Talk:USS Mount Whitney

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Mount Whitney article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

pre 1981?

Does the ship have no history before 1981? Right now the Ship History section starts with "From 1981 to 2005,". The Ship's construction started in 1969. This site says it was launched exactly a year later, in 1970. According to this US Navy web site it was commissioned in 1971. What was its role between 1971 and 1981? Wefa (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to research that and help build the article. ;-) - wolf 17:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beam ?

Listed beam is 108 feet- as wide as a Battleship - near the Panama Canal original Limits. I doubt the true beam is this large. Would any know actual beam at waterline - say midpoint from bow to stern? Overall width with the sponsons for boat davits - I can believe the 108 foot value there. But the true definition of Beam is at water lime - and I doubt it is that high. I'd believe 84 feet- the Austin Class LPD are listed as 84 feet beam at waterline and 105 feet extreme width. Wfoj3 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of JFK reference?

It seems the reference here to the USS John F. Kennedy should be removed or modified. According to the Wiki page on longest ships, the JFK comes in at over 370 yards long, while this article says the Whitney is about 207 yards. I know zilch about boats (except some enthusiasts don’t like when you call ships “boats”). Hence someone who knows something about this is a better candidate. Maybe “large” means something other than the length. Both are huge, and impressive, so it hardly matters much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_naval_ships

Best t’all Sych (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sychonic: Are you referring to this comment;

"At the time of her commissioning, Mount Whitney joined her sister ship Blue Ridge as having the distinction of carrying the world's most sophisticated electronics suites. It was said to be some thirty percent larger than that of the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy, which had been the most complex."...?

Because they are referring to the amount of electronics equipment carried, not the size of the ships. - wolf 03:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s the one. The term “larger” is not an apt way of describing levels of electronic sophistication. In the context of ships, the term gravitates towards physical size rather than complexity. If I’m the only one that was confused by the reference and those who more closely follow the subject believe it to be a clear and accurate comparison, then an edit is not needed.

Still, as someone with an interest in the subject to the point of wanting to know a little more, and insofar as I did consider that the author might have meant electronic equipment exclusively and thought it unlikely, a change is warranted. The only word that threw me was “larger”, and perhaps with a short clause such as “in terms of technology,” following that word, or something similar, it might be better.

It does not merit too much time or discussion, but the place of this apparently specialized class of vessel is hard to picture in the array of naval ships. Physical size is one way, technological function is another, and as is, the sentence blurred the two. Other average readers may have more common sense though and might understand immediately without the clarification. I’m sensitive to junking up articles with unneeded verbiage.

It’s also in the passive voice with vague identification of source by using the “it is said” phrase. This is not always fatal, but usually should have a reason for use. That’s an aside but worth mentioning. I don’t see an easy fix for it.

Sych (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, it's not always just length that ships are measured by, but anyway, if you feel you can improve the article by copy editing the the text, go for it. - wolf 15:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add USS Mount Whitney to the 2023 Israel Hamas war article

On 18 October 2023, Mount Whitney deployed from Gaeta with the Commander 6th fleet, Vice Adm. Thomas Ishee, and his staff, onboard "in support of U.S. operations" in the eastern Mediterranean Sea in waters off the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This added to new deployments by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) aircraft carrier strike group and USS Bataan (LHD-5), USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) and USS Carter Hall (LSD-50) carrying the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, joining the USS Gerald R. Ford strike group. 96.60.168.239 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]