# Talk:USS Arkansas (BB-33)

There is a contradiction within this article about the fate of the Arkansas. The text of the article indicates that she was used in atomic bomb testing and then scuttled, but the Status line in the infobox states that she was "sunk by atomic bomb". I was not able to determine which is the more appropriate description - the page on Operation Crossroads does list her as sunk during BAKER but also says:

Eight of the major ships and two submarines were towed back to the United States and Hawaii for radiological inspection. Twelve target ships were so lightly contaminated that they were remanned and sailed back to the United States by their crews. The remaining target ships were destroyed by sinking off Bikini Atoll, off Kwajalein Atoll, or near the Hawaiian Islands during 1946-1948.
From the external links listed here, it is not clear to me whether she was sunk by BAKER or scuttled afterward, and I suppose it's a somewhat moot point. However, I was rather surprised, in my efforts today to properly categorize shipwreck articles, to find an infobox stating that an American battleship was "sunk by atomic bomb". At worst, the infobox language may not be quite accurate - and at best, it's (perhaps unintentionally) sensationalized, considering the Arkansas was an American ship sunk during or as a result of American weapons tests. Maralia 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I was curious too, and it took a little digging: BB-33 Arkansas was one of the target vessels for the Operation Crossroads nuclear bomb tests against naval targets. Arkansas was 620 yards from the airburst detonation of Test Able, dropped from a B29 bomber, and the ship survived. On the second test, Arkansas was 170 yards from the detonation point of Test Baker, a 23 kilo-ton nuclear bomb suspended 90 feet below the surface. Although the films of the column of water thrown up by the underwater explosion are ambiguous as to whether we are seeing the ship or its shadow, eyewitnesses viewing the Arkansas claim the ship itself was lifted and stood almost vertical. At one point, her bow was embedded in the bottom of the lagoon and the stern nearly 300 feet above the surface, before falling back. Arkansas sank as a result of this test in Bikini Lagoon and today lies upside down in the lagoon. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting note about the Battleship's silver service. It was customary for the state to furnish a silver service to the ships that bore the state name. REMEMBERING ARKANSAS : Battleship’s silver came from much effort, expense. Apparently the silver service is now in the Arkansas Governor's Mansion 
State Dining Room.[1] Anyway, it might be worth adding something about it. There are even some PD-USN photos to use. Maybe I can get to it later, unless someone else is interested. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to mention it. The silver service of USS Texas (BB-35) is mentioned in that article. -MBK004 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The first American battleship to receive the "super-dreadnought" classification was the New York, which followed the Arkansas. The Arkansas and Wyoming, with their 12" guns, were solidly in the "dreadnought" category.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.100.154.61 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC) 

I don't understand why this article is being torn apart. It was perfectly fine. That image that is being used now is very fuzzy and quite unclear. Why was the original photo replaced? Why was there no discussion on this either? If there had been a vote I would had voted no to changing it. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is a copy of DANFS - this is not "best practice" is not the way to get an rated higher than Start-class. DANFS is a fine source, but block-quoting the entire entry and calling it our own work is highly problematic, for a number of reasons. By rewriting the article and incorporating other sources, the quality and reliability of the article will be significantly improved. In addition, many DANFS entries contain far too much information for a proper, encyclopedic article, and many are written in archaic or otherwise inappropriate language. See for instance the work I did to USS Wichita (CA-45) (compare to the old version) - the article is now awaiting a WP:GAN review. I don't know what you're talking about with regard to the image, it's a very high resolution scan from the National Archives. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ohhhh So we are concerned with getting the article some sort of fancy fame award. Too much information? I say the more info the better. And yes, the replacement image is foggy. It is inferior to the original image that was there.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm concerned with doing a good job on writing an article. Copying a 40-year old entry from US Navy records is in no way a good job. We are an encyclopedia that is written in summary style, not a mirror for DANFS. More importantly, copying verbatim without directly acknowledging the source is plagiarism, whether the material is public domain or not. Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I just wished to add that earlier this year, I inserted some text regarding the service of the USS Arkansas in pioneering the Navy's continuous-wave, wireless technology during its early cruises. My main interest was documenting the wireless stuff -- but my late father also served on the Arkansas in the 1930s during a summer cruise whilst a midshipman at the Naval Academy. When I first made those edits, I didn't realize how carefully curated this article was by Parsecboy -- but the edits he quickly made subsequently preserved the content I inserted and improved their format, to fit with Parsecboy's careful style. I only wish to thank Parsecboy for his prudent, and sympathetic, edits. Theophilus Reed (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed a sentence suggesting that after Jutland the British and German fleets did not engage one another (they did, albeit on nothing like the same scale) or seek an engagement, which is even less accurate (they absolutely did try to do this). We could get into a whole debate over the scale of post-Jutland naval events, but that's beside the point. The reason Arkansas didn't see "action" is because she arrived only four months before the war ended and because she was not assigned on a mission which led to an encounter with German naval forces (other ships in the division did, albeit minor run-ins with U-boats). I don't see any need to include subjective analysis in the introduction to this article - keep to the facts. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The article list 12" 50 cal Mark 7 guns.  As far as I can tell the 12" 50 cal is Mark 8 and the Mark 7 is 16" 50 cal.  See 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun and 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 gun.  I don't have access to the original sources to determine which is right.--Plmerry (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You're looking for the 12"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun. Parsecboy (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Which is exactly why red links are not OK.  It means there is a problem.  The 12" is a Mark 8 not a Mark 7.  DANFS Online is full of mistakes which is unfortunate, but true.  My question is which mistake is it, the Mark # or the #".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plmerry (talk • contribs) 10:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Redlinks are perfectly fine. You seem to be operating under the assumption that because an article doesn't exist yet, the subject itself does not exist. As for DANFS, it's actually pretty good most of the time, at least as far as accuracy is concerned - it is of course an official USN source, which means there may be issues of bias, but in general I have found it to be a pretty high quality resource.
And as for the type of gun in question, please see here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Plmerry, I created the article in question last June 2016. Each gun caliber can have the same Mark # as another; ie., 4"/40 caliber gun had Marks 1-6, 6"/30 caliber gun had Marks 1-3. Most of the time the higher Mark would indicate a length change in the gun, sometimes it was just because the new gun was built from different materials. Not sure if this helps you, maybe you've figured it out since 2014, but I've filled in many of the missing sizes of guns in the last year in an effort to eliminate red links.Pennsy22 (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

26000 long tons is not 26000 t (two times)
idem for 31000 long tons
the correct symbol of the kilowatt is kW, not KW
Arkansas departed Ireland in 1944 is suspect, because Ireland observed formally the strictest neutrality. I suspect Ireland is Wales or Ireland sea.
another three -> other three
The phrase

She remained in the Philippines until 20 August, when she departed for Okinawa, arriving in Buckner Bay on the 23rd, by which time Japan had surrendered, ending World War II. 

sound strange, because the surrender was announced on 15/8 (before 20/8) and signed on 2/9 (after 23/8)

I suggest to check the assignment of the Wyoming, that in his article is different.
pietro78.5.38.90 (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the displacement issues - the template was rounding the conversion too much.
I don't know where you see KW, both instances are kW.
Irish neutrality was not so strict as they liked to pretend - see for instance the Donegal Corridor. In any event, the article is referring to Northern Ireland, which is of course part of the UK.
Japan had already surrendered on 15 August before they signed the document on 2 September. See the Jewel Voice Broadcast. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the prompt answer and the interesting info on the Donegal corridor. the KW problem is a compound of poor browser and poor eyes, sorry. the ireland problem arose because the text contains 'Bangor, Wales' and I felt that that Ireland was near the Wales -- still contains 'Bangor, Wales', in addition to 'Bangor, N.I.'. the comment on the surrender was actually a suggestion to move 'by which Japan ..' after 20/8 from its present location after 23/8. pietro78.5.38.90 (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

dear parsecboy, I suspect that wiki works so: If I write a new section, you receive an alert, If I add to a previous you do not ... thanks again. pietro151.29.200.96 (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy:
Nope, that's not how it works.Pennsy22 (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it from that category.  If that is an issue, or I have missed something very bizarre, let me know.

Probably because she is an Artificial Reef at the bottom of Bikini Lagoon.Pennsy22 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Alright, my bad.  I have added a clause to the article to clarify this.  DeVos Max (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)