Talk:USS Bigelow

=Fate=

MBK004, please explain to me how reporting where a set of items belonging to the Bigelow are, is considered disputable? They are sitting right there. Wikipedia's policy states that only disputable claims require citation. There is no dispute that the items are there, anyone in the world can publicly see them on display. After reading the article a week or so ago, I went and verified it myself yesterday and they are indeed in Newburyport, and was dismayed to return and see that the edit was gone. Also, the edit accuses me of advertising. Perhaps I should not have included the words 'on sale'? If so, just remove the words instead of the whole edit. The information is still valid, indisputable, verifiable and truthful. If photographs are required I will take them. After all, everyone believes the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre even if they haven't seen it themselves, yet nobody deletes that from Wikipedia.

Also, refrain from placing passive aggressive notes in my Talk page. If you have a problem with edits, discuss them in the article talk page, not on the editor's. Roboczar (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the policy on original research and verifiability, we cannot take your word, we need a reliable print source. -MBK004 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding that non-controversial facts, ones that are not "challenged or likely to be challenged", don't require separate footnotes. However, MBK is questioning the fact.  So, providing a picture would be a good way to settle this.  There is an exception to the general "no original research" policy, for pictures.  Take a pic, upload it to wikimedia commons, and give date photo taken and plenty of description there. doncram (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the location of random parts of the ship after scrapping notable? Maybe if the ship's bell was in a museum or something, but a few random items that are on sale, I don't see the noteworthiness of those items even if it could be cited. Surely there are many artifacts from many ships long since scrapped, what makes this worth noting? --Dual Freq (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a point about the general noteworthiness of the items, but the information would be factual and would not hurt the wikipedia article in any way. And, maybe the items look really cool, and/or pictures of them would really enhance the article.  Apparently the items for sale were striking to one wikipedia reader/editor so I wouldn't prejudge whether adding a photo and mention of this is unhelpful.  It is interesting to me that pieces of the ship would be for sale, and I am curious what they are, and whether they serve well the function of artifacts:  evoking the history.  And to use this new argument to prevent the relatively new editor from adding back the pretty innocuous info now, would seem unfair to me. doncram (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought we were talking about a radar unit and a door that sounds like just some random parts that are for sale to me. If there is something noteworthy sitting on display in a museum somewhere, I don't a problem with including that if its cited. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Bigelow. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920100418/http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/jan01/weapons.htm to http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/jan01/weapons.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)