Talk:USS Arizona Memorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Picture of Japanese Sailors manning the rails[edit]

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. (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, glad you caught that error and removed it JGHowes talk - 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


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.
—wwoods 05
10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tears of the soldiers[edit]

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)

That would be nice. It would show what all the hubub is about. I personally wouldn't mind seeing it either. TomStar81 00:28, 7 December 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 Man 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that "sailors", not "soldiers"? I've put a picture on the page clearly showing the oil slickJGHowes 15:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dedication date?[edit]

Does anyone know the day and month of the memorial's dedication? — Eoghanacht talk 23:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It was dedicated on Memorial Day, which used to always fall on May 30.— Eoghanacht talk 19:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


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? Manys 07:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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 USMC 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They're called Quays. Anechoic Man 00:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oil Concerns[edit]

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 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

It should. -- (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added this with a citation to the Natl Geo article. JGHowes talk - 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Memorial's commemoration[edit]

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? JGHowes 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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. Stan 15:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
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. JGHowes 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge - still has work to do[edit]

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)

Gallery images[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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'i 13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
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  talk 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Shipwreck merge[edit]

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 me 17:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


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)

Link to USS Arizona Memorial web site.[edit]

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 but this no longer exists and is currently being redirected to . 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.

The best alternative link to this site that I could find was this: , but I wanted to open this to discussion before making any change, since it's a pretty significant link for this article. (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

New image[edit]

Could anyone upload a newer picture of the first image that says protected landscape or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Marines also died serving aboard Arizona[edit]

Marines are not Sailors; Sailors are not Marines.

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[edit]

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. ScrpIronIV 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's run and administered by the National Park Service, a civilian agency. The NPS uses MDY, as noted by their official web page. This is an article about the monument, not a military article.--JOJ Hutton 22:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
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. ScrpIronIV 22:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
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.--JOJ Hutton 22:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
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. ScrpIronIV 23:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
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[edit]

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'm going to delete the uncited material until/unless a reference can be found. I forget if that violates edit norms, let me know if so. (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Memorial closed[edit]

The memorial is currently closed due to damage to its dock. See [1]

There seems to be no certain re-opening date. Should we add this fact and incident to the article? HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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)
The National Park's website states it is open. ScrpIronIV 20:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Well it's not. My observation was based on personal experience earlier this week. I was there. I knew I couldn't base an edit on that fact, but picked a lousy source. Sorry. Here's a better one - HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
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)

It's still closed!!!! And we are misleading people.[edit]

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)

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)
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)
You also accused meus of lying, but I ignored that too. - BilCat (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
Sorry, I meant to say "us", not "me", as in "We should not be lying in the lead." - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia isn't a travelogue. If this turns out to be a permanent closing, then we can change the lead. - BilCat (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I truly cannot understand your position. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Nyttend will have better luck explaining it to you, if he so chooses. - BilCat (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)

What does the BB stand for in Arizona BB-39[edit]

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 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hull classification symbol § United States Navy hull classification codes
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)