# Talk:USS Helena (CL-50)

Battle of Cape Esperance lists Furutaka rather than Furutawa. Are these two different ships, or is one an error? — B.Bryant 09:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's an error. The actual IJN heavy cruiser at Cape Esperance was the Furutaka. There was no "Furutawa". Darkstar8799 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A little while ago, I added a bit of information about Helena's propeller, bell, and anchor being kept at a park in Helena, MT.  This was removed, with the explanation that they probably came from the next Helena (CA-75). However, stamped onto the propeller is the statement that it was made in the 1930's, which makes the propeller too early to belong to the latter vessel.  Keegsshipguy (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My late father in law was on the Helena when she went down. He told me the materiel in Helena is from CL50.
He also told the post sinking story significantly different than what appears in this article. The whale boats (he was in the boat with Capt Cecil) landed men on a beach but had to wade ashore and many had abandoned their boots when they went in (current survival training at the time) and had to be carried over the coral by those who hadn't. Further, those are the men who were safeguarded by teh coast watchers (and locals) until they were picked up some days later. He also said that the men clinging to the bow were machine gunned by the enemy though he didn't say how successfully.
Also, he made no mention of one of the whale boats losing its rudder but rather than one of them ran out of fuel and was then taken under tow by another (along with the raft(s) it was towing).
I had the honor of attending a Helena reunion in Sacramento in the mid 2000's and it was a humbling experience. Being a Marine, I did get harassed a bit.  LOL 2606:C800:2001:6300:6818:CDED:5AF9:EE1B (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this terminology. What is meant by "on the post side of the harbor."?
Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think what the author meant is on the side of the harbor near the "post" (base).  Most of the base facilities are over there.  I tweaked the language to make this clearer.Busaccsb (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not noted in the Wikipedia article that I just read about the USS Helena CL50 is a nickname that the survivors that had to stay in the water until they reached land. I am a member of the Helena Organization which is an organization that was started by the crew that served aboard the CL50 crew. As the years went by after forming the Organization they invited the crew of the USS Helena CA75 to join them which many of us have. It has been a humbling feeling to listen to some of the stories of the survivors of the CL50. The nickname that has been mentioned by the survivors that had to stay in the water all night is, "The Kula Gulf Swim Team."

                     Bob Parry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.111.148 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC) 

My late father in law was an electrician on CL50 when she went down. He and his mates had been on the Benham when it was sunk, then the Helena. Their next ship was the Houston which was also torpedoed but did not sink. They were given the moniker "Torpedo Magnets". 2606:C800:2001:6300:6818:CDED:5AF9:EE1B (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Helena (CL-50)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 19:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Claim my seat here. I have to tell you I'm hungry for a new nomination. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA - this was a beast of an article to write, so take your time reviewing it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No thank you, every new B-, GA-, A- or FA-class makes Wikipedia a better place. I'd love to be polite to people who work hours and hours every day to make Wikipedia a better place. We probably won't finish all warships to at least GA-class in the coming ten years. I'd love to see an FA-MILHIST where almost all articles are FA-class. Let's hope we're still alive if that ever happens. :p
Part 1

limited to 10,000 long tons (10,000 t) Link both tonnes.
Done
resulting in the St. Louis sub-class Link St. Louis
There's no link for that
Helena was 607 feet 4.125 inches (185.11838 m) Both numbers are really specific.
I went with the figure provided in Friedman
in the mounts for the .50-cal guns Isn't .50 the same as in .5? Or is this really part of the gun?
Yeah, they're always called ".50" - see for instance .50 BMG, the name of the round the guns fired
was equipped with an anti-aircraft battery Add "(AA)" behind anti-aircraft.
Done
battery of eight 20 mm (0.79 in) Oerlikon cannon British plural form of cannon.
Is it? According to merriam-webster, the "plural [is] usually cannon"
Link US Navy.
Done
She stopped in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Guantanamo Bay isn't really part of Cuba.
Yeah it is, it's just leased to the US.
Hmm I know it is leased to the US, but do we really count it as leasing if the owner doesn't want the money and wants you to leave? That's exactly what the current Cuban government wants. it claims that the US "illegally occupied" the bay since the American–Spanish War. Of course, both countries say that the bay lies in Cuba but it's a de facto US territory. However, we're talking about the mid-1930s when a pro-US Cuban government was active, which means it's not really a problem here. But if we're talking the geographic region the bay itself then we better can use "in" instead of the comma after Bay. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
True, it's no different from any other colonial acquisition (like Hong Kong 1841–1997). How about "She stopped in Guantanamo Bay, an American-leased naval base in Cuba..."?
Pipe Hawaii to the Territory of Hawaii.
Done
Link California.
My sense is, California would fall into the category of WP:OVERLINK geographical entities.
True, I understand your sense. But personally, outside the US it is not that popular or wide-known. I mean we Belgians (non-English natives) only know Holywood, LA and San Fransico at the West Coast. Before I was an editor I didn't know in which state those places were. I know they were at the West Coast but as a non-American, I can tell you we're not good in American states' geography. Nor Americans are about the EU. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a fair point - linked. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
ship received her 1.1-inch guns No metric units?
It's converted earlier
Is so weird that you and Sturm always use day/month/year instead of month/day/year style is there a good reason why?
The modern US military uses DMY so that's what we follow for modern American warships - this is long-established practice at WP:MILHIST (and everybody else on Earth uses DMY, so that's what we do for non-US ships too)
high-level bombers, and thirty-six fighters What kind of fighters?
Added the specific aircraft types
to block a Japanese squadron if it was detected by air Do we know which squadron?
It wasn't directed against a specific Japanese unit
lookouts aboard Helena and Boise Is there a link for lookouts?
Surprisingly, there is
attack from elements of the 164th Infantry Regiment Link the 164th Infantry Regiment.
It's linked earlier
I'll later continue. Stay tuned. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Helena thereafter went to Sydney, Australia Unlink Sydney because of common term.
Done
were then transferred to New Caledonia Add France here.
Changed to "transferred to the French colony of..." as saying "New Caledonia, France" suggests to the reader that New Caledonia is in Metropolitan France.
That sounds better. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
with many of the remainder from bomb You mean remainders?
No, it's the remainder of the casualties, those not killed or injured in the torpedo explosion
they were accidentally shooting at the leading You mean shot?
No, the gerund is right there
Scott missed a second group of warship Remove the "a" and replace it with "the".
In this case, because we haven't introduced the second Japanese unit, "a" is the right choice here
resupply their forces fighting on and around Guadalcanal You mean "in" instead of "on"?
To me, it sounds correct to say that one fights on an island, not in it.
supplies for the army already on Guadalacana Typo of Guadalcanal.
Fixed
despite the fact that he had not assigned Remove "despite the fact that" and replace it with "although".
Done
group of eleven float planes to scout Merge float planes.
Done
as a large Japanese air strike was detected Merge air strike.
Done
around the Kula Gulf on a number of occasions Remove "a number of" and replace it with "several".
Done
short skirmish at long range produced Long range needs an hyphen.
I don't think it does here - it's the same as "X class", in that it only needs a hyphen if the two words form a compound adjective. In this case, "range" is a noun and "long" is the adjective.
behind to help ferry men to American Merge ferry men.
No, "ferry" is the verb here.
Damn a double verb. I didn't know it was a verb at all, I thought it was a compound adjective (probably misread the context). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That's it I will have a look in the sources, images and the infobox later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Images

Look good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Sources

Why does have ref 74 no second-page number?
Fixed
Bonner's book should be linked with a Google Books' URL.
A bot has been going around and adding the archive.org URLs for some reason - I'm not particularly in favor of it, but I haven't bothered to fight the bot - and in any event, readers can click on the ISBN to find the book in any number of locations (including google books)
Domagalski's book is in the same situation as above.
As above
Damnit I cannot review Hanson's source due legal reasons!
Hammel's book need¨s "New York" as its location.
Good catch
Kilpatrick's book title needs a "the" article before Naval.
Added
Where are the publisher and location of Wright's source?
Added
Both the "Naval History and Heritage Command" and "USS Helena, Report of Pearl Harbor Attack dated 14 December 1941"'s external links are dead.
Cut them - the latter is cited in the article anyway, with a link that works.
Infobox

"Standard: 10,000 long tons (10,000 t)" Link both tonnes.
Done
"Full load: 13,327 long tons (13,541 t)" Link full load.
Done
"100,000 shp (75,000 kW)" Link both units.
Done
"12 × 20 mm (0.79 in) Oerlikon anti-aircraft cannons" In the infobox we use "cannons" as plural and in the body it is "cannon"?
Fixed the box
That's anything, I'll put it on hold. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries took me some time to review. But I'm happy to pass it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me say that while some parts were improved vs earlier, by no means the WHOLE article needed such 'overhaul'.  Some parts were perfectly fit in the article, with citations and primary sources that were much interesting to read. So i rate the work on this article actually worseing the item instead to improving it. The part 'survivors' without any citation of the australian priest, as example, is quite partial to say the minimum. I prefer by far the earlier versions before the ones made by parsecboy. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it did. Remember that this is an encyclopedia (i.e., a tertiary source quarried from secondary sources), so primary sources should generally not be used (and the block quoting of documents is wholly inappropriate). And again, as an encyclopedia article, it should not go into unnecessary detail; the article is already very long as it is. If readers want to learn more about the survivors’ ordeal, Domagalski’s book is available. Parsecboy (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:USS St. Louis (CL-49) for discussion of references and how the Navy classed the ships. Palmeira (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No reason to split discussions off from where they started, see Talk:Brooklyn-class cruiser. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The ship was commissioned 18 September 1939, not 14 December 1939. I'm not sure why a secondary source is preferred over a primary source when the secondary source is obviously in error and the primary source can correct this. However, if you insist, I have a secondary source with the correct date too.68.226.52.62 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out in this edit summary, the usage of "RADM" to abbreviate "rear admiral" is not unique to the United States; one need look no further than our own article to find two other navies that use it. It's also widely used in secondary literature on the topic, so that argument doesn't fly.
@Buffs: - you are invited to participate in an actual discussion here, if you feel strongly about your position. Parsecboy (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Your condescending edit summaries are more than a little unappreciated. You do not WP:OWN this article and good faith edits should be discussed, not belittled. I can provide alternatives in the article without a multi-paragraph discussion. Every change doesn't require accompanying discussion.
I can find no evidence that Rear Admiral was abbreviated "RADM" in the Japanese Navy and I can find no other articles that so frequently use that abbreviation so frequently regarding operations via American WWII warships. In the first 500+ articles, scores of ships use RADM or RAdm. All but one uses it in the following manner
only once without spelling out the abbreviation or are in the references where that was the given name of the author; or
was used in the title of the article and are appropriately used as the given abbreviation.
two use it twice and are stubs.
I could only find one other article that even closely matches this: USS South Dakota (BB-57)
Just because it is "widely used" doesn't mean it should be used here.
I never stated it was "unique to the United States". I said Japan doesn't use it.
WP:MOS states "US military ranks are often abbreviated without this punctuation (though they should not be given in all-caps..." Accordingly, we should spell it out and/or we should not be using all caps per the WP:MOS. Buffs (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
In contrast, most other articles I could find about similar ships spell out Rear Admiral. Buffs (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
I am really struggling to see any good faith here. First, you start an edit war over a racist nickname with no encyclopedic value; then you deliberately misrepresent edits (and now lying about what you plainly said - in what way does saying that RADM is "a US naval abbreviation" mean anything other than that it's a USN-specific abbreviation? Now you're moving the goalposts (first, it was that the abbreviation shouldn't be used because it "doesn"t help the prose"; then it's a USN thing; now it's that the capitalized abbreviation isn't used, but the lowercase one is fine) in a weak attempt to be right at something. Please take your tendentious crap somewhere else and waste someone else's time. Parsecboy (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Ching is not racist in any way. It's a common family surname. I would argue it indeed has encyclopedic value as that was the name he went by and was in one of his most famous quotes: "Stand aside! I'm coming through! This is 'Ching' Lee!". It's literally the third word in the linked article. Moreover, Wikipedia isn't censored
Two edits is hardly an edit war
in what way does saying that RADM is "a US naval abbreviation" mean anything other than that it's a USN-specific abbreviation In the context of the article, "RADM" was used for both American and Imperial Japanese flag officers. My point was that this was a USN abbreviation (though others may indeed use it), but it is inappropriate to use for both nationalities in the article as they did not use such abbreviations.
I'm not moving the goalposts. I stand by my initial assessment and still feel that's enough. However, I did add additional reasons
It doesn't help the prose. Literally typing out "Rear Admiral" flows much better. Subsequent uses should just say Admiral for the same person.
The capitalized version shouldn't be used. That's listed in the WP:MOS
All those reasons are valid. You asked for this discussion here and, rather than participate, you seem to want to end it. Now, I recognize you may disagree, but it's used almost everywhere else on Wikipedia, WP:MOS requires otherwise, and it makes the prose flow much better (that last one's my opinion). That is a good faith reason/rationale, not tendentious crap when it's literally used everywhere else. That is just consistency. Buffs (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Please. You've got to be kidding me. Next you'll be telling me that Pershing's nickname is 100% A-OK. I'll not dignify that cartoonish (and presumably deliberate) obtuseness with further response. As for its relevance to this article, I must be confused; is this article about Willis Lee or USS Helena?
You've been around far too long not to know it's unacceptable behavior.
You didn't answer the question you quoted (more evidence of good faith discussion, no?). In any event, Japan does not use English, so naturally they would not use an English abbreviation. They also didn't call Abe's title a rear admiral - would you prefer we provide his rank as 海軍少将? Would that help the prose? Your line of reasoning is nonsensical.
Not moving the goalposts, yet you cite a policy to support something you weren't trying to do. Don't bullshit me, you're throwing everything at the wall in the hopes that something sticks.
Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man. And by the way, ranks should not be repeated after the initial introduction.
Fair, then we can make that change. But that's not what we've been arguing about, is it?
The MOS decidedly does not say what you seem to want it to say, and on the subject of WP:OWN, you should probably actually read the page. It's obvious that you haven't.
You want to decapitalize the abbreviation? We can do that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Ok, those are both red herring arguments. I'm not aware of Pershing using his nickname professionally. Lee most certainly did. He was known by that name and even signed letters and books with that name...even in Chinese. As for its relevance, that's his more common name. But you don't want to? Fine. Reasonable people can disagree. But that it's "racist"? Absolutely not.
You've been around far too long not to know it's unacceptable behavior You've been around for far too long to think two good faith edits are "unacceptable". WP:BRD is not an ironclad standard and there are many acceptable options, of which I clearly chose one. That you don't seem to like them doesn't make them "unacceptable".
I very much answered the question. Why don't you just say you disagree with the answer? To answer your further questions (in order): Yes, No, and No. Kaigun-shōshō would make more sense as would Rear Admiral (as that's the verbatim translation)
I stand by my assessment.
Well, no, it isn't just my opinion. It is part of the WP:MOS (see more below). As for ranks being repeated, that's just if they are used. Sometimes it's useful to repeat a rank for clarity (especially when there are two people with the same last name).
My point was that, even if Rear Admiral was abbreviated, you still were not doing it in line with with the WP:MOS
Now, with all that said, I'll take some heat for not being as clear as I could. I should have had a better quote from policy/guidelines to back up my edit rather than solely focus on logic and consistency (after all, reasonable people can disagree). So, here it is (emphasis mine):
Wikipedia has found it both practical and efficient to use the following abbreviations in tight quarters such as citations, tables, and lists. Most should be replaced, in regular running text, by unabbreviated expansions or essentially synonymous plain English (that is for i.e., namely for viz., and so on), when space permits or when the material would be clearer to more readers."
I argue that both space permits and it is clearer to more readers. Buffs (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
He UsEd It So It CaN’T bE rAcIsT. Give me a fucking break, you cannot possibly be serious. You are not a good faith actor, and we’re done here. Waste someone else’s time with your obviously racist, tendentious bullshit. Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
That's extremely condescending, rude, and a wildly inappropriate response (especially for an admin).
Let's make this simpler.
"Ching" is not racist in any way and you've never demonstrated otherwise
I never or implied that "because he used it, it wasn't racist". I flat out said it wasn't racist at all and you've never demonstrated otherwise. You've just claimed "it's racist" and treated it as if your assertion (unsupported by anything) was law. I then pointed out that there were pretty prominent differences in usage as you implied there was no difference whatsoever. Do me a huge favor, show me how "Ching" is racist or offensive in any way from any reliable source? I can't find a single source that says so: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. It's not even in Urban Dictionary as a racist term (and that's a pretty low bar). I think you're confusing it with Chink (which has both an insulting racial and non-racial definitions, the latter being a divot generally in metal armor) or Ching chong which, while offensive, is used to mock someone of Asian descent's speech and is not in play here...it's not even alluded to. In fact, his original nickname was indeed offensive (the prior aforementioned term), was recognized as such, and changed to something non-offensive: a Chinese surname. You don't want that? Fine. let's not argue about it. We can resolve that later if that's the hangup.
Rear Admiral should be used instead of RADM or RAdm/RAdm. unless "in tight quarters". You've not given a reason otherwise.
WP:MOS clearly says it should be spelled out: "Wikipedia has found it both practical and efficient to use the following abbreviations in tight quarters such as citations, tables, and lists. Most should be replaced, in regular running text, by unabbreviated expansions or essentially synonymous plain English (that is for i.e., namely for viz., and so on), when space permits or when the material would be clearer to more readers." I contend space permits and it is clearer. You've shown nothing to the contrary.
Buffs (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
You know the origin of the nickname and that it was bowdlerized, and you're telling me it's not racist? Again, give me a fucking break. Until you're willing to admit your baldfaced lies, then we have nothing further to discuss. Don't like being called out for naked racism? Don't make nakedly racist statements. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm offering to drop that and this is your response? (You don't want that? Fine. let's not argue about it. We can resolve that later if that's the hangup.). If it is bowdlerized (as you claimed), by definition it's no longer offensive. I have no idea what you really want with regard to that. but that's not really the crux of the matter. You want to call it a "win" for now, be my guest. Let's focus on other matters.
Spell out Rear Admiral. WP:MOS says to do it. Buffs (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
So you were going to drop it, and yet you felt the need to vomit that load of horseshit? I see two options here: you are the most clueless person alive, or you are still acting in bad faith. You are aware of the phrase dog whistle, no? Words do not have to be explicit to still be coded with certain meanings, even after they've been bowdlerized. What's worse (and more evidence of your bad faith): you deliberately overlooked what the USNI source actually states on the matter and softened its characterization of the nickname(s).
Should != must. Since you're keen on citing dictionary definitions, I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that. Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Seems like doing what we should do trumps what you want to do. The WP:MOS is a guideline. "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." If you are saying an exception should apply here, you should make that justification. Buffs (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)