articles. Also, how would you call the merge article ? Jor70 16:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wel in fact it is only one ship that served in three navies under three different names so I wouldn't know why to object. The same goes for HMS H6 it also served in three navies under three names so that's why I the same should be done with this ship a merger with the name HMS Venerable (R63).DirkV 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many ships in Wikipedia that served in more than one navy - nearly all have only one article (usually under the first name, with redirects from the second & subsequent names). I vote Merge.

That not true for foreign carriers. see NAeL Minas Gerais, Arromanches (R 95), HMAS Melbourne (R21), HMAS Sydney (1944), etc --Jor70 10:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I still dont agree but if are merged the articled should be ARA Veinticinco de Mayo due she served far long with that name (appox 30 years) and is far more famous --Jor70 11:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be best for the neutral point of view of that it would merged to one article with the ships first name. 137.224.220.4 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is not a matter a POV but facts. She was far better know as 25 de Mayo and in minor grade as Karel Doorman --Jor70 10:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, I believe the best way of tracking the evolution of a ship that has been used by different navies under different names is by creating a main article under the initial name (whenever possible) or the most important name from a historiucal/career pov. That article should include a brief reference to its usage by other navies and links to articles that should detail the service under each of those navies/names. This would support much better the "neutral point of view" than merging everything and choosing (under which criteria?) one of the names to represent the ship. An example of this can be seen in the book "Crusers of Worl War Two", by M.J.Whitley, where several ex-british cruisers transferred to allied navies have an entry for their history under british flag and another entry for their history under the allied country flag (Australia, Poland, etc.). Thus, "Karel Doorman" and "Veinticinco de Mayo" should not be merged but cross-referenced. DPdH 07:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[1] suggests merging unless the ship has more than one "significant career". I think this is one that would qualify, although ironically because her British and Argentine periods are significant, both with combat operations of interest, and it seems pedantic and confusing to have one or two articles instead of three. 99% of the time the alternate career is of little interest, thus we use redirects most of the time, this is one of the 1%. Stan 00:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree
The best and close example is the case of the USS Phoenix and ARA General Belgrano articles; the cruiser had a long career in both navies (as the Doorman/25 de Mayo), and the change of circumstances and the upgrades that the original warship faced make the split in two different articles unavoidable. By merging, we are risking to loss valuable details of the 'Dutch' as well as the 'Argentine' carrier. Her role in both the Irian crisis (1961) and the Falklands war (1982) also deserves an extensive analyse well beyond the scope of a single article. DagosNavy 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Paragraph not directly related to the ship's history should be removed from this article

Hi all, I've just realized that the following paragraph is (in my opinion) not related specifically to the "Karel Doorman" history, and hence should be removed from this wikiarticle:

" On May 1, 1963, Indonesia received western New Guinea from the temporary UN administration, after a contested referendum in Western New Guinea (Pepera) under allegations of strong threats and intimidations of the Indonesian military, resulted in a 100% vote for Indonesian rule. Since that time Amnesty International has estimated more than 100,000 Papuans, one-sixth of the population, have died as a result of government-sponsored violence against West Papuans,[2] "

Although it's a very interesting historical note, it seems that it would be better placed in a wikiarticle about the "Indonesia - west New Guinea issue" (that probably already exists in Wikipedia); and at most that article should be referenced/linked in this one for any interested reader to be able to read more details about this specific topic.
So my proposal is: if no reasonable objections are raised, I'll remove this paragraph by the end of this month; and if I am able to locate the adequate article where to place it, I'll do so (and reference that article from this one).
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's June now, so I've removed the paragraph. - BillCJ (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)