Talk:Clemenceau (R 98)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clemenceau (R 98) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Ships (Rated Start-Class) 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 WikiProject France France Portal Clemenceau (R 98) is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) 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): French military history task force

During a port visit to Toulon in 1983, while serving the U.S. Navy aboard the U.S.S. Oliver Hazard Perry I met a French sailor from the FS Clemenceau. We shared some laughs, stories and of course a few beers. We exchanged hats, I hope he kept his, it was from my ship bearing the name USS Oliver Hazard Perry. I still have the hat from the FS Clemenceau.

Good luck to all that serve.

Rick Howard

rlhoward59@yahoo.com

U.S.

And to the others too. Rama 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Name 2 Design section 3 Factual Accuracy 4 WikiProject class rating 5 Article balance

[edit] Name

Isn't the name Clémenceau? --Soumyasch 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but that's how it's pronounced. Andrew Levine 01:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design section

The design section has images of the ship with numbers, but there is no indication of what the number mean on either this page or the image pages. --Bp0 22:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see they were in the "title" of the image. Well it's fixed now.--Bp0 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Accuracy

I found this bit a little hard to swallow, not the least because the page in the citation shows only a few of the US Navy carriers intentionally sank, and many being scrapped. Also note this paragraph from William Langewiesche's The Outlaw Sea:

One of the twists of this story is that the U.S. Government, an entity that Greenpeace has a prerogative to dislike, has become without question the world's most principled shipowner, and as such is leading the way in establishing the real costs of doing things right. I spent an afternoon at an anchorage run buy the Maratime Administration on the James River in Virginia, climbing through floating wrecks among the ever-growing number of government derelicts awating a proper domestic disposal. On one ship a workman had painted SINK ME! as a way of tempting fate. All these ships were rusting though. The annual costs for routine monitoring, pumping, and patching amounted to an average of about $20,000 per ship. That may not seem like much, but many of the hulls were in such poor condition that to keep them from sinking, they would soon have to be dry-docked for million-dollar repairs--only to be towed back to their moorings to continue rusting.

The book explains that the backlog exists because of EPA regulations forbiding the export of polluted government ships, and that the Navy is dealing with it by setting up truly clean (but phenomenally expensive) ship-breaking operations stateside.

Jorbettis 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see how this is a problem of factual accuracy : nobody seems to challenge the fact that the US dispose of some of their ships (including their aircraft carriers) by sinking them. Rama 15:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that the paragraph is constructed to support the French Navy's claim that sending the ship to Alang is a "step in the right direction" by claiming that the US Navy uses the arguably less responsible method of sinking them. Consider the USS Oriskany, mentioned in the french language version of this page. It was sunk for reef creation, but only after extensive environmental remediation (including asbestos removal) and was still subject to controversy and EPA involvnement for the toxins which remained. If the French Navy were to clean the ship up before sending it to Alang there would be no controversy, but then there'd be no financial reason to send it to Alang. Jorbettis 16:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph cites the claim. I do not see it as supporting it. There are other example of US disposal of ships, such as, recently, the USS America, where weapon testing was clearly more of a priority than reef creation. Rama 22:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we agree that at the very least saying that the US Navy "just sinks its boats" is an overgeneralization given that even on the page cited the vast majority of decomissioned ships were scrapped? But I reworked the section a little bit to avoid the generalization but still suggest that the French Navy's argument that Alang is a "step in the right direction" may or may not be legitimate. What do you think? Jorbettis 03:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody "just sink their boats" : some do not, and some do in some cases. Also, the USA is certainly not the only nation to sink boats, nor is it the one which has the worst ecological impact. It is, however, the most poeminent nation to sink discarded aircraft carriers ; I assume that this is the point (I did not write the section in question).

Anyway, this is niceties, and the present wording is very good. Rama 09:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Article states that Sir Galahad is currently being broken up at Alang in India. Wiki article on Sir Galahad (linked from this article) states that it is currently in service with the Brazilian navy. One or other is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.95.236 (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article balance

It's very odd to me that the service summary of a ship that served for 36 years is overshadowed by a very-lengthy section on its scrapping! Something is out of place here. Yes, the service history should be expanded, but the scrapping needs to be cut back to a paragraph or to at most, leaving the detail for the source texts. I have no problem taking an axe to that section, but someone else may wish to prune it gently instead. - BillCJ (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Edited scrapping for length, it could probably be trimmed some more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.162.82 (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)