From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleEhime Maru and USS Greeneville collision is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 11, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2007 WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
July 18, 2007 WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 24, 2007 Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 9, 2011, February 9, 2013, February 9, 2014, February 9, 2016, and February 9, 2020.
Current status: Featured article

Details and Balance

This is an amazingly detailed article, and I do not question that any of the details given are incorrect. It is in fact, one of the most well-written articles I've read on Wikipedia, and I do apologize for my criticism. Nevertheless, I cannot help but wonder about whether or not it is POV to imply so strongly that this was a case of negligence versus simply an accident. This article is based primarily on news articles, and primarily on Japanese articles at that, along with Stars & Stripes, sources which provide a particular approach and attitude about these kinds of events. There is a need to show remorse, a need to explain the elements of the captain's negligence, a need in the Japanese newspapers to express outrage, I am sure.

But think about it this way - if you read about this incident in a history textbook or an encyclopedia, particularly one published a decade or two or three from now, with greater emotional & chronological distance from the event, would it be approached the same way? Would there be so much emphasis on every single detail of what should have been done better, and such powerful anecdotal evidence of the outrage expressed by a number of Japanese?

I am not trying to express a bias myself - I am not trying to argue for a tilt towards a more pro-US position. But I think it's something to keep in mind; between the USN's desire or need to show remorse and to condemn Waddle's actions, and the desire or need among the Japanese newspapers and other sections of Japanese society to show outrage, these sources thus represent the situation in a particular way which other types of sources, or more objective observers and commentators, might not. What did the mainstream American news sources have to say about this event at the time? I wouldn't be surprised if a news show spent all of a minute on it, calling it an unfortunate accident and moving on, thus giving a very different impression of the event than this article does. LordAmeth 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This story was big news in Hawaii and Japan among the Japanese population of both places and among the Americans who live and work alongside them in both of those places. The story received far less coverage in the "mainland" U.S. Kyodo News is a Japanese news agency. Stars and Stripes is an American newspaper for U.S. troops stationed overseas, including Japan and Hawaii (Hawaii is considered "overseas" by the U.S. military). Thus, the way that both of these sources approached this story is reflected in the article. If I used mainly "mainland" American news sources for the article, it would probably be much shorter and would even more concentrate on Waddle's role in the accident and aftermath, and less on the Ehime Maru family members.
In spite of that, I think that the details in the article are relevant. The fact that the USN invited a Japanese officer to participate in the inquiry is unprecedented. The salvage operation was the first to lift an object so heavy from so deep. The money spent on the salvage operation and as compensation to the vicitim's families was huge. Waddle's trip to Japan to visit the survivor's and victim's families was noteworthy because it rarely happens that a U.S. military officer blamed for an accident actually travels to the other country and offers to personally apologize to the victim's family (see 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - March 28, 2003 for an example of what I'm talking about) and the visit was extensively covered by the Japanese press and Stars and Stripes.
On the issue of placing so much blame on the USN for the accident, I believe that the section on "Effect on U.S./Japan relations" discusses why that occurred. Since World War II, there has been a number of accidents involving U.S. military ships or airplanes that have injured or killed Japanese citizens (most of these accidents don't have their own articles on Wikipedia yet). In each case, the same questions always arise within Japan: (1) is the U.S. government truly committed to the safe operation of its assets, or does the U.S. government allow other considerations to compromise safety, such as allowing VIPs to stand around in a submarine's control room during an extreme maneuver? and (2) will the U.S. government immediately take accountability and responsibility for their role in the accident and treat the Japanese citizens affected by it with compassionate, fair, and timely remedial actions?
In summary, the article does heavily reflect a perspective from two of its major sources. I don't think, however, that it's doing a disservice to the story and I tried hard to make sure that it showed both sides of the incident. I really appreciate you taking the time to read the article and comment on it. Cla68 23:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for addressing my concerns. It is obvious that you have given this a considerable amount of thought, and in the end I support your approach. It really is a very well-written article, and speaks to wider/greater issues in the attitudes of both populations. LordAmeth 08:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I appreciate your comments and your points are well taken and give me something to keep in mind with this and future work in the project. Cla68 09:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nautical miles?

There are two places where a distance is given in "miles", one of which is not converted. Are these nautical miles? -- Milkbreath ( talk) 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm assuming one of the two you are referring to is the final location of the Ehime Maru that was given as 16.5 miles south of Barbers Point, under the Salvage and recovery section. I've found several sources that give the actual location as 12 miles south, and one Navy source that lists it as nautical miles. Let me know what other distance you're looking at and I'll see if I can find a source. - auburnpilot talk 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Responsibility of a ship captain in peacetime

I am a military veteran, having served 5 years in the peacetime army. To me, the ethics of responsibility are paramount. I am particularly concerned about safety issues, equally with regard to military personnel and to civilians.

I would like the article to begin with a bit more about what the legal responsibility of a ship captain in peacetime to avoid collisions with civilian vessels. Not that I want to slam the captain - or exonerate him. I just think that other readers besides myself would like to know how hard a captain ought to try, to avoid hurting civilians.

This is not parallel to the Vincennes incident, in which a surface ship was in hostile waters and made at least a half-hearted attempt to contact the plane which was crossing its path. This was two friends.

I interrupted my reading of the article right around the point where we were describing the decision of the captain to ignore the outage of a video monitor. I think this bears more looking into.

Would such a monitor, if it had been working properly, been able to prevent the collision?

Also, what are the safety rules for demonstrating an emergency surfacing maneuver? I would suppose that a document outlining the standard operating procedure would be written out. A sort of checklist, at least.

If this information is in the article, it shouldn't be hidden in the middle. Without us writers calling the captain innocent or guilty, we should give our readers enough information to make that determination themselves. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your input, as someone coming from a military background (which I don't, myself). I was baffled by the suggestion by the first poster above that this should be viewed as "simply an accident". It is as if he thinks that having a driving license and being the captain of a nuclear submarine imply the same levels of competence, carefulness, and responsibility.
But I disagree that "this is not parallel to the Vincennes incident". If anything, the conduct of the Vincennes was worse. See http://web.archive.org/web/20080229003110/http://www.geocities.com/csafdari/Proceedings.pdf
-- Herzen ( talk) 02:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Red background

I think the red background of the textbox makes the title almost impossible to read easily. I suggest someone with better knowledge of hexadecimal change the color to something more readable. Thanks! RSido ( talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree and have changed it to a more subdued colour. The Web colors article has a list if anyone doesn't like my choice. Bazza ( talk) 10:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Ahhhh! Thank you so much Bazza! I realize now, after the change, how distracting that bright red was. This is much improved. Thanks, Ariel ♥ Gold 11:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Missing fair use rationale for image

This article includes the image Image:Book cover the right thing by scott waddle.jpg for which not only is there no fair use rationale, but for which no fair use rationale is possible given that it is a copyrighted book cover and that the article includes no critical commentary of the product whatsoever. How on earth did this article make it to the main page? There have been Good Article failures for less. Skomorokh incite 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair use does not mandate "critical commentary". It is a 4-factor balancing test. Obviously, the amount of the book used is extremely small, so that's valid. Use is educational (informing people that Waddle wrote a book, and it looks like this), so that's valid. Effect upon work's value - neutral or positive by letting more people know of the book. Nature, public non-fiction work. It is completely within the bounds of fair-use. -- Kazuaki Shimazaki ( talk) 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Even so, the image needs a fair use rationale to stay in the website as per WP:NFCC. The uploader has been notified. (On a purely personal note, I think that it does not meet criteria #8.) -- 朝彦 (Asahiko) ( talk) 07:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia policy requires that book covers are only used to illustrate articles discussing the book. If you don't believe me, read the tag of the image Image:Book cover the right thing by scott waddle.jpg. Outside of the caption (which wouldn't exist without the image) The article doesn't even mention the book let alone discuss it. There is absolutely no need for a book cover to illustrate that Scott Waddle wrote a book. A short sentence mentioning the book would be sufficient. It's generally accepted practice that an article must cover a book in some detail to warrant the inclusion of the book cover Nil Einne ( talk) 08:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Ahh, but the book is one of the major sources used for the article. Cla68 ( talk) 12:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
But how neutral a source is that? -- Saber Excalibur! 18:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
A source doesn't have to be neutral itself - there would be very few available if that were the case - it just has to be used in a neutral manner. If the sentence is something like "Waddle claimed that ... [book ref]" then there isn't a problem. 160.103.2.223 ( talk) 19:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Passenger list and affiliation

This is an excellent article. I came to it through the Main Page and as I was reading it came to wonder who the VIP's on board during the incident were. It took some digging but I found a passenger list and several of the positions of civilians, which I think is relevant given their position in the naval inquiry, the Texan energy community, and the events proximity to the 2000 election. I added the information that I came across, but as this is my first substantial contribution to Wikipedia, have certainly made formatting mistakes. So I am asking for help revising the information if it is felt to be relevant and apologize for improper editing where it exists.

No problem. I appreciate you finding and adding this info, but a long list needs to go in the footnotes, not in the main body of the article. I moved it to the footnotes. Cla68 ( talk) 08:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Formatted list

I formatted the passenger list, and placed the references into templates, but had an EC with you Cla, so I'll place it here for review. I think it may be useful at the bottom of the article, but leave that up to you: Ariel ♥ Gold 08:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for doing that. I don't know where to put this if not in the footnotes. Cla68 ( talk) 08:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No problem. Thought it might be incorporated somehow, as the footnotes of the list is quite difficult to read, but I agree lists like this are not FA standard. Thanks for taking a look, Cla! Ariel ♥ Gold 08:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

According to the U.S. Navy, 16 civilians were on board the USS Greeneville on February 9, 2001, when the submarine collided with the Japanese vessel Ehime Maru. [1]

Jay Brehmer
Overland Park, Kansas, Director at Contango Oil & Gas Company. [2]
Carol Brehmer
Overland Park, Kansas
Jack Clary
Stow, Massachusetts
Pat Clary
Stow, Massachusetts
Helen Cullen
Houston, Texas, Member of the Cullen family, owners of Quintana Petroleum. [3]
John M. Hall
Sealy, Texas, Former CEO and chairman of Fossil Bay Resources Ltd. [4]
Leigh Anne Schnell Hall
Sealy, Texas
Mike Mitchell
Irving, Texas
Mickey Nolan
Honolulu, Hawaii
Susan Nolan
Honolulu, Hawaii
Catherine Graham Wyatt
Golden, Colorado
Anthony Schnur
The Woodlands, Texas, Co-founder of Aquila Energy Capital Corp. [5]
Susan Schnur
The Woodlands, Texas
Todd Thoman
Houston, Texas
Deanda Thoman
Houston, Texas
Ken Wyatt
Golden, Colorado, Vice President of Aquila Energy Capital Corp. [6]

References

  1. ^ CNN (2001). "Civilian sub passenger: 'I thought the sub was breaking up'". CNN. {{ cite web}}: |author= has generic name ( help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) ( help)
  2. ^ Forbes (2000). "Jay D. Brehmer: Director at Contango Oil & Gas Company". Forbes. {{ cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) ( help)
  3. ^ Tamara Baker (2001). "Big Oil at the Controls". American Politics Journal. {{ cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) ( help)
  4. ^ Dallas Business Wire (2001). "Fossil Bay Resources Ltd. Announces Managerial Changes". BNET Research Center. {{ cite web}}: |author= has generic name ( help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) ( help)
  5. ^ Dan Nakaso (2001). "Civilians' Names Break the Surface". Honolulu Advertiser. {{ cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) ( help)
  6. ^ AllBusiness.com, Inc. (2000). "Aquila Energy". AllBusiness.com, Inc. {{ cite web}}: |author= has generic name ( help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) ( help)

Why Tipper Gore?

Why a photo of Tipper Gore? So far as I can tell from the article, she had nothing to do with anything. It comes across as a political slam, implying that she was one of the VIPs on board at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.30.179 ( talk) 14:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Why was she at the helm of a nuclear sub in 1999? Maybe the picture could be replaced with a footnote list of all distinguished visitors to this particular submarine in the past and since the incident. I wonder what the current restrictions for distinguished visitors are. I am also curious about why the Ehime Maru converged on the surfacing location of the Greeneville. Was it purely coincidence or did they spot activity in the area caused by the Greeneville's maneuvers and mistake it for activity that would indicate good fishing in that area? Did the captain of the Ehime Maru ever comment on this? Also, why was this article picked as the featured article for December 11, 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjl1969 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
It's because of the plan to name the Los Angeles class submarines after cities in the states of senators that voted to approve the spending bill for the Los Angeles class submarines. The Greeneville is named after Greeneville, Tennessee. Tipper and Al Gore are from Tennessee and Tipper Gore, being the vice president's wife at the time, ended being the person to christen the Greeneville. (sources: [1] and the book The Right Thing. I do consider it a bit odd that there's a picture of Tipper at the helm for this article. That picture really belongs on the USS Greeneville (SSN-772) page but there's also no good place there to put it while the Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision page does provide a convenient context in that part of the article is about the DV program. Marc Kupper ( talk) ( contribs) 11:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Crude Language Noted

In reading this article I noted the presence of some crude language that has no legitimate purpose in this article.

Please review Paragrapg 3 in the "NOTES" section immediately following the end of the article. Paragraph 3 states (See wording towards end of the paragraph):

Notes


^ Kyodo, "U.S. to extend hunt for missing crew of ship by one day", USN, Report of Proceedings, p. 2, 14, 79-85, Waddle, The Right Thing, p. 108-118. Civilians on board USS Greeneville: According to the U.S. Navy, 16 civilians were on board the USS Greeneville on February 9, 2001, when the submarine collided with the Japanese vessel Ehime Maru. Jay Brehmer- Overland Park, Kansas, Carol Brehmer- Overland Park, Kansas, Jack Clary- Stow, Massachusetts, Pat Clary- Stow, Massachusetts, Helen Cullen- Houston, Texas, John M. Hall- Sealy, Texas, Leigh Anne Schnell Hall- Sealy, Texas, Mike Mitchell- Irving, Texas, Mickey Nolan- Honolulu, Hawaii, Susan Nolan- Honolulu, Hawaii, Anthony Schnur- The Woodlands, Texas, Susan Schnur- The Woodlands, Texas, Todd Thoman- Houston, Texas, Deanda Thoman- Houston, Texas, Ken Wyatt- Golden, Colorado, Some ass fucker Catherine Graham Wyatt- Golden, Colorado, Source: U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet Public Affairs Office http://archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvg1249 ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply


On a related note, the section "Court of inquiry convenes" calls the victims and crew of the Ehime Maru "terrorists" and "pirates". PelicanHazard ( talk) 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Fixed. Cla68 ( talk) 06:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Major reversion

I don't think I've ever seen a revert like this one before, reverting the best part of a day's worth of edits. Main Page FAs attract a lot of attention and edits but not all are negative - to revert most of the changes is quite severe. It's also quite annoying to have positive edits simply wiped out without a second glance. violet/riga (t) 00:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The amount of non-productive edits was far more than the good ones and hopelessly intertwined. If some of your edits were reverted, I apologize and will try to add them back myself. Another reversion shouldn't be necessary now that the article is off the main page. Cla68 ( talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Perhaps, but FAs are normally closely watched and negative edits fixed quickly and easily. I'm surprised to hear that so many poor edits got through. violet/riga (t) 09:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I've had five featured articles in which I was the primary editor appear on the main page, and this one was damaged the worst of all of them after its day in the spotlight. Although people were trying to keep up and revert the vandalism, a lot of it got through, which I noticed when I looked at the last revision. So, I took it back aways. Now that it's off the main page it should be stable enough to continue with improvements without them getting mixed up with garbage. I appreciate your good edits to the article and I apologize for reverting them. I tried to re-add them. If some are still missing I'll help out in putting them back in. Cla68 ( talk) 10:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
As a general observation, vandalism seems to be getting worse at the moment. I guess that it's due to school being out in many parts of the world in the lead-up to Christmas. -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for that - sorry that you had to deal with such problems. violet/riga (t) 11:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling ( WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Fourteen CEOs ?

The second section currently states "For this mission, Greeneville was to carry 16 civilian DVs, including 14 CEOs and a sportswriter and his wife".

However the supposed list of civilian passengers includes a number of individuals who are the wives of CEO's. Were there 14 CEO's plus several of their wives, or does the total of 14 include the CEOs ( less than 14 of them ) and several of their wives? 122.106.246.138 ( talk) 06:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Memorial article

WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 43 external links on Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Additional source

It may not fit in this, but just in case:

WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

More and better photos

The pic of the sub in dry dock does not show damage. Is it possible to find, and include, at least one pic (close-up?) of the damage?

Also, do any pics exist that show the damage to the Ehime Maru? The one underwater pic in the article really doesn't show how extensive the damage was?

Or if not a pic, a rendering?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D ( talk) 20:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision&oldid=1213270971"