USS Constitution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 4, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed September 27, 2008 Good article nominee Listed October 22, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Approved November 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted December 14, 2009 WikiProject peer review Reviewed Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Maritime / Memorials / African / North America / United States / Napoleonic era FA‑class 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Military memorials and cemeteries task force African military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ships FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States FA‑class High‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Massachusetts / Boston 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. National Register of Historic Places FA‑class High‑importance 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Museums FA‑class Mid‑importance 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

A 37-year-old source for a comment about current events isn't a good source for the promotional statement "only active commissioned sailing vessel". TEDickey (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you one more current that contradicts the statement about Constitution and Eagle? QueenofBattle (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's you who ought to be answering that, since you're pushing the statement into both topics using a stale source. TEDickey (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki only requires that an editor wishing to insert a statement into an article affirmatively to support that addition, which I have clearly done. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only by relying on a distorted sense of "current". It would be nice if you took the time to improve your edits, rather than arguing about it. TEDickey (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a F-ing break. What is your point?! Are there other sailing vessels that have been commissioned into the maritime services of the US in the last 37 years? Are there other sailing vessels of the U.S. Air Force or Army that we should include? If not, pipe down and move on. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Eagle in the lead of this article is inappropriate. The note about Victory is there only because so many editors tried to insert something about Victory being the oldest commissioned ship and not understanding the word afloat. This article isn't here to make comparisons with other ships. It is what it is. Brad (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to have this article say that Constitution is one of only two active sailing vesels... We can make a smiliar adjustment to the Eagle article. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is still one of what information is relevant to Constitution. "Oldest commissioned warship afloat in the world" is undeniable and doesn't need explaining or watering down. Eagle has little in common with Constitution and does not warrant a mention. Furthermore, a lead section is to summarize the entire article and point out what makes the subject of the article notable. Items in the lead are mentioned in an expanded form where necessary in the body of the article. Eagle is mentioned in the body when crew members of Constitution practiced sailing techniques prior to the Sail 200 event in 1997. I still do not believe that Eagle is important or relevant enough to warrant mention in the lead of this article. Brad (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking the Coast Guard is not a military service. It belongs to DHS, not DoD. I'm inclined to delete it on that basis alone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 3 year old reference. It probably wouldn't be hard to find a more recent one. Haus^Talk 20:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there does not need to be a mention of Eagle in the lead and in this context, and that it should be removed. Benea (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the Eagle mentioned in the 3-year-old weblink. The point about DHS vs DoD seems relevant TEDickey (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the Coast Guard most definitely is an armed service. The five uniformed services that make up the Armed Forces are defined in 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4):

The term "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard is further defined by 14 U.S.C. § 1:

The Coast Guard as established 28 January 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.

As to the rest, I think we are in violent agreement to remove the reference to Eagle from the LEDE for Constitution. Ah, I see that it has already been done, rendering the rest of this discussion needless. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange.. the lead is still as you left it. Anyway, I will restore the old version directly. Brad (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the reference to Eagle by naming Eagle in Constitution's lede, which I changed previously to simply refer to Constitution as "one of two active sailing vessels..." QueenofBattle (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes clear that the cannons are still in working order in order to fire cermonial salutes but it's not clear whether they are still capable of firing in anger or whether actual shot and powder is carried so that in theory the ship could 'shoot to kill' or not. Anyone know? Exxolon (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any source that would say if they have shot and powder. My personal feeling is that they don't. What would be the point? Brad (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just upgraded the image of the USS Philadelphia burning. -- In full view it's nearly three times as large as the image that has been there since 2005.

Also obtained from the Dept of the Navy is an image of the USS Constitution engaging HMS Guerriere. It was painted by Anton Otto Fischer. Quite large in full view. Excellent image. Think there's room on the page for it? -- GWillHickers (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the Fischer pic in the article but it had to replace the one that was already there. It's a better choice anyway; thanks. Brad (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox declares Constitution to be "in active service". While it may be fully staffed and commissioned, I (a civillian layman) feel like this implies that she is deployed for combat near Iraq or Afganistan. Wouldn't "in service as museum" or something similar be more accurate? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"in active service" is strictly a military thing. If she were simply just a museum ship there would be no active crew and active commission. Constitution is owned and operated by the US Navy whereas a ship like USS North Carolina (BB-55) is strictly a museum ship in the sense that she sits in one place and never goes anywhere. Brad (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was durning the first attack on Tripoli that Old Ironsides got its name, for it was hit many times from the firing from the forts at Tripoli, an it hold this nickname in to the War of 1812, even the English called this name before the war started, for Commodore Preble had many friends in the English navy. For the English were very happy to be rid of the Dey in Tripoli. So as in many things, poems an stories change over the years, an we are taught many things that are not true. I got this information from books written in the 1800's by the people who sever on the USS Contition an the early histroy of the ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroone1 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to supply a reference for this theory? I've read a multitude of books about Constitution and others dealing with the Barbary Pirates, the Quasi War and War of 1812 but have never seen anything like you describe. Brad (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]