Talk:USS Arkansas (BB-33)

message: 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)
thread_title: Contradict tag

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: Feel free to mention it. The silver service of  is mentioned in that article. -MBK004 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silver service 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reclassified as Dreadnought 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  (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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why the re-editing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Service with the Grand Fleet 

message: 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)
replies: text: Alright, my bad.  I have added a clause to the article to clarify this.  DeVos Max (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article classified under "Artificial Reefs"?