This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article mentions the raising of the flag over the wreck. It doesn't specify that for a long time the flagstaff was attached to the wreck itself on the stub of the main mast. Back around 2000, I noticed that it was now attached to the memorial span, although within an inch or so of it's original location. If someone knew when it was moved it might be worth adding to the article. I'd also like to know why. I have some theories.... -- J Clear 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean to say that an admiral "broke his flag"? The term is used a few times in this article and not explained.

-- Mugsywwiii 21:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

According to my understanding, to break a flag means to untie a knot holding it closed, allowing it to unfurl. When a flag is being raised, it is tied up so it doesn't unfurl early, then when it's secured at the top of the flagpole the flag is "broken": the knot holding the flag closed is yanked, untying it, and the flag can unfurl.

TomTheHand 21:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Above is correct, however there is NOT a knot involves, sinply a particular way to roll up flat and arrange the halyard (rope) to allow this. TO be done. With this menthod signalmen can raise flags in advance (several seconds) then when commanded, the quick yank then allows the flag to unfurl and become visible. - Experience, Naval Officer, not signalman. This processing to my memory never done with the American flag, or the jackstaff flag (one flown at bow when inport). -- Wfoj2 ( talk) 13:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Admirals are Flag Officers; that is, they are entitled to fly a personal flag on their flagship. When an admiral "breaks his flag" on a ship, it means that his personal flag is being raised and unfurled on that ship's mast. What it boils down to is that he is making that ship his flagship.

I don't know any of this from experience, so details may be wrong but the general idea is correct. TomTheHand 21:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When "to break a flag" happens, it means that an admiral has made a vessal in his squadron his flagship and is flying his personal flag from the mast. It does not mean slipping loose a knot to allow a flag to fly (there are no knots of any kind attached to any flags). Standard Navy practice has the flag completely unfurled before it is clipped to the mast lines and raised. And this comes from experience. Carajou 17:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a citation for the quote: "Survivors from the crew say that the oil will continue to leak until the last survivor dies."? Also, how many of the survivors say this? Steve 07:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a common belief among Arizona survivors, and was quoted in several television programs on the History, Discovery, and National Geographic channels. I don't know what books they are written down in; the search for it may be pretty difficult. Carajou 17:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

National Park Service posted this: "There were 1.4 million gallons of fuel on the USS Arizona when she sank. Over 60 years later, approximately nine quarts still surfaces from the ship each day. Some Pearl Harbor survivors have referred to the oil droplets as "Black Tears."" This symbolic weeping of the ship is important to the survivors. Naaman Brown ( talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

After discussions, the advice is to use naval ensigns, not jacks - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tables. The correct US flag has been selected by a template - see the US entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns. Folks at 137 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why were the remains of the servicemen killed on the U.S.S. Arizona never recovered? - unsigned comment by 74.46.229.28, 13:52, July 24, 2007

Because there was "a war on"? After the "rescue" period I'm sure diver resources were directed at all the ships deemed repairable after the attack, rather than toward "recovery". Later I'd guess that it was because the wreck became an honored memorial, as evidenced by many of the survivors choosing to be interred there. All of the above is speculation on my part, but seems plausible.-- J Clear 12:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Read "Descent into Darkness", a book about the recovery efforts at Pearl Harbor after the attack. The author describes, in horrifying detail, why bodies weren't recovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.206.16 ( talk) 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the above mentioned book regarding the Arizona is viewable online. Another book, "Resurrection" by Madsen, describes what was found when divers brought up dozens of bodies from the Arizona months after the attack. If there had not been a war on, the Navy could have built a cofferdam around the Arizona and recovered bodies, as was done after the Maine blew up. Edison ( talk) 17:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In December 1941, the bodies weren't recovered because of the oil leaking from the fuel storage tanks - it was deemed too dangerous for the divers to risk using torches to cut through to recover the dead. Even today, leaking oil creates rainbow hued slicks on the surface above the sunken hull. Today, they might be recovered by different means, but there is no reason to do so, as it is a memorial as well as a cemetery dedicated to the crew. In fact, it is unlikely that removing the bodies now would be well received by the families or the general public. The Arizona is their resting place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.251.177 ( talk) 06:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I saw in a special on Pearl Harbor that the USS Arizona was never decommissioned that an Amercian flag continues to flag over the memorial to this day so is this true or was the special mistaken?

-- Chrismaster1 ( talk) 19:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Naval Vessel Register says,

'... SHE WAS PLACED "IN ORDINARY" (OUT OF COMMISSION, LAID UP) ON 12/29/1941 AND STRICKEN ON 12/1/1942. ON 5/30/1962, THE NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE ACQUIRED CUSTODY OF THE SHIP FOR PUBLIC DISPLAYING, HOWEVER, THE US NAVY RETAINS TITLE.'

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB39.htm

So, I think it's more likely that the program was mistaken about the technical point, though I guess that wouldn't stop them from flying a flag.

—WWoods ( talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks alot! I do know that to this day they still fly a flag over the USS Arizona. thanks for the info! -- Chrismaster1 ( talk) 03:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[ National Park Service] posted this: "Although the USS Arizona was stricken from the official register of U.S. naval vessels after the attack, on March 7, 1950, she was symbolically "re-commissioned" when a flagpole was erected on the ship." Officially USS Arizona was decommissioned and any "re-commission" implied by flying the flag is purely symbolic, however fitting. Naaman Brown ( talk) 20:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added some more information concerning the type of bombs being used by the first wave level bombers and the man reputed to have aimed the fatal bomb. Also the link http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/ph-az.htm history.navy.mil doesn't appear to be working. Minorhistorian ( talk) 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To set the record straight my father G.H. Lane rescued LTCMDR Fuqua from a smoke filled lower compartment after he had been knocked down. Lane heard some body coughing and gasping in the compartment below and went down and helped him up with the help of P0 first class Evens. After Lane tried to get water to a fire hose he was blown over the side by the fireball that blew up the ship. Badly burned he swam to the Nevada which was getting underway. He tried to enter the first case-mate he came to however he was to dirty and with his hair burn of he look like a black man and they wouldn't let him enter. He moved to another where was welcomed and help with the fighting until he was exhausted. It turns out the case-mate he was blocked from entering received sever damage and injuries. -- posted to the article by user:Tlane0 04:19, 3 September 2009

Wanted to add a link about the dwindling number of survivors of the Arizona still alive (in 2010), but wasn't sure if it was proper. We just lost another one: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/28/554906/patriot-till-his-dying-day.html. Evets70 ( talk) 12:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a relatively small compliant, but would the article be easier on the eye if we listed the pictures in a gallery at the end of the article? I have two monitors, one widescreen, the other not, and it seems a bit cramped on the square monitor.

Example:

• 
  Arizona on the East River, New York City (1916).
• 
  USS Arizona at the New York City naval review; she was the leader of the ten dreadnoughts that paraded past Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels
• 
  Arizona anchored in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, 1 January 1920.
• 
  Arizona with ship's complement (1924).
• 
  Arizona displays her new tripod masts, following her modernization during the 1930s.
• 
  From the 1941 Army-Navy Game program booklet, 29 November 1941: "A bow on view of the U. S. S. Arizona as she plows into a huge swell. It is significant that despite the claims of air enthusiasts no battleship has yet been sunk by bombs."
• 
  Arizona burning after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
• 
  Arizona's forward magazines explode in the only known color photograph from the attack.
• 
  The wreck of Arizona following the attack
• 
  Aerial view of the USS Arizona Memorial, with the wreck visible below.
• 
  Wreckage of No. 3 barbette

— La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We could even meet halfway - put some of the more important pictures in with the text and have the others listed in the gallery. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to WP:IG and WP:NOTREPOSITORY image galleries are not appropriate when a link to Commons is present in the article as it is in the External links. - MBK ₀₀₄ 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I make this statement tentatively - so is it possible to remove some pictures, if a link to the Commons is already there? — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 18:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be tentative, you have a valid question. The answer is yes, the extra images in the article can be pruned due to the commons link, or the article could be expanded enough to where they would comfortably fit... Also, the extra images would be brought up at the article reviews such as GA/A/FA with the article at its current length. - MBK ₀₀₄ 01:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

According to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb38cl.htm, the proper dimensions of a Pennsylvania-class battleship are: 608' (length overall); 97' 1" (extreme beam). 6008 feet is over a mile. It appears the length quoted simply has an extra zero.

Also, having toured the U.S.S. Alabama (BB-60), a later South Dakota-class battleship, its dimensions are: length: 680'; beam: 108'. re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alabama_(BB-60) It is not likely a WWI battleship would be 10 times as long.

T. Landers pnnfc@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.250.218 ( talk) 00:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention to the cost of construction, like other U.S. Navy Ship pages have. I tried to Google-Fu but was unable to locate any reference. Perhaps the stewards of this page have access to print materials that expound on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.220.10 ( talk) 03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone watching this page. Sturmvogel 66 and I are planning on completely rewriting this article and getting it to featured status in time for the 70th anniversary of the attack. Anyone who wants to help us is, of course, most welcome to. Regards, Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Is winning a rowing competition really that significant? Brted ( talk) 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the the round clock like dial on the front of the foremast. (looks like a clock but, only has 1-10). Possibly something for gunnery practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.116.99 ( talk) 03:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a range clock. In a battle line, it was used to communicate enemy ship's ranges (ie, the distance they were from the ship) to nearby allied ships. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Garzke & Dulin, Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935–1992, p. 329, mentions that on 1 Sept. 1938, one of the guns went off prematurely when an ember lit the charge. A gun captain and a "trayman" were injured. If the injuries were serious (it doesn't say), this might be worth mentioning. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's not mentioned in Stillwell, so it's probably not significant since he covered the earlier blowback incident in good detail.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• There's some stuff in the Friedman reference already cited (U. S. Battleships: an Illustrated Design History) that might or might not be useful:
• On p. 6, he proposes that "catapult charges" were the black powder that set off the forward magazines. He also explains that it was nearly impossible to design for "survivability"; for one thing, not many US battleships had suffered battle damage in any war. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Clarifying the black powder magazine that probably exploded contained the powder charges for the catapults would probably be a good thing. The other point is minor, but if you can work it in some way...-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have Stillwell or Prange ... do you think it's likely that Friedman is talking about the same black powder magazine? If so, then I'll say it was a magazine used for both purposes. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I believe that it's the same magazine.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Great job on this article and totally appropriate to be featured today. One thing, in the section describing the magazine explosion, it doesn't describe how the ship actually sank. After the explosion, did the ship settle immediately to the floor of the harbor? Did it almost capsize? How deep was the water where it sank? A sentence or two of clarification might be helpful. Cla68 ( talk) 01:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Something to think about adding. I figured that most of that was pretty obvious since the aerial photo of the memorial shows that she just went straight down in the shallow water, but it could probably use explication. I'm about ready to send Akagi to FAC, you got anything that you need to do there?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me the weekend on it? I was thinking of adding a little more to the Pearl Harbor section. Cla68 ( talk) 04:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Take as long as you need, I'm in no hurry.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Library of Congress has higher resolution versions of several of the images in the article. See here. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• These drawings which seem to be from the National Parks Service may also be of use. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't really explain why so many men died in the ship. I might be missing the point but when the attack started why were the majority of the men still below decks? I assume that most ship crews are up before 0700hrs. Likewise was the cause of the death, drowning within the superstructure and not from the blast although, again, this is not made clear by the article.

It's like there is a huge gap in the narrative as to what really happened, the only thing I can ascertain is the ship was attacked, it sank and lots of people died. How that all chronologically happened is, I am afraid, pitifully scant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.7.164 ( talk) 23:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Since many, if not most, of the bodies of the crew remain aboard the wreck we don't exactly know how they died. Remember that it was a Sunday morning and the ship was in harbor. Battle stations for most of the crew was below decks so they'd remain there.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the way that Arizona was attacked and sunk, with the most likely theory being a magazine explosion due to a bomb strike, the majority of the crew below decks would have been killed by the initial explosion and over pressure from the explosion itself. Those remaining within the ship would have drowned as she sank to the bottom. Her sinking would have been fast, as the explosion effectively severed everything from just forward of the number one turret and opened a huge swath of the ship to the sea and flooding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.60.136.81 ( talk) 12:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconus ^{p t c} 22:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Two new captains on the same day seems odd to me. Is that an error or did someone really get appointed and then relieved on the same day? Ϣere SpielChequers 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In the aerial photo here and on Google Earth you can see the two forward turrets (well strictly speaking I suppose the turret cylinder mounts), but what happened to the stern ones? Why are they not visible? 121.218.47.124 ( talk) 10:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. Army removed gun turrets three and four for use as coastal defense batteries. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.60.136.81 ( talk) 12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This article fails to explain the most important reason as to why this ship is so famous: why was what it left in situ in Pearl Harbor when all the other sunken vessels were removed? e.g. USS Oklahoma. The section on the salvage explains what was removed but that is it? There is no "why" or proper explanation? I don't much about Wikipedia ratings but how can this be a featured article when it does nothing more than tell you what is in a guidebook. If this was really an encyclopedic entry it would explain the reasons behind the actions. What made the USS Arizona an exception to the other damaged vessels on battleship row? 86.163.107.98 ( talk) 16:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

From the third paragraph of the lead: "Unlike many of the other ships sunk or damaged that day, Arizona could not be fully salvaged, though the Navy removed parts of the ship for reuse." Further down in the article: "She was so badly damaged by the magazine explosion that she was not thought fit for service even if she could be salvaged, unlike many of the other sunken ships nearby." It seems to me that there is adequate explanation in this article. If further explanation is required, it belongs in the article specifically on the memorial, which is linked in the appropriate place from this article. -- Yaush ( talk) 18:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Arizona (BB39) Port Bow, Underway - NARA - 5900075 - 1930.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 22, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-05-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

USS Arizona was a Pennsylvania-class battleship built for the United States in the mid-1910s. Before being modernized between 1929 and 1930, she spent most of her time in training exercises; this photograph dates from that period. Arizona was later sunk during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, resulting in the deaths of 1,177 of the 1,512 crewmen on board.Photo: Unknown; Restoration: Mmxx

Archive – More featured pictures...

File:Arizona (BB39) Port Bow, Underway - NARA - 5900075 - 1930.jpg Hello: Port Bow, Aye! Underway? Not with anchor chain plainly visible Port Fwd. Thanks...W.L. Whittier Port Angeles, Washington, 24.113.19.154 ( talk) 02:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC) wlwhittier@olypen.com

We saw that too; the name, which readers rarely see, was never fixed, but the caption was: "Arizona (BB39) port bow, before being modernized at Norfolk Naval Shipyard between May 1929 and January 1930". :-) Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The USS Arizona (BB-39) burning after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - NARA 195617 - Edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 7, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-12-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 22:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The sinking USS Arizona, photographed shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. On 7 December 1941, Japanese aircraft struck the US' Pacific Fleet while in port. Arizona was struck several times before a bomb blew up the forward ammunition magazines, causing a cataclysmic explosion. The ship's destruction killed 1,177 of the 1,512 crewmen on board at the time, representing almost half of the American fatalities in the attack.Photo: Unknown; Restoration: Mmxx

Archive – More featured pictures...

Regarding this text:

The alternative explanation is that the bomb penetrated the armored decks and detonated directly inside one of the starboard magazines for the main armament, but smokeless powder is relatively insensitive to fire and the 14-inch powder bags required a black powder pad to ignite the powder

( ∆ edit here, emphasis added for clarity):

The clause beginning with “but” clearly suggests the theory that a bomb going off inside an ordinance magazine filled with smokeless propellant (Cordite at the time) is controversial or has a counter-argument. This text is beyond misleading and is solidly in the territory of flat being false. If you want to restore it, you must cite to an R.S.

First off, the difference between black powder and smokeless (and Pyrodex, for that matter) is one of ignition energy (not fire), which is determined by spark energy. With regard to “fire” and “relative insensitivity to fire,” there is zero difference; both black powder and smokeless are ignited by “fire.” Period.

Secondly, the reason for the 14-inch fire bags is not to make smokeless powder burn (it will always burn when exposed to flame), but to get the bulk of it started out quickly because of the way slow-burning Cordite burns exponentially faster with increasing pressure. The packs ensure the Cordite charge gets jump-started equally each time; it is a way of improving accuracy.

Again, you must cite a reliable source that states that A) smokeless powder is “relatively fire resistant” (not to be confused with static discharge-like spark ignition energy), and B) that same RS must state that this “relative fire resistance” (there is no such thing, as I wrote above) is a valid counter-argument to the theory that a bomb going off inside a magazine filed with Cordite could make the stuff ignite.

Since I know no R.S. states such a thing (someone's blog is not an R.S.), I am confident this text won't be coming back to haunt this article.

As it was, that statement smacked of O.R. by someone who didn’t understand fundamental issues with propellants like how the U.S. D.O.T. goes about experimentally determining the transportation classification for the various types. Greg L ( talk) 21:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't be so sure; I'll review what my sources say about the issue when I get back home.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Uhm… I used to run an FFL-licensed ammunition manufacturing company that bought special grades of nitrocellulose unavailable to the general public. I probably forgot more about the stuff than you will ever know.

The assertion that “smokeless powder is relatively insensitive to fire” (in the context of a high-explosive bomb going off in an ordinance magazine) doesn't merely run afoul with “Nitrocellulose 101,” it runs afoul with nitrocellulose world’s Ernie & Bert skits from Seasame street. The statement trips all over its shoelaces as it confuses ignition energy, which is a spark energy typically measuring 0.1–100 millijoules, with "flame" and entire high-explosive bombs.

Nitrocellulose is quite simply, as flammable as living hell and will always ignite when exposed to the smallest open flame—much less an H.E. bomb. Having had such nonsense in this article (“smokeless powder is relatively insensitive to fire”) was absurd beyond all comprehension. Having had that statement in this article for who-knows how long is the shortcoming of the primary challenge within Wikipedia: how content is vetted (or not). Now…

I see that of the last 500 edits to this article, you were responsible for precisely 100 of them. I thus take you to be the “shepherding editor” of this article—or at least one of them. There’s an unwritten rule within the wikipedian community as it defers to shepherding editors: we expect them to A) Know their stuff, and B) be extra rigorous in not seasoning articles with their own special fill-in-the-blanks insight (a.k.a. theories), and to instead be extra rigorous in ensuring assertions are cited to R.S.s. Greg L ( talk) 14:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for reminding me of my responsibilities towards this article. I've told you that I cannot respond until early next week when I return home so your impatience with my lack of response comes across as rude. Just wait and I will respond.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the lack of a response, I assume this issue is settled. Contact me on my user talk page if not. Still, I thought this was interesting. I just stumbled across this YouTube video, ( Gun Cotton (nitrocellulose) - Periodic Table of Videos), which was produced by the University of Nottingham. The professor demonstrates the flammability of gun cotton (a version of nitrocellulose without any deterrents whatsoever to slow its burn rate) and explains why nitrocellulose is used to propel large shells. In case you’re thinking that deterrents lessen nitrocellulose’s aversion to being exposed to open flame, uhmm… no; it doesn’t. Deterrents have no more effect on susceptibility to open flame than does nitroglycerin (see also double-base powder), which is often added to nitrocellulose propellants to give them a bit of that extra-special thing they do after you toss a lit match into them. Greg L ( talk) 22:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say about assumptions. You are partially correct; I should have said hard to detonate, not to burn. I've rephrased that bit and added some more material to try clarify the issue. See what you think.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 06:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your new wording properly states the issue: the discordance between the the observed characteristics of the explosion vs. what would be theoretically expected. More importantly, it is now cited to an RS. I'm fine with it. Thanks. Greg L ( talk) 00:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

..."This was 25 feet (7.6 m) longer than the older ships."... The position of this sentence makes it seem as if you are referring to her draft, and not to her overall length, which is the intended meaning, I presume. Gimelgort ( talk) 00:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone knowledgeable sort out a couple of muddles in the 1930s section:

• Captain Baum appears to have been relieved twice, on 6 June 1936 in the third paragraph, and on 11 December 1937 in the fourth Paragraph.
• Captain Train assumed command on 3 February 1941, and was apparently relieved by Captain Van Valkenburgh on the same day. Can that be right? Brianboulton ( talk) 22:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:USS Arizona in New York City Crisco edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 16, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-03-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

USS Arizona, a Pennsylvania-class battleship of the United States Navy, photographed while passing through New York City in 1916. When building, the New York Times boasted that the ship would be "the world's biggest and most powerful ... superdreadnought ever constructed". Arizona passed through New York multiple times during her career before being transferred to the Pacific Ocean. She was later sunk during the attack on Pearl Harbor and remains there as a memorial today.Photograph: Unknown; Restoration: Bruce C. Cooper, Chris Woodrich

Archive – More featured pictures...

Hello, A couple of days ago I did some minor edits to a section in which I changed some terminology to Wikipedia style. Specifically, I:

1) converted military jargon to everyday English 2) converted military timekeeping style to everyday English (e.g., "0755" to "7.55am") 3) changed a sentence with passive construction to a sentence with active construction (i.e.: I changed "the ship was attacked by Japanese bombers" to "Japanese bombers attacked the ship")

Two editors, namely Sturmvogel and ed17, reverted these changes without explanation, despite my request to provide rationale for their reversions.

It seems that these people are a little bit too close to the article to be objective about changes and are a bit over-protective. I don't care enough to get into an edit war, but I think it is worth pointing out to editors of this page that Wikipedia style is to avoid jargon, write in everyday English, and to use active sentence constructions whenever possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I had left a message on your talk page as well, but here goes. First, the explanations are in the edit summaries, which can be seen here. Second, you've introduced certainties into the text that weren't there previously. The aircraft weren't at exactly 3000 meters, and the air-raid alarm went of at about 07:55. Third, while you do make a point about avoiding unnecessary military jargon, the designation you changed ("B5N") was defined in the sentence immediately preceding your change. Still, I've left the new wording as it doesn't alter the meaning of the sentence. Regards, Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an external RS for this (sorry, guess I'm too lazy, especially considering the editors undoubtedly do) but one other significant part of the Arizona was modernized in the 1929-1930 modernization: her hull plating was swapped from riveted steel to all-welded steel. That, and the new geared turbine, increased her maximum and cruising speeds (this is alluded to in the article). Additionally, the new, more efficient boilers and the revised hull streamlining that the welded hull gave over the older riveted hull increased the maximum cruising radius significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.132.55 ( talk) 18:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The article refers to the Arizona taking part in Fleet Problem XIII which was a simulated attack on Pearl Harbor by carrier based planes. This isn't consistent with the description of Fleet Problem XIII found elsewhere in Wikipedia. Alfredmtaylor ( talk) 16:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right, the Pearl Harbor attack was the month before in Grand Joint Exercise No. 4.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Opening jumps straight into Arizona not going to WWI, but skips right over her assignment to the United States Atlantic Fleet first. This stands out at end of first paragraph, where she is "transferred to the Pacific Fleet", but gives no context of where she's transferred from. The Atlantic Fleet remained stateside during the war - United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I) was carved out of the Atlantic Fleet and amalgamated into the operations of the British Grand Fleet, so it is still true that the Atlantic Fleet was stateside. How about a single sentence to combine the two; Arizona was commissioned in 1916 and assigned to the United States Atlantic Fleet, which operated stateside during World War I. Comments? - Jmg38 ( talk) 23:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait a day for possible comments from editors. - Jmg38 ( talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The first part of the second sentence in the intro states, "Named in honor of the 48th state's recent admission into the union, ...."

I do not think this is correct. I have a copy of BB-39's blueprints and plans which are dated BEFORE Arizona's statehood date of Feb. 14, 1912, and they ALL have the vessel's name as "Arizona."

As such, I think some research needs to be done to verify one way or the other when BB-39 was given the "Arizona" name.

As a curious side note, I noticed that the sentence has no inline citation nor reference to verify nor back up the 'claim.'. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 ( talk) 19:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In the body of the article, you'll see that the ship wasn't officially named by March 1914, according to the New York Times. By 1915, it had been named after " the youngest of the states." That could be clearer in the article, of course. :-) Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 01:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

While your change was cited, it's awkwardly worded. The previous version was approved when the article passed Featured Article Candidacy. The subsequent text makes it perfectly clear that the Kates dropped bombs, not torpedoes, so I see no need to make any changes from the clean text used before.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The Navy's report on her loss refers to her turrets with Roman numerals. I see no reason not to follow its precedent. Why are you imposing your stylistic preferences?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 11:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Lanemiker, DANFS also uses Roman numerals; the National Park Service uses Arabic numerals. Clearly Roman numerals are acceptable. If you wish to make changes to this, please discuss here. Kablammo ( talk) 18:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The increase of 5"/25 to 12 guns looks suspicious. Friedman US Battleships just says that four foundations for an intended addition of 1.1" mounts were installed. Pretty sure this isn't in Stillwell, either. Check? Brooksindy ( talk) 00:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Good catch-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I have put back Esther Ross as the Ship sponsor in the infobox. Esther Ross is previously sourced in the article. I have added another source. No need to add source again in the infobox. SWP13 ( talk) 00:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I must have missed it in the main body earlier.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)