Talk:June 3, 2007 incident off Somalia

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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

I dont think this article and combined task force 150 should be merged, combined task force 150 should be an article regarding a military unit and this article should consist of information about an action fought by that unit, consider the differnces between the articles for the US First Army division and the Battle of the Bulge Unsigned comment by User:67.84.178.107 16:23, 9 July 2007

• With respect, I don't think that either this or the Action of March 18 2006 can be compared with the Battle of the Bulge. The Combined Task Force 150 already contains details of several similar actions like this so adding two more is a logical next step. Neither this nor the Action of March 18 2006 are capable of much expansion and combining them avoids duplicating intro material etc. ROGER ^TALK 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Roger. This is in no way comparable with the Battle of the Bulge. This would be better placed as part of CTF-150, as well as a mention in the War in Somalia article Chwyatt 09:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a better comparison would be with the article in the somali civil war campaign box Fall of Kismayo, just because an article is small does not mean that it should be considered for deletion. Also the article combined task force 150 does not contain any information about actual combat. At the very least i think that the article Action of March 18 2006 be retained because of its historical importance of being the first naval action fought by the united states during the 21st century. XavierGreen

[edit] Pirate flag?

Isn’t that a little silly, unless those Somali vessels were flying the Jolly Roger. Chwyatt 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the pirate flag here?

Unless there is evidence that 21st century Somali ‘pirates’ are flying 18th century English pirate flags, I cannot see a reason to add that flag. And if those 21st century Somali ‘pirates’ are not flying a flag, why add a flag that is nothing to do with them? There is no official pirate flag.

Further reasons not to have the ‘pirate flag’

The popular image of pirates, which the Jolly Roger represents, in the popular imagination, is nothing like the reality of pirates operating of the African coast in the 21st century. The only reason as some have said for having Jolly Roger is that it represents pirates. But modern piracy is a world apart from the popular myths or reality of 18th century piracy.

Further, two different pirate flags have appeared at different times, so there is no single common pirate flag. And no ‘official generic pirate flag’.

It has been said that Islamic terrorists don’t fly the flag of jihad. If that is the case, then that is a reason not to have the flag of jihad.

It simply isn’t encyclopaedic. Chwyatt (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)