74:
53:
1051:
naval circles and there is a fair amount of documentation. That said, the current article does not make clear that a number of entirely separate corporations bore the name at that location. A reader can quite easily fall into the false view that a single corporate entity occupied the site the entire time. The same applies to the ships. The builder that ended building a series of production yachts into liquidation in 1926 did not evolve to building notable destroyers. The problem could be fixed by either sections at those change points or even simple paragraphing with a brief discussion of the corporate change.
496:
695:
here. (Speaking of full disclosure: Snow's publisher was my grandfather. I grew up within sight of the yard.) I was able to address 1A. 1B I don't have the references to answer beyond the bald statement that BIW is in fact a union yard; they've struck twice in my lifetime. I'll add that if I can find a reference beyond personal memory. 2... well, I'm hoping to make that graph just one more section in a number (perhaps even moving it to the
824:
512:
120:
1073:
considerable work to change into a unifying story about a series of corporations occupying a location building ships. To be "the history of a location and its shipwrights" an introduction more on the lines of "A shipyard located on the
Kennebec River in Bath, Maine, has been operated by a number of corporate entities since 1884" and development from there as a location. The article as is misleads readers on basic fact.
480:
528:
172:
151:
22:
365:
182:
544:
437:
426:
415:
404:
305:
262:
393:
1050:
I would support its continuing as the story of shipbuilding at that location for the very reason the corporate entities varied. That provides structure rather than scattershot articles about companies that occupied the site. The World War II entity might warrant a stand alone because it was famed in
1031:
This article has been structured as the history of a location and its shipwrights rather than the financial entities which profited from those resources. I suggest the more diversified of those companies may be appropriately recognized in separate articles with links to this article as appropriate,
604:
What's missing? Maybe a few more graphs on history, citing Bath's shipbuilding history (the multiple yards on the river,) the evolution of BIW from Hyde
Windlass, its start on Navy ships and how that business grew to squeeze out all other work, perhaps links to the (many) different classes of ships
596:
I agree that it's probably tough to find an "authority" on BIW (I've not seen the term "the Bath" before?) to write up the article. But the Man from Mars has a point: this article has three paragraphs of content and an irrelevant quotation (which I'm actually about to strip unless I find a citation
998:
of companies that took the name Bath Iron Works. Yes, the name was quite famous during and after WW II with a notable reputation for destroyers in particular. Any quibble with "Bath built" during that wartime period as a note of excellence can easily be refuted by references, including naval. That
1015:
article in the 1970s using that as an illustration of degraded expertise in shipbuilding as long term shipbuilding executives were replaced by corporate people with zero experience with ships or naval matters.) In summary, the existing article leads one to think this was one entity that continued
694:
I've started a history section based largely on skimming Snow (see
References section.) The book is essentially only a whisker from being an Official Company History, so while it's free to talk about contentious issues in the company's past, he doesn't cover all sides of the POV issues discussed
639:
a)I assume that the article is correct in that the US Navy has been the primary source of Bath contracts, but the article does not say whether or not the Bath Iron Works has produced contracts for other major and minor US and foreign government agencies... For example, the US Army
Transportation
1072:
A re-read brings me to now disagree. It is treated as a corporate entity, not at all a location with multiple entities. Just look at the GD logo and "Since 1995, Bath Iron Works has been a subsidiary of
General Dynamics" to get a "Nope!" to it being about a location. That is going to take
640:
Corps, the Royal
Canadian Navy, the US Coast Guard, Military Sealift Command or NOAA Not to mention completely private concerns like various merchant marine companies? Some shipyards were also put to use producing other mil. equipment like tanks and artillery as well
605:
produced there (I know there's extensive destroyer class information already in
Knowledge (XXG), maybe there's someone who could help with links,) and a thumbnail description of the transition from slip-ways construction to the new(ish) land-level facility.
760:
would be worth mentioning here even if the repairs had not been done in Maine. But they were -- and they proved to be among the most complicated and difficult warship-repair jobs ever performed, perhaps the most remarkable since the 72-hour turnaround of
724:
well-covered in the article on the
Roberts. (See discussion above.) I'm going to take it back out now, but I'd love to see discussion. (And no, I haven't yet had time to continue the history section I started months ago, if anyone wants to pick it up...)
503:
276:
1054:
I focus on ships and occasionally shipbuilding developments but have references and could perhaps take on something of that sort. Then someone focused on shipyards and that area and history could do that too and perhaps better with local resources.
773:
repair required the 315-ton replacement block to be sledded under the damaged ship and jacked up into place, with a tolerance measured in tenths of an inch. Really, there's not a post-World War II ship that deserves mention in this article if the
519:
280:
597:
for it,) and of those three paragraphs there's only two sentences of history, two or three of opinion (where does BIW stand, in fact, among private employers in Maine?) and a paragraph and a half on a single (if singular) job, the
73:
52:
557:
1011:. There was an even earlier case that is also not mentioned. The troubles again came with naval construction and the grand old destroyer builder of WW II was taken over by a conglomerate (There was a U.S. Naval Institute
487:
272:
552:
288:
535:
284:
755:
performance validated the Navy's against-the-odds decision to award the design-and-build contract to BIW, and demonstrated the skill and work ethic of the shipyard that conceived and executed it. So the
1032:
while this article might briefly discuss those companies as their success or failure contributed to local history, with appropriate links to the articles about the more diversified of those companies.
1166:
1136:
1176:
1096:
1161:
1171:
702:
Some of the "scandal" mentioned above happened post-Snow and therefore requires newspaper research. I remember it being in the headlines but not enough particulars to sketch out. --
1141:
587:
What do you expect, a criticism section? I think we would be hard pressed to find someone who knows about the Bath that doesnt work there or for the Navy. I think it's fine. --
378:
355:
317:
578:
NPOV? This page seems to be almost an advertisement for Bath Iron Works. Could someone take a look at it? I don't know anything about shipyards, but this page needs work.--
1126:
936:
932:
918:
739:
repair deserves at least a sentence, if not a whole graf, and not just for the ship's sake. By surviving a hit that NAVSEA engineers thought should have sunk her, the
364:
1156:
90:
1151:
1146:
1131:
345:
1186:
312:
267:
244:
1116:
234:
852:
A discussion will now take place over on
Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
1181:
321:
1106:
1121:
1111:
904:
210:
94:
914:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
866:
830:
1101:
127:
33:
98:
195:
156:
81:
58:
632:
I appreciate that someone finally discovered the origin of my wikiname. That said, this article still has serious problems
644:
979:
862:
999:
company had not much to do with the BIW that existed on the site before 1926. That company, largely by then building
720:, the graph was stripped from the article because it seems to have more to do with the ship than the yard--and it
935:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
619:
39:
21:
970:
896:
316:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
608:
Am I the only
Wikipedian with both Snow and Sanders (see the "Further Reading" section) on my bookshelf? -
892:
686:
579:
495:
1008:
1004:
1000:
954:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
942:
657:
588:
209:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
895:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
802:
OK. Your added context makes the connection with BIW more specific and relevant to the main article. --
1037:
905:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070928143414/http://www.gdbiw.com/company_overview/history/default.htm
682:
618:
This page is definitely POV. And why no mention of when the "borrowed" confidential navy documents?
643:
b) Labor relations? Is Bath Iron Works a Union concern like some of the other U.S. shipyards like
1078:
1060:
1021:
856:
has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
939:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
955:
834:
665:
133:
908:
661:
962:
1033:
888:
823:
921:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
853:
961:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
928:
1090:
1074:
1056:
1017:
648:
89:-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
803:
726:
703:
609:
187:
119:
511:
790:
779:
673:
a) Nota Bene: the page on Northup Grumman DOES have a criticism/scandal section!
1003:
on its own account, was in the hands of receivers for auction of all assets by
636:
1) I don't expect a criticism section, but I would like some facts. Such that:
527:
927:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
200:
177:
479:
171:
150:
97:. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
1082:
1064:
1041:
1025:
984:
870:
806:
793:
782:
729:
706:
689:
622:
612:
591:
582:
543:
789:
Seeing no objection, I've readded the graf, with a bit more context.
994:
As is the article is more a list of ships built at a location by a
304:
261:
205:
86:
660:? I admit that it was a singular repair job... but the page on
136:
in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
132:
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
15:
542:
526:
510:
494:
478:
363:
899:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
909:
http://www.gdbiw.com/company_overview/history/default.htm
747:
class, the U.S. Navy's largest post-WWII class until the
769:
which required the reconstruction of upper modules, the
199:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
815:
File:Gulf of Tonkin Kn11060.jpg Nominated for Deletion
376:
This article has been checked against the following
1167:
North American military history task force articles
1137:
C-Class Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) articles
931:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
461:
375:
1177:United States military history task force articles
743:validated the penny-pinching design of the entire
1097:C-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
1162:C-Class North American military history articles
1172:C-Class United States military history articles
917:This message was posted before February 2018.
8:
330:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
1142:Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) articles
19:
887:I have just modified one external link on
664:does not talk about the repair job on the
504:North American military history task force
458:
372:
256:
145:
47:
1127:C-Class Operation Majestic Titan articles
520:United States military history task force
1016:into the present. That is not the case.
716:While I appreciate the work done on the
310:This article is within the scope of the
699:own page rather than keeping it here.)
258:
147:
49:
880:External links modified (January 2018)
859:This notification is provided by a Bot
320:. To use this banner, please see the
833:, has been nominated for deletion at
333:Template:WikiProject Military history
7:
1157:Maritime warfare task force articles
193:This article is within the scope of
79:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
765:in 1942. Unlike the repair of the
134:project-independent quality rating
14:
1152:C-Class maritime warfare articles
1147:C-Class military history articles
1132:Operation Majestic Titan articles
891:. Please take a moment to review
219:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Maine
107:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Ships
1187:World War II task force articles
822:
435:
424:
413:
402:
391:
303:
260:
180:
170:
149:
118:
72:
51:
20:
831:File:Gulf of Tonkin Kn11060.jpg
829:An image used in this article,
656:2) Why the paragraph about the
350:This article has been rated as
239:This article has been rated as
1117:High-importance Maine articles
1:
1182:C-Class World War II articles
690:16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
645:Northrop Grumman Newport News
623:13:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
213:and see a list of open tasks.
990:Multiple liquidations absent
985:20:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
681:Therefore, I am going to be
313:Military history WikiProject
1107:All WikiProject Ships pages
1083:20:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
1065:19:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
1042:17:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
1026:13:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
839:Deletion requests July 2011
837:in the following category:
707:05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
488:Maritime warfare task force
85:, a project to improve all
1203:
1122:WikiProject Maine articles
1112:Start-Class Maine articles
948:(last update: 5 June 2024)
884:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
751:. More to the point here,
613:01:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
592:21:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
396:Referencing and citation:
245:project's importance scale
222:Template:WikiProject Maine
110:Template:WikiProject Ships
871:14:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
807:18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
794:13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
550:
534:
518:
502:
486:
457:
349:
336:military history articles
298:
238:
165:
131:
67:
46:
783:04:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
730:19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
685:on this article. Cheers
553:Operation Majestic Titan
289:Operation Majestic Titan
583:00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
536:World War II task force
462:Associated task forces:
407:Coverage and accuracy:
93:, or contribute to the
1102:C-Class Ships articles
863:CommonsNotificationBot
547:
531:
515:
499:
483:
440:Supporting materials:
368:
28:This article is rated
658:USS Samuel B. Roberts
546:
530:
514:
498:
482:
367:
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
929:regular verification
919:After February 2018
620:IsaactheNPOVfanatic
429:Grammar and style:
382:for B-class status:
973:InternetArchiveBot
924:InternetArchiveBot
854:commons:COM:SPEEDY
548:
532:
516:
500:
484:
369:
318:list of open tasks
95:project discussion
34:content assessment
949:
877:
876:
843:What should I do?
835:Wikimedia Commons
666:USS Cole (DDG-67)
576:
575:
572:
571:
568:
567:
564:
563:
453:
452:
398:criterion not met
354:on the project's
322:full instructions
255:
254:
251:
250:
196:WikiProject Maine
144:
143:
140:
139:
99:full instructions
82:WikiProject Ships
1194:
983:
974:
947:
946:
925:
826:
819:
818:
662:Northrop Grumman
469:
459:
443:
439:
438:
432:
428:
427:
421:
417:
416:
410:
406:
405:
399:
395:
394:
373:
338:
337:
334:
331:
328:
327:Military history
307:
300:
299:
294:
291:
268:Military history
264:
257:
227:
226:
223:
220:
217:
190:
185:
184:
183:
174:
167:
166:
161:
153:
146:
122:
115:
114:
111:
108:
105:
91:join the project
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1087:
1086:
1001:standard yachts
992:
977:
972:
940:
933:have permission
923:
897:this simple FaQ
889:Bath Iron Works
882:
817:
714:
630:
467:
441:
436:
430:
425:
419:
414:
408:
403:
397:
392:
335:
332:
329:
326:
325:
292:
270:
241:High-importance
224:
221:
218:
215:
214:
186:
181:
179:
160:High‑importance
159:
112:
109:
106:
103:
102:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1200:
1198:
1190:
1189:
1184:
1179:
1174:
1169:
1164:
1159:
1154:
1149:
1144:
1139:
1134:
1129:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1109:
1104:
1099:
1089:
1088:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1052:
1045:
1044:
991:
988:
967:
966:
959:
912:
911:
903:Added archive
881:
878:
875:
874:
850:
847:
846:
845:
844:
827:
816:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
797:
796:
786:
785:
713:
712:Roberts Repair
710:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
654:
653:
652:
641:
629:
626:
617:
574:
573:
570:
569:
566:
565:
562:
561:
549:
539:
538:
533:
523:
522:
517:
507:
506:
501:
491:
490:
485:
475:
474:
472:
470:
464:
463:
455:
454:
451:
450:
448:
446:
445:
444:
433:
422:
411:
400:
386:
385:
383:
370:
360:
359:
348:
342:
341:
339:
308:
296:
295:
265:
253:
252:
249:
248:
237:
231:
230:
228:
225:Maine articles
211:the discussion
192:
191:
175:
163:
162:
154:
142:
141:
138:
137:
130:
124:
123:
116:
113:Ships articles
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1199:
1188:
1185:
1183:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1150:
1148:
1145:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1135:
1133:
1130:
1128:
1125:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1108:
1105:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1092:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
989:
987:
986:
981:
976:
975:
964:
960:
957:
953:
952:
951:
944:
938:
934:
930:
926:
920:
915:
910:
906:
902:
901:
900:
898:
894:
890:
885:
879:
873:
872:
868:
864:
860:
855:
851:
849:
848:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
828:
825:
821:
820:
814:
808:
805:
801:
800:
799:
798:
795:
792:
788:
787:
784:
781:
777:
772:
768:
764:
759:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
733:
732:
731:
728:
723:
719:
711:
709:
708:
705:
700:
698:
692:
691:
688:
684:
672:
671:
670:
669:
667:
663:
659:
655:
650:
649:Electric Boat
646:
642:
638:
637:
635:
634:
633:
627:
625:
624:
621:
615:
614:
611:
606:
602:
600:
594:
593:
590:
589:72.177.29.129
585:
584:
581:
559:
555:
554:
545:
541:
540:
537:
529:
525:
524:
521:
513:
509:
508:
505:
497:
493:
492:
489:
481:
477:
476:
473:
471:
466:
465:
460:
456:
449:
447:
442:criterion met
434:
431:criterion met
423:
420:criterion met
412:
409:criterion met
401:
390:
389:
388:
387:
384:
381:
380:
374:
371:
366:
362:
361:
357:
356:quality scale
353:
347:
344:
343:
340:
323:
319:
315:
314:
309:
306:
302:
301:
297:
290:
286:
282:
281:United States
278:
277:North America
274:
269:
266:
263:
259:
246:
242:
236:
233:
232:
229:
212:
208:
207:
202:
198:
197:
189:
178:
176:
173:
169:
168:
164:
158:
155:
152:
148:
135:
129:
126:
125:
121:
117:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1071:
1012:
995:
993:
971:
968:
943:source check
922:
916:
913:
886:
883:
858:
857:
838:
775:
770:
766:
762:
757:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
721:
717:
715:
701:
696:
693:
680:
631:
616:
607:
603:
598:
595:
586:
577:
551:
377:
351:
311:
285:World War II
240:
204:
194:
188:Maine portal
80:
40:WikiProjects
1013:Proceedings
601:overhaul.
418:Structure:
30:Start-class
1091:Categories
1034:Thewellman
980:Report bug
778:does not.
735:Think the
628:On Why POV
201:U.S. state
963:this tool
956:this tool
1075:Palmeira
1057:Palmeira
1018:Palmeira
969:Cheers.—
763:Yorktown
753:Roberts'
379:criteria
273:Maritime
893:my edit
804:Pjmorse
776:Roberts
771:Roberts
758:Roberts
741:Roberts
737:Roberts
727:Pjmorse
718:Roberts
704:Pjmorse
697:Roberts
610:Pjmorse
599:Roberts
558:Phase V
352:C-class
293:C‑class
243:on the
62:C‑class
996:series
791:PRRfan
780:PRRfan
767:Stark,
749:Burkes
687:V. Joe
580:V. Joe
36:scale.
745:Perry
216:Maine
206:Maine
157:Maine
104:Ships
59:Ships
1079:talk
1061:talk
1038:talk
1022:talk
1009:1926
1007:and
1005:1925
867:talk
683:bold
235:High
87:Ship
937:RfC
907:to
647:or
203:of
1093::
1081:)
1063:)
1040:)
1024:)
950:.
945:}}
941:{{
869:)
861:--
725:--
722:is
668:.
468:/
287:/
283:/
279:/
275:/
271::
1077:(
1059:(
1036:(
1020:(
982:)
978:(
965:.
958:.
865:(
651:?
560:)
556:(
358:.
346:C
324:.
247:.
128:C
101:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
