Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Featured Article?

Is it ready to be a featured article? ---B- 01:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Almost. I filed a request for a peer review to get feedback for improvement before it gets put up on the FAC page so that we can fix the problems (if any) with the page without being on the clock. Be patient, well get there soon ;) TomStar81 22:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am curious to know why it had such a short peer review period? Is there some reason it was only left on the peer review page for one day? Typically one month is more appropriate. — RJH 15:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The FAC page had already been created. Thats why. TomStar81 15:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iwo Jima

I'll have to double-check with our ship's curator. I thought I remembered that we didn't actually provide any fire support at Iwo Jima, that task being delegated to the older, more experienced, battleships. We were present at Iwo, of course, but I think our role was limited to anti-aircraft screening and surface support for the aircraft carriers. I'll check... ---B- 00:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armament details?

Can anyone confirm the armament details? They don't seem to accord with the text. Noisy | Talk 11:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• They are basically correct, though I think we still had the 40mm guns aboard in 1968 (the ship was in mothballs at the time anyhow) as I don't think those were actually removed until modernization in the mid-80s.

There were also a pair of single 20mm guns that stayed on until the 40mm guns were removed. As far as I know they were all still aboard on decommissioning in 1955. -B-

I have recently visited the Missouri, and the armaments are drastically different from what they were originally. However, the armaments were changed to suit the purpose. Some of the 5" guns, for example were removed, and TLAMs were added. Additionally, Phalanx CIWS were added to port and starboard. The rear plane-launch-thingies were also removed. I can update and add pictures. Avriette 02:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The catapults for launching floatplanes were removed around 1949/1950. The flight deck was cleared for helicopters prior to our deployment to Korea. ---B- 03:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The Last Battleship?

Wisconson was the last battleship the US built, not Missouri.

• Not quite. Wisonson is dubbed BB 64, and Missouri BB 63, but Wisconson was completed and launched before Missouri, making Missouri the last battleship constructed and commisioned. It's a really easy mistake to make.

"last battleship built" is often ambiguous phrasing, since building takes a long time. Should pick something with a specific date, such as launching or commissioning, and say "last to be commissioned" or whatever. Stan 13:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To say that the Missouri was the lasted battleship commissioned would be incorrect, because the navy commissioned the Montana class, and construction on these vessle began as the last Iowa class ships were building. Perhaps "Last battleship completed" would be a better phrase. TomStar81 08:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, interesting additional bit of ambiguity - in navies, "commissioning" is the step of bringing a ship into active service, while the act of asking for a ship to be constructed is just called "ordering". You can see that in the ship articles' sidebar boxes. "Completed" is often used as an informal synonym, but it's not quite the same, since you might have a period of time between when the ship is completely finished with construction and fitting-out, but isn't commissioned because then you'd have to acquire and pay a captain and crew (this happened to some ships that were completed right at the end of WWII). Stan 13:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did not know that. Thanks for the information. I may be able to put that to good use on the Gundam ship's pages. TomStar81 00:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The focus of Missouri being considered as the "last battleship" seems to be centered upon either the completion of the ship or the commissioning date. A better claim to being the "last battleship" - a claim that is easily verified - is that the Missouri was the last battleship on active duty being deactivated on March 31, 1992. New Jersey and Wisconsin were both deactivated in 1991 and Iowa was deactivated in 1990. mekozak 21 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Historic Events

From the article: "...Demands were made that Turkey grant the Soviets a base of seapower in the Dodecanese Islands and joint control of the Turkish Straits leading from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean." Although Dodecanese islands belonged to Turkey prior to 1912, at that year they were occupied by Italians and sovergnity over those islands were transferred to Greece following WWII, so if Soviets demanded such a base from Turkey, they had a very crappy foreign office. Actually the Soviet demands from Turkey were its northeastern provinces along with control over Turkish straits.

The Chassis for this article was Missouris entry in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships; that part of the entry was largly unchanged because there was no further information on it. If the information is incorrect it means the sorce was incorrect, and for that I apologize. TomStar81 18:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection and errors

There are at least two errors, one minor (typography: hyphen instead of n-dash for date separation) and other major (History: Soviet ingerence in Turkey) but the page is protected. Why and for how long?

Also, it is typically customary to refer to decomissioned ships such as the Missouri as ex USS Missouri, to indicate that the ship is no longer on the navy register.

That may be so, but USS Missouri is not referred to as ex in any other source that I'm aware of in much the same way that USS Arizona is not. If I have overlooked a source I am interested to see it. I think the distinction is that the United States Navy will never again use the name USS Missouri so there is no real need to distinguish her in that manner. --64.65.96.206 23:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I had to revert some vandalism on the page earlier today. Seeing as it is a featured article I'm guessing it has been protected to protect it from idiots for today.--LiamE 16:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured articles should not be protected simply because they are linked on the main page. An increased level of vandalism does occur when they are on the main page, but also an increased level of improvement and editing. If it undergoes sustained vandalism attacks again, then it can be protected; but at any rate, there should be a Template:Protected there surely. I'm going to unprotect on the expectation that the vandals have probably lost interest. Slac speak up! 20:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Communist conspiracy?

the part about soviet expansionism in the balkans/greece/turkey and the u.s.-interest in the independence of these countries is almost laughable. wasn't greece ceded to the western sphere of influence in jalta or teheran? as far as i can remember stalin refused to help the greek communists and subsequently they lost to the u.s.-supported "democrats". remember "gladio"? it was the outspoken policy of the us-administration of these days not even to allow a communist gouvernment to be voted into office, let alone bomb into it. when visiting they certainly represented us-interests in the region (which even may have been identical to the interests of the free world), but certainly no interest in the independence of these nations. greece and turkey became a vital part in nato-strategy some years later, there was reason enough for the us to be there. it is naive to ignore them and just reiterate what essentially amounts to cold-war propaganda.

Again, I state that the Chassis for this article was the entry in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. I did not extensively change that part, so it retains most of its DANFS content. If you have a problem with that section's content take it up with United States Navy. TomStar81 03:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, than it's just a misunderstanding. i thought this was the wikipedia-article concerning this ship, which would enable me, or anyone else for that matter, to correct this mistake. i even had a draft ready to post at least here on the talk page, but i suppose you're right. i'll phone my congressman right away... maybe someone else able to do so could get this article back to wikipedia. edit: sorry, i realized only now, that the page is unprotected already. i'll edit the parts i critized later this day (hopefully). more edit: just to demonstrate i'm not just a nerd, look what i've found in the article about the greek civil war: "The United States saw the end of the Greek Civil War, as a victory in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The paradox was that the Soviets never actively supported the Communist Party's efforts to seize power in Greece, and at the crucial moment at the end of 1944, when ELAS controlled most of the country, intervened decisively to restrain KKE, in the interests of the Soviet Union's larger strategy. KKE's major supporter and supplier had always been Tito, and it was the rift between Tito and the KKE which marked the real demise of the party's efforts to assert power."

You should go ahead and fix it up. The USN doesn't have a NPOV policy, for the perhaps-obvious reason that the Navy's purpose to further the interests of the US. We use DANFS material because for things like dates and places and movements, it is the best source short of reviewing ships' logs. But their articles are riddled with POV - whenever I imported, I tried to whack out the blatant stuff I saw, but some got through anyway. In general, our ship articles are not the right place to discuss geopolitics; the promotional verbiage can often simply be deleted with no loss, or replaced with a link to an article that describes the events directly - many if not most Cold War events already have fine articles. Stan 20:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I usually rewrite DANFS stuff so its comes out in NPOV form. I guess this one got away from me. I'll try harder next time. TomStar81 05:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

She??

The entire article refers to the sip as 'She', shouldn't it be 'It' ?. I'm not a native english speaker, but calling the ship 'She' sounds a little awkward to me.

The custom in English, at least traditionally, is to refer to ships as she. They can be referred to as it but maritime enthusiasts would not like that. Slac speak up! 20:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Its perfectly correct to refer to ships as she, never as it. Incidently this is also true of countries. --LiamE 20:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A fascinating query. I don't have very good Googling skills, so it took me a while to find this interesting article. Noisy | Talk 21:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting article. I can tell you one thing for sure, the pen-pusher that said “They are commodities, they are commercial assets. They are not things that have character—either male or female” has never been to sea! --LiamE 21:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I used the feminine pronoun on account of the fact that this was the last battleship built, so "she" represents the end of an era. Although not a sailor, I am told that USN personal refer to their ships as "she". IMHO, we shouldn't switch out "she" for "it"; however, the will of the conclave is stronger than one individual, so if consensus is reached to change it I won't complain. TomStar81 03:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"She" is still the way to go. Stan 20:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Few, if any, professional style guides prefer "she" over "it"; not Associated Press, not the New York Times, not even the United States Naval Institute, which publishes Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet and Combat Fleets of the World. Bbpen 22:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. How about the Royal Navy for a start? Cunard as another? Need I go on? And whatever the USNI might say, and I saw no use of it in my quick look at the site, the US Navy - to which the USNI has no ties - refers to its ships as she. In any case the tradition is far older than the USA and its navy, going back hundreds of years. Exceptions to the tradition are very rare - for example the Bismarck was referred to as male and look what happened there. And are you really trying to say the NYT and AP never refer to ships as she? --LiamE 01:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You've missed the point. Certainly, Cunard, the RN, the USN, and anyone with a drop of saltwater in their veins prefer "she." But creators of authoritative and reference works, especially ones that like Wikipedia have a broad purview, generally prefer "it." Bbpen 02:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea is a top reference work for all things maritime, and uses "she". AP and NYT are news services, not reference works, and have plenty of idiosyncrasy in their style guides (as witness the comical overuse of "Mr."). Stan 04:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The point here is that the AP and NYT guides are commonly used by compilers of reference works. Moreover, the broader the scope of the work, the more likely it is to hew to one of these standards and the less likely to incorporate the jargon of any particular field of endeavor.Bbpen 05:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I was unable to find use of either she or it by either the NYT or AP in my search of those sites, mainly because their archives require payment. I have no reason to beleive they would be any different from the BBC who generally use she but are not entirely consistent, even within a single article. The use of she or it by these agencies seems to be more down to writer/editor than any agreed standard. In any case the fact that this ship was refered to as she by the USN itself must be considered authoritative. I notice from your own page Bbpen that you have contributed to ship/boat construction articles and interest in that field may in fact lead to confusion as a ships hull under construction is correctly referred to as it. Upon launching, typically with words such as "I name this ship xxxx. God bless her and all that sail in her" the ship takes on its female identity. --LiamE 09:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Should USS_New_Hampshire_(BB-70) Be changed to 'it' then ? (check discussion page). Idem for all the ships that never where built, there's a bunch here

Perhaps in the case of Illinios and Kentucky, but all of the Montana-class ships (Montana, Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, Louisiana) were never under construction, only authorized. My opinion is that they should remain as "she" and not "it". TomStar81 02:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

'A ship is always referred to as "she" because it costs so much to keep one in paint and powder.'--Chester Nimitz

—wwoods 02:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Love that quote. LiamE, I'm well aware that sailors and others call ships "she," and I even have some intimacy with the many traditions that enshrine the notion of a vessel's femininity. Trust me when I say AP and NYT (and most general reference works) use "it". (Or don't; there are plenty of examples that require no access to paid archives.) Neither is U.S. Navy usage particularly relevant to Wikipedia style; for example, we do not capitalize "Sailor" as the USN does. Bbpen 03:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As this is a general discussion, might I suggest moving it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships? At the very least, any resolution will need to be communicated to all people working on ship-related articles. Stan 04:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Go ahead and move it, just make sure an leave a page where we can get to it. TomStar81 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like a plan, Stan. --LiamE 14:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Tidal Table Navigation Errors :: Any Lessons Learned?

Re*Visioning ... Image:Grounded Missouri.jpg ...

USS Missouri (BB-63) article includes photo of a grounding due to AVOIDABLE "navigation errors"
... failing to consider or correctly calculate effect of tides at ports of call ...
RJBurkhart 12:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Missouri didn't ground due to tidal errors. It grounded because our captain insisted that we pass to the port of a line of buoys that we should have passed to the starboard of. He ran us into shoal water because he misunderstood the course we were supposed to take and over the objections of his navigator and quartermaster. ---B- 08:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Too bad

Too bad they had to decommision the ship. They could have turned her in to a heavy guided missile cruiser. They could have replaced the main guns with surface-to-surface and other missiles. But that'll probrobly cost a lot.24.7.112.100 05:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really practical to make that conversion. Removing the turrets would probably do bad things to her sea-worthiness. Each turret weighs over 1700 tons with no ammunition in it. No missile battery is going to weigh that so what would removing the turrets do to the ship's center of buoyancy; just for one question. It would probably cost as much to refit her with VLS systems as it would to just build a new guided missile ship; not to mention the costs of operating her at sea. ---B- 08:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My Grandpa was a foreman at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and built this (and every other late 30's/late 40's era ship that came out of the BNY). He was always very sad to see the Yard after it closed, and very sad to see one of his ships get decommisioned, sunk, scrapped, or gutted. He would have thought this was the best possible alternative to remaining in service.Fatbrett2 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

range of the 16" guns

nobody lists an effective range of the larger guns on the Big Mo. Can somebody fix that? ... aa:talk 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that information was outsourced to the class page. In short, the gun range adds up as follows: the 16in guns can fire roughly 24 miles and the 5in guns roughly 9 miles. TomStar81 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. ... aa:talk 23:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall pushing for common info to move to the class page. Perhaps the infobox could have a note somewhere to see the class page for common details details. Another alternative could be something like This article discusses specifics of the USS Missouri (BB-63), additional common details can be found in Iowa class. at the article top, like an otheruses notice.--J Clear 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Kamikaze pilot

The article mentions a memorial service for the kamikaze pilot. I had heard, probably from a docent at Pearl, that some remains of the pilot were found and it was a burial at sea for the remains, not just a memorial service. This would give a concrete reason for the service. This would also mean that not just the wing ended up on deck. I seem to recall there were photos of the wreckage/remains, but this all needs verification.--J Clear 18:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

First person account of the incident by Missouri's Chaplain seems to confirm what I recall. Also there is a photo of one of the Zeke's guns stuck through the barrel of a 40mm, here. Can't edit the article myself now, feel free.--J Clear 18:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that the upper half of the pilot's body was recovered on board and was buried at sea, with military honors, the following day. I've seen the photos of both the service and of the pilot's remains (not a pretty sight) and spoken with several of our crewmembers who were present at the time. ---B- 22:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a change to the text, removing this:

Shortly after Missouri received her first hits, her commander ordered a memorial ceremony for the Japanese pilot that hit the ship. Most sailors, very upset with what her commander was doing did not attend. Her commander said that it was important to honor a pilot who purposly crashed his plane for his country.

And replacing it with the version of the story that I've been told by crewmembers who were present. I don't know what the source of the claim that "most sailors" didn't attend the service because they were upset with the Captain's decision is. I've never heard that version of the story. And frankly it doesn't really matter if you're upset or not. In the Navy you don't really have the option of boycotting things just because you don't like the decision. Captain Callaghan decided that the boy (he was probably about 18) deserved a military funeral. Many in the crew didn't like the decision but they went along with it and Captain Callaghan is to this day considered one of our most popular and respected commanders. ---B- 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Audio File

I have added an audio file reading this article as a response to an earlier request. The server is acting funny, as the file is uploaded to wikipedia, but wikipedia does not seem to want to recognize it. Therefore, I added the file as a direct link in the External Links section. Naturally, when someone has time to properly format it into the article, that would be fine. --Brinticus 17:24, 02 August 2006

Incorrect Information

Scout1026 07:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Hey guys I'm new here, so don't know how to make this into it's own section. I noted a minor error in the 1980s section, and wanted to note it: "Four months later, the nation's most accomplished battleship departed her new homeport of Long Beach for an around-the-world cruise, bringing the message of "Strength for Freedom" to eight nations: Australia, Diego Garcia, Egypt, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Panama." You'll note that Diego Garcia is not a nation, it is a tiny overseas territory of the UK. -Tom

Scout1026 07:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) OK, I need to bring up another minor item: "On 19 October 1950 some 380,000 People's Liberation Army soldiers under the command of General Peng Dehuai crossed into North Korea and launched a full scale assault against advancing U.N. troops." This wording is faulty in that it is stating that 380K Chinese troops crossed into NK on that specific date and attacked. In fact, they were crossing for some weeks prior, and would continue to do so thru the war. Perhaps "On 19 October 1950 some 380,000 People's Liberation Army soldiers under the command of General Peng Dehuai launched a full scale assault against advancing U.N. troops." ??? Tom

Three things:

• For starts, creating a new section head is easy, simply type two equal signs, then a brief text message to serve as the heading, then type two more equal signs to close. That will create a new section.
• Place your for tildes (these things ~~~~) after your text message, not before it. In this manner you leave your name and time stamp after you comment, rather than before it.
• This article is actually my next big project; in about two weeks I will begin a major overhaul of the page, checking for content and context, proper citations, correct verb usages, etc. When I get started on that I will make a point to adress these errors that you caught. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Second to last BB in world?

I have deleted the statement in the introduction that the ship was the second-to-last battleship built in the world. Wisconsin and Vanguard were laid down after her; Vanguard and Jean Bart were completed and commissioned after her. In any event a discussion of this point is unneeded in the introduction. Kablammo 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

fireworks?

While cleaning up the Cher reference I noticed "Independence Day weekend brought its share of fireworks." with no further information. Unless that was a veiled reference to Cher's video, it probably needs to be expanded or removed.--J Clear 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the line is (or was) a part of the original DANFS entry for Missouri. I will look into tracking down the source; if I can not find it, then I will reword/remove it per your suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mines

I know there is a cite for it, but I don't think we cleared 15 mines in the Gulf War. As I recall we only have 10 insignia on the bridge wing and we got one for each mine we cleared. I'll check on it when I'm aboard this weekend. ---B- 09:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was 15 with assistance from other vessels; as for me, I was simply suprised to learn that Missouri had cleared mines at all. Still and all though, it would be best to check :)TomStar81 (Talk) 09:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Any ship can be a minesweeper...once.  ;-) We had an EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) team on board whose job it was to deal with mines. ---B- 16:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Should it be mentioned in the article the popular culture references of the ship. Red1530 01:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Guidelines are to aviod pop culture sections in MILHIST articles, so the inclusion of any pop culture section would be removed immediately, especially since this si a Featured Article. There is a paragraph on the class page that discusses the appearnce of the ships in popular culture, and relevant info on culture references to Missouri can be found there. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of that. Red1530 12:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

5 inch turrets

This article implies that there are half the number of 5 inch guns that there really are. Each turret contains a pair of 5 inchers, so it was built with a total of twenty five inchers, later cut down to 12 during the 1980s refit. All the other articles on the Iowa class ships get this right. I am correcting this article to be in line with them. -EO

I'm counting turrets, not guns, hence the descrepancy: 10 turrets minus four turrets leaves six turrets, roughly half of the original complement. As a practical matter we are both right, so there really isn't a need to change the information, although if you wish it changed I will advise that you read through and make sure all other instances of the the mention of the gun turrets are changed to the gun barrels for consistance; it would not do at all for readers to get confused due to an abrupt shift in the way the count os tallied. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word "turret" should not be applied to the 5-inch guns, for which the correct term is "enclosed gun mount." A turret is composed of a "heavily armored box topside . . . and a structure extending downward through the decks containing the ammunition handling rooms and hoists. The entire structure rotates within a heavily armored cylinder called a barbette, extending from the armored upper part of the turret to the lowest armored deck." I am quoting from the US Naval training manual Seamanship, issued by BuPers in June 1944.PKKloeppel (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Main articles: Iowa class battleship and Armament of the Iowa class battleship"

Hi guys, I've been reading Wikipedia:Layout#"See also" for one section, do we think the {{Main}} template is entirely appropriate for the link to the "Iowa class battleship" and "Armament of the Iowa class battleship" articles at the top of the "Construction" section?

It's just that upon further reading of {{Main}}, it implies the template should only be used on an offshoot article. Now I see the logic obviously in regards to "Iowa class battleship", but "Armament of the Iowa class battleship" seems like the offshoot of this article, perhaps {{See also}} would be more appropriate? Ryan4314 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In general FAC bound articles attempt to lose the "see also" section becuase those who contribute to FAC have in the past voted against the promotion of articles with see also sections. In this case the class page and the armament page serve as the base articles for the small constructions sections, and thus are the main articles for the construction section, hence the main tag for the section. BTW, you are correct in your assumption that the armement page is an offshoot of the original class page: at one time the Iowa class article did contain all the information present on the armement page, but after an in house peer review it was decided to split the material out into its own article to keep the size for the class article down. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OIC, thankyou for your patience. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Crew Complement looks wrong

What's the source for that 1800 number back in 1943? During WWII and Korea the complement would have been a lot closer to 3,000. ---B- (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS has been fiddling with there template to update them. If you look at the others some state that in WWII they AN/SPY radar sets, SBROC launchers, and SLQ32 electronic contermeasure suites. Assuming your crew number problem is recent (say within a month or two old) then this is most likely the culprit, and I have been a little to busy lately to dig into the finer material and fix the problems. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Info repository

"Whilst at anchor the British Union Jack was flown from her bow sprit (Captain Stuart S Murray's diary and notes)."

finding inlince citation info for this, until then it needs to stay here. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Under Siege?

How come Cher gets a mention but Steven Seagal's "Under Seige" is strangely absent? Just Curious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.203.11 (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

She's back in the article? I guess I'm not as good at patrolling the pages as I thought. No, there should be no mention of pop culture material here, its all on the class page (including Under Siege). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seagal's "Under Siege" wasn't filmed on the Missouri so should receive very little mention (other than clearing up that popular misconception). ---B- (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The plot of "Under Siege" was set aboard USS Missouri BB63 but the on-board filming was done using USS Alabama BB60 (preserved as battleship memorial in Mobile AL) as a stand-in. However, too often trivial pop culture references become clutter to WP pages. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Commodore Perry's flag

• Closed as no consensus; thus the photo will remain the same. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Commodore Perry's flag was flown from Annapolis to Tokyo for display at the surrender ceremonies which officially ended World War II.

This photo has a plausible value in this article. At present, there is a notice discouraging the addition of any new images; but instead, there is a suggestion that any proposed addition might be posted here for comment and further discussion. --Tenmei (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the current image is the best image, but I will ask at SHIPS and MILHIST so as to gain a wider opinion on this. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a great photo, but seems more appropriate for an article on the surrender ceremonies themselves rather than this article, which is about the ship. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This image is currently posted as part of Instrument of Surrender#Flags at the ceremony and Matthew C. Perry#Perry's flag and legacy, which is consistent with Bellhalla reasonable comment. I agree with Bellhalla's analysis, but it seemed like a good idea to post the photograph here, just in case others might see things differently. --Tenmei (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC) While color photos are always nice, especially for this period, I agree with Tom that the existing image is better. It's a much more well-known photo of the event. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this image: Image:Surrender of Japan - USS Missouri.jpg? It's also well known, and shows much more of the subject of the article than the other photos (which, IMO, may be historically significant, but are very boring - there's not much which can be done to 'sex up' a photo of a well dressed middle-aged man signing his name). The contrast between the Japanese party and Missouri's armament and crew makes for a great photo which is well suited to this article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That is actually a quite nice photograph. I would be fine with replacing the current photo of MacArthur signing with it. Anyone else have an opinion? Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture

There are popular culture references to USS Enterprise CNV 65 in that article. It is not appropriat for Missouri?William L. Schlotterer (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The MoS, both the general one and the Milhist one, frown on having popular culture sections in articles, yet it can not be denied that these are among the most popular battleships ever featured in pop culture. To solve this delema all pop culture references were removed from the articles and consolidated on the main Iowa class battleship page. Thats why no pop culture reference are made here. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

New Image

• 
  Old image
• 
  Proposed image

I added Image:USS Missouri watching over USS Arizona - Pearl Harbor.jpg to the article, replacing Image:USSMO.JPG so no formatting would be messed up. I was then promptly reverted and asked to go to the talk page. Personally, I believe Image:USSMO.JPG is not a great photo for the section it is in. It provides very little information, nor does it give any added value to the text. Also, it is mostly redundant to the other photos showing the profile of the ship. I believe Image:USS Missouri watching over USS Arizona - Pearl Harbor.jpg is of much better quality and has pertinence to the text (specifically the paragraph starting with: "Originally, the decision to move Missouri to Pearl Harbor was met with some resistance..."). It also is an interesting photo that incorporates 2 very important sites, and gives a better view of the surrounding harbor. Any outside opinions would be appreciated. --67.155.253.248 (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw your new photo, compared it to the old one and concluded yours was better. I'm surprised others didn't reach the same conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review, the new photo is fine, and you are free to put it in the article as you have proposed. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! --67.155.253.248 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Armaments refitting by year

Can template Infobox Ship convert to this old format Armaments refitting by year
Fernvale (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cost to build? Cost to re-activate?

I came to this site to find out what the Missouri cost to re-activate. This is an important piece of information, as well as the cost to build it originally.

(If I missed it in the article, feel free to ignore this comment but consider placing the figure more prominently.). --Calan (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is actually noted in the class article, but or clarity's sake it was about 400 milliondolars to reactivate Missouri. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

1991 friendly fire incident

Those familiar with the incident are skeptical of this account, however, as Jarrett was reportedly over 2 mi (3.2 km) away at the time and the characteristics of chaff are such that a Phalanx would not normally regard it as a threat and engage it.

The incident with the USS Jarrett (FFG-33) occurred in the BBFSA (Battleship Fire Support Area). The USS Missouri was escorted in this area with the Jarrett and the HMS Glouster. The FSA was a very narrow strip of water 8 miles off the coast of Kuwait. When the incident occurred there was an erroneous report of a missle inbound. Both Missouri and Jarrett fired chaff. While this was occurring the Jarrett was at flight quarters launching one of her helos. The Missouri was starboard side to the Jarrett approximately 400-500 yards. The Phalanx system at the time was in AAW Auto on both ships. The Fire Control Tech/Chief on watch on the Missouri noticed the system tracking on the chaff and went to manual. The FCT Chief on the Jarrett did not notice the CIWS tracking on the chaff, which by this point was drifting between both ships. The CIWS radar on the Jarrett assumed the chaff to be a high speed close-in contact and fired approximately 80 rounds before it too was placed in manual. The Jarrett was extremely fortunate that the Missouri CIWS system was placed in manual prior to firing. As it was when the CIWS did fire it was initially presumed on the Jarrett that it had locked in on the recently departed helo. I was in CIC when this occurred. Bmaier001 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Role in Metal Gear Solid 4

Is it worth mentioning that this ship played a small, but valuable role in Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots? Perhaps a "In Popular Culture" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.106 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that info should not be mentioned here in this article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the impact that the Iowas have had on popular culture ought to be mentioned somewhere... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a section for that in the class article, but I removed it cuz it appeared to be an issue that Brad raised. I suppose that with the FAR over we can reinstate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Fourth ship?

It somehow doesn't ring quite right to call her the fourth ship of the name in the U.S. Navy. The first one was actually the C.S.S. Missouri - a Confederate gunboat. So technically BB-63 is only the third U.S.S Missouri. ---B- (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Details on Bombardments of Japan not correct

The bombardment of Muroran was the second Allied bombardment of a Japanese coastal city, not the first - please see Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II for refs. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Broke the Admiral's flag

This arcane bit of naval lore should be explained. I think it refers to the process of hoisting an admiral's flag while it is rolled, then releasing the string that holds the rolled flag (breaking it) to permit it to fly freely. Sources: http://forum.oldweather.org/index.php?topic=1315.0 and www.uscg.mil/D1/.../history.../PENBSCOT_BAY_Notice_5060.pdf program from the commissioning of the USN Penobscot Bay. 70.112.75.47 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. We should avoid jargon. The command headquarters was selected by the Admiral who could have chosen any ship, technically. The flag bit should be jettisoned for this encyclopedia IMO. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Awards and decorations

Museum ship

I noticed today that the awards as seen on Big Mo the museum ship are differently arranged with relation to the ones shown here at the bottom of the article. The museum ship displays them three across, not four, so there are necessarily more rows of them. Just FYI, in case somebody cares to rearrange them here at the article, in case it's important. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

General Characteristics

The ship's general characteristics listed are her design characteristics. But they don't reflect her operational characteristics. She's 45,000 tons empty, at the pier. Fully equipped and ready to do work she's closer to 58,000 tons. Likewise her draft is only ~28 feet when she's empty and idle. On the job she draws nearly 10 feet more than that.

Not sure how to amend the data to reflect the difference; but it's worth pointing out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschorr (talk • contribs) 15:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mobilization status

This might be a question for WP:RD, that being said as this may assist in the improvement of the article, I see that regarding the USS Iowa (BB-61) that that the NVR it was downgraded from maintenance status B to X on 17 March 2006.

At present, NVR does not give the stricken USS Missouri any maintenance status. Is there any information of the status of the ship's maintenance in regards to any possible future recommissioning? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of media section

(Should be "Removal of contents of media section") North8000 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My addition:

"The story line of the 1992 file "Under Siege" was set on the USS Missouri. The movie included footage of the USS Missouri at sea, but aboard-ship filming was done on the USS Alabama. The Cher video "If I Could Turn Back Time" was filmed July 1st, 1989 aboard the USS Missouri."

was removed citing a guideline which is NOT a policy (and probably misapplied in any case), plus a note inserted by someone who did not want such covered here. (which is also certainly not a policy). For each of these two items, the Missouri was a centerpiece of and prominent in a film/video each of which was viewed by tens of millions of people. I ask for a discussion here on whether such merits inclusion of those in this article. North8000 (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Popular culture, shortcut WP:MILPOP, is a strongly followed guideline for military articles at English Wikipedia. If the film Under Siege had an influence on how tens of millions of people thought of the ship, please show a cite for that fact. If it had that influence, we do not need the pop culture section you introduced. Instead, the information could be woven into the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. While guidelines are not policies, there generally has to be a very strong reason to disregard a guideline since guidelines are the product of consensus. In this case, I think the guideline was properly applied and makes sense. Just because a ship was central to a move does not mean the movie was central to, or worth passing notice vis-a-vis, the ship. The addition was also unsourced, so it violated WP:V and possibly other policies, guidelines, and MOS, too. Novaseminary (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Unsourced" is not a violation of wp:ver; briefly it says verifyABLE, and sourced if challenged. So addition of unsourced material is not per se a violation. This is easily sourceable and would be sourced. And your reference to wp:mos is uselessly vague. Plus WP:mos is not a content policy, certainly not one calling for deletion of content, and, in fact, not a policy. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to consider this an open question (no rush, months would be fine). IMO Novaseminary's comment was a severe coi that day....they were just following me around Wikipedia that day and hour doing stuff like this because I disputed what they were doing on an article elsewhere. So that leaves me and Binksternet. Both of those pieces absolutely showcased that beautiful ship, and were extremely prominent, seen by 10's of millions of people, if not hundreds of millions. And so, as far as single exposures, were amongst the 3 most prominent/seen moments in the ships history (#1 being the surrender) And this is an article about a particular ship not a military history article, nor a type of ship or equipment. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removal, not only from here, but from most articles I edit. This distracts from the WP:TOPIC which is the ship. This tends to "showboat/showcase" the movie (or other fiction) which is less famous and is usually looking to derive fame from association with the ship. That is why the movie was made, after all. Kind of WP:SPAM, when you think about it. We would be saying that these commercial entrepreneurs made a wise decision in using the Missouri. That is quite different than talking about the ship, per se. It is distracting. Policy discussions elsewhere have referred to this sort of subsections as "trivia." There has been a great effort to try to get rid of them for that reason. Student7 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that both of them chose it because of what a modern battleship would do for the movie and video, not the fame of the Missouri. A carrier is bigger but a floating city, and more modern weapons are more powerful, but such a battleship is the biggest and physically toughest war machine ever made, and (aside from some a few obscure ones not used much)have the biggest guns ever used. Unfortunately I think that there are far more people who know the movie and the video than know the Missouri. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. We get this sort of thing all the time in articles on ancient cities. But Rome, Pergamon, etc. will be around a lot longer than any modern film. When people have forgotten what a "film" is! Can anyone name whatever passed for "best selling" book on Paris in 1850? Or even 1900? Or 1930? Or (in 1930) a movie? The same with other transitory media phenomena. We remember Alesia when we can barely find it, still, in a field in France. The event is more important than any transient representation of it IMO, regardless of how popular the media representation seems at the time. Student7 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I see both sides of the issue here, and unfortunately there is no easy way to figure how to overcome two legitimate arguments for the inclusion/exclusion of the information. On the one hand, the films and the video games that depict the ships help to keep the legend of the ships alive insofar as they show these battleships still able to roll and fight with the best of them. By Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, the information added need only be cited to reliable sources and be verifiable. In both of these cases the information can be cited to such sources, which is a point scored for the inclusion of the information camp. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and milpop does state that pop culture sections should be avoided whenever possible. Moreover, when this kind of information appears in articles people tend to add every little appearance of the said thing (USS Missouri in this case) to the article, so what starts off as a well intentioned addition to the article (Missouri played prominently in the movie under siege and the game metal gear solid 4) turns into a massive infestation of information not needed in the article (Missouri appeared briefly in this book and that book, a line in a rap song mentions Missouri, Missouri was the stage for the elementary school's yearly reenactment of Jaws, the battleship appeared on the cover of a magazine in 1982, etc, etc, etc...) which fuels the 'remove this section permanently from the article' argument and the camp that supports it. Having been in both camps during my time here I can say that the short term benefits lie with the former group while the long term benefits lie with the latter group. My solution, for what its worth, was to place the fictional material into the class article selectively so that multiple citations could be made to the same general statement (The Iowa class battleships have appeared in several movies and films [citations for the movies they appeared in], as well as video games [citations for the games here]...) The best solution I could offer would be to simply forgo mentioning the materiel here and add it to the relevant article here (Under Siege, Metal Gear Solid 4, World in Conflict, etc). I know its not the answer you want to here, but unto my experience it is the best and surest way to ensure that the information stays here for others to see. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to be upset if the decision is to leave it out, I just want to see it really discussed. I can understand the "finger in the dike" / slippery slope point and think it is a good one. I think I'm 3/4 with the "keep stuff out" line of thinking. But one could argue that these are very special cases. The movie and video were hugely notable, and in both the Missouri was a centerpiece, not just in it, one being filmed on the Missouri, the other aboard another real battlewagon. If you want to know my bias, I'm not a Cher or Under Siege fan, I'm a battlewagon fan. Gone aboard battleships about a dozen times including the mighty MO at Bremerton. Got choked/felt overwhelmed telling my young son that the largest war in the history of the world ended by that little plaque on the deck by our feet. And I put those two in here because that it speaks volumes about battlewagons having those modern culture giants centerpiece the mighty Mo in those two productions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not create a separate article entirely - something like "United States Battleships in Popular Media" or the like? Then you can still have the reference points available, and they can (quite honestly) get as cluttered as people want them, but the content itself doesn't mess up the individual ships' pages themselves. Just a thought... Snarky Boy (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That idea was actually tried once for aircraft carriers, the page created for their fictional exploits was Aircraft carriers in fiction, but it was deleted after an afd nomination. If a similar page for battleships was created I am fairly certain that the page would meet a similar end. Still, though, if you are willing to take a chance on the page you are welcome to be WP:BOLD and create it to see what happens. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Following my reasoning that those two are special cases, I don't think that I would start such an article. It would be an article of two, the rest would be junk. A similar test for carriers would include zero or one. Particular real world destroyers or cruisers or subs zero or one. And I think I've said my piece above other the than knocking many decades of maturity and reserve away and sounding like a 14 year old fan......have any of you SEEN the might MO in those two productions? It is SO COOL in them! With that intellectual masterpiece  :-) I'll sign off and see what folks think. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We have reached the point, I think, where it has become clear that we need to split Wikipedia up into two major subsections. One would be the normal serious, academic subsection which contains serious matters like geography, major events, sciences, philosophy, etc. The second would contain media, entertainment, sports, bands, "WikiEntertainment." The rules for the latter would be more relaxed and would attract the younger editors and readers. The first would attract serious researchers and people looking for intellectual stimulation. This would solve the 'philosophical/cultural" problem that we are having from people who are not able to make the distinction between the two. For the serious, it doesn't matter how many rock bands have recorded the tune "Eiffel Tower." None should go into the article. For those interested in entertainment, it greatly matters! It may be the only thing that matters. Quite possibly no one would know anything about the Eiffel Tower if there were no recording/film/video about it! They could edit their articles accordingly: no music/media/themed tv program = no article! Student7 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Amen, Preacher :) In all seriousness though this site has become the absolutely worst place on the net to find anything remotely related to fiction or to popular cultural. For my part, I do what I can, but it gets harder harder to find justifiable ways to add such material. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like zero people agreed with me on the particular question at hand. The was putting brief mentions of those two particular items in there as special cases due to the unusual degree of notability (viewed by hundred's of millions of people) combined with the unusually close link to the Mighty MO (the Mighty Mo was a centerpiece in both of them, and one was filmed ON it)North8000 (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is a history of the USS Missouri, and as it is a history of that ship, leaving material out simply because it is considered pop culture is doing a disservice to the history. While I fully agree that every book, movie and video game reference should not be included in the article about the history of the ship (because they do not have anything to do with that subject), when the ship was actually involved in the production of a movie, then it should be included in the article. In this case, the history of USS Missouri includes being the location for the filming of a major music video. That's part of the history of this ship. The article includes other activities the ship engaged in during port visits, why should a major production including both the ship and her crew be left out of this article?Dworjan (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree North8000 (talk) 10:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thirded, as long as it can be sourced. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It'll have to wait till the weekend for me to see if I can find a source, but there has to be something. I figure no more than a sentence or two is warranted about the production, but it should be included in the ship's history. Dworjan (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

One suggestion:

"The story line of the 1992 film "Under Siege" was set on the USS Missouri. The movie included footage of the USS Missouri at sea, but aboard-ship filming was done on the USS Alabama. The Cher video "If I Could Turn Back Time" was filmed July 1st, 1989 aboard the USS Missouri."

The movie is a wp article and the video is a section in a wp article. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So if every subject has its own article it shouldn't be mentioned in another? The mention should be brief like you suggested, but it should be here. I don't even know that I'd include Under Siege here, but I would I include a music video filmed aboard the ship. Dworjan (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstood me. I was mentioning the other articles only as sidebar inforation, not to imply that it's a reason for not mentioning it here. And agree the video for sure because it is a directly a part of the ship's history. Regarding the movie, I think that this is in the top 1% regarding suitability of media stuff for inclusion due to the confluence of these special factors:

1. Prominence of the movie
2. It wasn't just in or referenced in the movie, the Mighty MO, the MO specifically was the central item of the entire movie at both the general and detailed levels, and an immense amount of specifics of the movie were about the specifics of the ship.
3. Actual footage MO at sea was in the movie.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I did misunderstand you then, and for that I apologize. I think you might be right about Under Siege, but I'd like to see what other opinions there are.

The article already mentions Missouri being in Long Beach in '89, and I think simply adding "On July 1st the music video for Cher's "If I Could Turn Back Time" was filmed aboard Missouri and featured the ship's crew." Dworjan (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it. 00:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MILPOP - How does the Cher video rise above the trivial for the history of the ship? Btw, there is no cited reference for the inclusion in the article (yet) - needs to be addressed. You might wish to find out why the Navy department agreed to the filming in the first place. There's already an article for the video stating it was filmed onboard. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There is the question of "derived notability" which may not have been specifically addressed (I will check) in the policy section. (For them, it's all trivia and probably not addressed at all). Anyway, is it more important for Cher, who is trying to maintain her status as an entertainer, to be in a Missouri article, or is it important for the Missouri, where the ending of World War II took place, to have Cher recognize it, to ensure that people would remember it. I am dubious about the value of inserting entertainers to "enhance" the article. It usually seems like simple Public Relations/WP:SPAM for the entertainer IMO. Now, if she appeared aboard the USS Pierre (named after the SD capital and may not even exist), she might be considered as doing the Pierre a favor!  :) Student7 (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

To HammerFilmFan. While I think that it is certainly non-trivial, the items that you linked to is the preference of one of the working groups that has an interest in this article, it is not a wikipedia policy or guideline. To: Student7 Several issues with what is implied in your question. That either/or question is not a criteria for inclusion. And I don't think that it's on anybody's radar scree whether Cher recognized the ship. It's just another piece of the ship's history, and a prominent one at that. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the level of detail of the history of the ship included in this article, I fail to see how one sentence noting that the ship was used as the filming location for the a music video that prominently featured both ship and crew is an issue. Clearly, there are people who still remember or are aware that USS Missouri was used in the video. I think it rises above trivia. This particular item does not really fall under the whole pop culture reference issue. We're not talking about a book mentioning the ship or footage being used in a movie. This is an item in the ship's history. Because that item happens to include a musician is not a good reason for its exclusion from this article. Anything more than one or two sentences would probably give undue weight to the event, but I feel it is noteworthy enough to receive a mention in the ship's history. Dworjan (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Way too many words have been spent on this thread and the question has remained unresolved for much too long (31 October 2010 to date). The time has come (the walrus said) to end it. Cher's video and Under Siege are commercial, for profit ventures that utilized Missouri as a tool for making a profit. This editor, who is not completely oblivious to the popular culture, was unaware of either of these works until they appeared in this article. Using myself as a gauge, neither of them then clear the notability bar with regard to Missouri. Mention of those two works is not appropriate in this article.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. And just because you are not one of the tens or hundreds of millions of people who have seen those does not means that they are obscure. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. At no time did I say that Cher's video or Under Siege were obscure. Even if bazillions upon bazillions of people have seen those two works, all that has happened is that bazillions upon bazillions of people have seen them. Had those two works changed the lives of those who have seen them, or if those two works changed society in some meaningful way, then likely I would be aware of them and might believe that they were notable. That not being the case, these two works aren't important enough for inclusion in this article.

As I said before too many words have been spent on this topic. Mention of Under Siege or "If I Could Turn Back Time" is not warranted given the evidence presented.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my "obscure" was not what you said, and was a bit of a straw man characterization of what you said. But you did indicate that the fact that you haven't seen them was a relevant indicator. One other note, notability is not the standard for existence of material in the article. If it were, these two items would stay (having confirmed it via existence of separate articles) and about 1/2 of the other material in this article would get deleted. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that I was unaware of the film and music video; and that, to me, is indicative of their relative lack of importance in the long term. These events are mere blips in the life history of Missouri.

If "notability is not the standard for existence of material in the article" then points you made in your posts of 14 January 2011 and 15 February 2011 must be dismissed out of hand because that criterion is one you use. Can't have it both ways. (Yeah, I edited your posts to put anchors there; no other changes were made.)

Agreed that notability isn't and shouldn't be the only criterion we use to determine what material stays in the article. I will grant that Under Siege and "If I Could Turn Back Time" are sufficiently "notable" for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will not grant that same status to inclusion in this article. In all of Missouri's existence, being the backdrop to a couple of for-profit commercial ventures isn't very notable—actually it's somewhat demeaning.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your links to my previous posts, or how you think that they support what you are saying. On your last point, I saw both of them as being homage to the mighty MO and the military, and in a huge forum. The video was done during the later phase of a (post Vietnam) era when the military wasn't considered cool and video sort of had the guts to say the opposite. I guess that it's just a different viewpoint. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

1. On 14 January 2011 you wrote: "The movie and video were hugely notable, and in both the Missouri was a centerpiece, not just in it, one being filmed on the Missouri, the other aboard another real battlewagon."

2. On 15 February 2011 you wrote: "The was putting brief mentions of those two particular items in there as special cases due to the unusual degree of notability (viewed by hundred's of millions of people) combined with the unusually close link to the Mighty MO (the Mighty Mo was a centerpiece in both of them, and one was filmed ON it)"

3. Today you wrote: "One other note, notability is not the standard for existence of material in the article."

Emphasis all mine, the rest are your words verbatim.

In items 1 and 2 above you claim notability as justification for the inclusion of Under Siege and "If I Could Turn Back Time". Then, in item 3, in a counter to my use of the term where I dismiss these two works as unimportant, you state that notability isn't a standard for inclusion thereby nullifying statements 1 and 2 above.

Disallowing notability for inclusion, by extension disallows notability as a standard for exclusion. You can't claim the right to use notability to justify your position and simultaneously deny me the right to use lack of notability to justify my opposing point of view.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The way that I saw it, you were implying that notability or wp:notability are a requirement for inclusion, and that is certainly not correct. But for you to assert that it lacks notability and that that should weigh in for leaving it out, or for me to assert that it has notability and that that should weigh in for having it in are both valid. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW starting tomorrow, I'll be overseas and probably off wiki for about 10 days. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Being unaware of something is not a good reason to include it in an encyclopedia article. Two sentences after the one mentioning the filming of the music video is "The highlight of PacEx was a port visit in Pusan". I didn't know Missouri made a port visit to Pusan. I also don't think that port visit changed anyone's lives, or changed society in any meaningful way. Yet there is no one clamoring for their removal from the article. Sitting in a fresh water river to kill barnacles isn't much more than a blip on the history of the ship and won't be remembered for generations but that is in the article as well. There is a single sentence mentioning that the music video for a gold single was filmed aboard the ship and featured both ship and crew throughout the video. I don't know of any other active warship to be host to the filming of a music video. While I will not argue that it is a core event in the history of the ship, I feel it is a noteworthy and unique event which speaks to the popularity and impact that the Missouri had on mainstream America.Dworjan (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Did your first sentence come out the way you wanted it to? I don't think that anyone has suggested that because they were unaware of something, and that because they were unaware, that was sufficient rational to include that something.

Port visits "show the flag"—an important function for any US Navy ship. Even killing barnacles is part of the normal life of a ship transitioning from the reserve fleet. In the broad scope of history, neither of these amount to much, yet are part of the normal purpose and life of a ship. I see no reason to delete mention if them.

Music videos and films primarily benefit commercial ventures. Their interest in Missouri is how she can be used to make more money for them and their stockholders. If the music video did "speak to the popularity and impact that the Missouri had on mainstream America", there wouldn't have been the controversy over Cher's costume because she wouldn't have needed to dress as she apparently did. Sex sells; battleships not so much.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter who made money. What matters is that many more people saw the battleship by way of the piece of media. We don't delete because of profit. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

True, we don't delete because of profit. But the greater point, and the one that you are ignoring, is that the paragraph attempts to point out that User:Dworjan's assertion, that these works "speak to the popularity and impact that the Missouri had on mainstream America," is false. The makers of those works were not motivated by anything except money.

To your point "that many more people saw the battleship by way of the piece of media": I strongly suspect that of those who did see these works, the vast majority of them won't recognize Missouri as anything more than a backdrop to the story of the film or to the story of the video. While scenery and set dressing are important, the most important part of any film is the story. This is why plays can be successful on a bare stage. These "events" are unimportant in the life of the ship, in the lives of the crew, in the lives of the general populous, and should be recognized as such by ignoring them in this article.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that port visits and barnacle removal are normal parts of a ships life. And that a music video being filmed onboard is not. Which is exactly why the filming of the music video onboard should be mentioned in this article. Because every warship has made port visits, and any of them being put into mothballs has had sealife removed. But using the ship and crew to film a music video is a unique item in the history of the ship. Also, I'm not disagreeing that the makers of the video were motivated by money. I'm saying that in that motivation, out of all the possible locations for filming of a music video, they chose Missouri. Dworjan (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In some of the discussion here, we are getting into WP:TOPIC and non-topic material. If Cher has her own article on Under Siege, why should it be here? Similarly, if Under Siege has it's own article, why should the Missouri be referred to there as other than "a ship", since it's being used as a backdrop? We are trying to keep material separate so it doesn't have to be maintained in two places. Two topics, two articles. Each separate. Student7 (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That does not make sense. By that measure, since the wars that the Mighty Mo participated in all have articles, then we should not describe her participation in them here? North8000 (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I read most of the above. *NO*, don't cover this /here/, cover it /there/. There's an article on the song/video (did not look). How much coverage of the setting of the vid is even warranted there? OK, so Cher wrapped her legs around a honking big piece of steel? This is trivial and should not be include here. (and teh other site is Wikia:). Seriously, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Cher's appearance in this article

This is confusing looking. There is nothing from the closer at the top and and so the initial comments of someone (with wording style which could be confused as a close) can make someone believe that such is the close. North8000 (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ed posted a statement at the top. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see that there. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)