This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
That picture is INCORRECT. Those sailors are NOT manning the rails. Their ship is docked and you can clearly see the concrete ground. They are disembarked. For anybody who doesn't know what manning the rails actually means, there's a wikipedia article.
69.111.188.61 (
talk)
06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Should Arizona be italicized in the memorial name--USS Arizona Memorial--as is done when the ship itself is referred to--
USS Arizona (BB-39)? Neither the NPS webpage nor any other I could find with google did so, but they didn't italicize the ship either.
Dou you guys want a picture of the tears of the soldiers? For the ones who don't know, the oil tank of the Arizona releases small black clumps of oil from time to time and they are called Tears of the soldiers. I have a picture...
Matthias Aubin 14:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have some pictures of the "Tears" that you can use
here. I'll offer any of those pictures for use here under the "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License". I'd put the pics in myself, but I don't have time right now to deal with the formatting issues (maybe I'll try later).
Anechoic Man00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)reply
I haven't been able to find any explanation of what the six pilings or small man-made (looking) islets that continue in a line from the wharf where the USS Missouri is docked. Are they a part of the Arizona memorial or are they something else, perhaps related to a larger Pearl Harbor memorial design?
Manys07:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)reply
They are mooring keys(not sure if that is how they are spelled). The harbor crew would tie off the ships to them, just like you would tie a small boat to the dock.
Bunns USMC16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)reply
A National Geographic special outlined a major concern about the fact that the Arizona is corroding more quickly than expected and it might suddenly let go of the millions of gallons of oil still on board. So instead of a quart a week like it leaks now, you'd have a major environmental disaster. The quandry is that it is also a tomb for a lot of fallen sailors and not something that is easily tampered with. I wonder if this article should at least briefly touch on this concern. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
66.91.175.180 (
talk)
00:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).reply
Is the Article correct in stating that, "The USS Arizona Memorial has come to commemorate all military personnel killed in the attack on the island of Oahu"? Previously, it said "Pearl Harbor". The Memorial actually has inscribed only the names of the Arizona crew lost - perhaps someone could clarify the accuracy of this statement and cite a source?
JGHowes00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The attack was more than Pearl Harbor, but "come to commemorate" is suspiciously vague to me - is that what the tour guides are saying now (I don't remember hearing it myself), or does everybody on base "just know", or what? Let's insist on a source, and delete otherwise.
Stan15:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
According to the National Park Service's website (external link to this article), "The USS Arizona Memorial has come to commemorate all military personnel killed in the Pearl Harbor attack," so I've changed the article back to that.
JGHowes22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge - still has work to do
I see that
USer:Reywas92 merged the shipwreck article with the memorial mainly by cutting and pasting. Unfortunately it needs more work to better integrate the two articles. In fact, the overall memorial article looks like it could use a good edit. I'm still working on my pet project of
National Natural Landmarks, but could someone start looking at improving this article? Thanks
dm (
talk)
23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Gallery images
I’m not quite sure the reason why the gallery includes images of seemingly irrelevant flags. Now, I know that Americans like to slap a flag on every corner and that’s fine, but I don’t see how the images
Image:IMG 8924.jpg and
Image:UssArizona-flag.JPG have anything to do with the article. They are good quality images, but they could literally come from anywhere (despite their claims from being shot at the site) and add nothing specifically to the article. To me, it would make just as much sense putting in an Imperial Japanese in with the bunch, seeing as they had just as much to do with the event as the Americans did (sounds absurd - and would probably ruffle a few feathers - but is really no different to including these flags). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dupz (
talk •
contribs) 10:19, March 18, 2009
The flags are part of the memorial. If this article was about the attacks on Pearl Harbor, I guess it wouldn't make much sense to have them included. But since this article is (or, should be) about every aspect of the memorial, it seems only fair to include images of the various parts. They aren't just random images of flags, they are images of parts of the memorial. Mahalo. --
Ali'i13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Two comments: because Wikipedia works by consensus, starting a proposal by a condescending put-down (e.g., "...Americans like to slap a flag on every corner...") is hardly going to gain you much traction with other editors. Secondly, as Ali'i notes, these two images indeed illustrate specific aspects/views of the Memorial site and thus add value to the article for the reader interesting in seeing the Memorial here. JGHowes talk18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Shipwreck merge
The merge of the USS Arizona Shipwreck article into this one seems to have been done poorly and has essentially left us with a lot of repetition. I propose removing all (including the info box) except the burial section, which can be integrated into the article somehow. Any objections? raseaCtalk to me17:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Flagpole
The "Description" section contained a comment that the flagpole was once attached to the ship but is now attached to the memorial. I could not find any reputable source (official or news) to verify this information, so I removed the comment. (Those sources that do mention that the flagpole is attached to the memorial appear to simply have pasted content from the erroneous article.) The National Park Service's website states that the flagpole is still attached to the ship, which is why I believe people mistakenly think the ship is still commissioned.
Wxkat (
talk)
09:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Link to USS Arizona Memorial web site.
There is a (minor) problem with the link to the US National Parks Service official web site. The link that is currently in the External Links section of the Wikipedia article points to
http://www.nps.gov/usar/ but this no longer exists and is currently being redirected to
http://www.nps.gov/valr/index.htm . This page doesn't directly mention the USS Arizona at all, which confused me when I went to it, and I'm sure would confuse others.
As far as I can see, the restructuring has happened because the Arizona Memorial has become part of the "World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument", but I'm not clear on the exact structure.
I gratefully acknowledge the dedication and sacrifice of US Navy Corpsman who serve while attached to Marine units. While I cannot speak for Sailors, I'm sure many would feel the same about the service of their attached Marines. 73 of the 1,175 casualties were Marines and they deserve mention. I added "and Marines" to the opening paragraph. If you feel that 6% of the casualties is an insignificant amount not worth mentioning, I invite you to anonymously donate an additional 6% of your income to charity.
US Military date format
Per
WP:DATETIES this article has used DMY formatting for years, and has been changed on the basis that it is run by the park service. The Dates for this US Military monument are clearly associated with the US Military date format. It should be maintained as such. Scr★pIronIV22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)reply
It is jointly administered by the US Navy and the park service, and is a US Military grave site. It is as "military" as it gets; named after a combat veteran warship, commemorating said warship, jointly administered by the Navy, honoring 1,177 US military heroes who died there, 1,102 of whom are buried there. Tell me again about this civilian memorial. Scr★pIronIV22:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Got a source that its jointly operated because there doesn't seem to be one in the article? Even if it was so, the official web site clearly used MDY so the Wp article should as well. The article was originally MDY and was changed a few years ago without discussion. It should be reverted back to it's original date format.--
JOJHutton22:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah, so it was appropriately corrected years ago, and was uncontested as such - is what you are saying? Just because the park service mops the floors and collects the tickets at the door does not make it a "civilian" memorial. US Military memorial = US military date format. US Military grave site = US Military date format. Scr★pIronIV23:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Back it up with a guideline. This is not a US military article.01:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Emperor visits appear contrary to fact
News reports suggest that Hirohito never visited the site. I can find reports that say Akihito planned a visit, but none that say he completed the visit.
I have just modified 4 external links on
USS Arizona Memorial. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
If you have a reliable source that it is still closed three years after this incident in May 2015, then yeah, that should be added. -
BilCat (
talk)
20:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)reply
It looks like there were (at least) two separate closings 3 years apart, and perhaps some in between. The second source implies it was only closed recently, but it may be related to the accident 3 years ago. -
BilCat (
talk)
22:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)reply
It's still closed!!!! And we are misleading people.
The lead says "...shuttle boats to and from the memorial" It's wrong! The memorial is closed. We should not be lying in the lead.
HiLo48 (
talk)
04:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
The boats are still in operation. You just can't get onto the memorial itself. And the information is still in the article, but in the proper place. Plans are to reopen the memorial by October, so the closure isn't permanent, which is what "closed indefinitely" implies to most readers, especially without wordy clarification. -
BilCat (
talk)
04:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
I used the word "misleading". I think you ignored it. The lead implies people can visit the memorial. They cannot. Correcting that elsewhere in the article is just plain silly.
HiLo48 (
talk)
04:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
I did not accuse you of lying. Where the bloody hell did you get that from? Discuss the article and its misleading content please.
HiLo48 (
talk)
05:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
At that point I was referring to something said in Wikipedia's voice, of which both you and I are part. In the lead we effectively say that people can visit the memorial, then wait until later in the article to say they can't. That really doesn't make sense. The logical thing to do is say that the memorial cannot be visited at present, in the lead, and remove that content once it reopens.
HiLo48 (
talk)
06:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:MOSLEAD: the introduction is supposed to report the most important information, including the general concept of how this memorial works. Can you demonstrate that this closure is a long-term major part of the memorial's history? Any secondary sources on that, or will you just find primary sources like news reports? Conversely, if we must mention the closure in the introduction, why not mention the hour and minute at which it was announced, and while we're at it mention the hours of the day when (ordinarily) the boats do not transport anybody because the memorial is closed for nightfall? No: report the most important information in the introduction, not isolated incidents, and if you're foolish enough to think that you can plan your trip to a major tourist attraction merely on a Wikipedia article, it's your own fault if you get to Pearl Harbor and find that you can't visit.
Nyttend (
talk)
10:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
No. Despite your mocking, insulting tone, I have not proposed anything but mentioning that it is currently impossible to visit the memorial. The memorial has been closed for over three months. We should not be misleading people. Now, try that again, without the demeaning personal stuff.
HiLo48 (
talk)
11:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)reply
What does the BB stand for in Arizona BB-39
I have been looking for the information that shows what the BB stands for. I note that all Battle ships of that era had it but have not located what it means.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
47.5.54.61 (
talk)
17:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Correction to number of crew entombed within the USS Arizona
According to the National Park Service the USS Arizona Memorial is the final resting place for 1,104 (not 1,102) of the 1,177 killed during the Japanese attack. Of the 334 surviving USS Arizona crew members, an additional 44 have been interned within the sunken remains.