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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 20, 2015.
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: Massachusetts / Boston 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (assessed as High-importance). 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.

It's been about 9 years since I brought this article to featured status. Over time the article deteriorates as FA requirements are strengthened and typically well-meaning editors add more cruft to the contents; like ramming pics into the article until it looks like photo gallery, rather than an article. I have made several attempts in the past few years to clean up the article but most often run into problems as my edits are reverted by those who cannot take into consideration the overall picture of retaining FA status and that my edits are part of an long-term overhaul; not just a single edit. Here are some goals the article needs:

• Update and refresh where possible sources and citations. I've found better and more reliable ones over the years. But the citation style must remain consistent; not a mix of whatever gets thrown in. Some of the content in the article no longer have citations in place only because sloppy editing has removed them.

• Sources targeted for removal and replacement are: Abbott - MacClay&Smith to be replaced by Toll and or Martin. There are also several online references and sources that are no longer available and should be replaced. Brad (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Article size is an issue at 11k+ words. Part of the solution is to remove less important information that appears as 'name-dropping'. I lessened a list of people attending the 200 anniversary sail but was reverted claiming 'not an improvement'. This is counterproductive. In addition, there is a growing amount of coatracking going on. This is an article about Constitution and not Constellation for example. The article seems to be turning into a 'restoration blog' Certainly it's an important subject especially when the restorations have preserved the ship from ruin. Not sure just yet what can be done about that. We do not need mentions of every little thing that happens to the ship in the present day. I'll quit here although I've more to say on the matter. Brad (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brad101: Thanks for the post. I was the one who reverted that list, as I couldn't see how it improved things. It helps to know what your goal was, and I certainly agree that there are many extraneous and trivial details included in the article that could be cut. I mentioned this is my most recent edit, but was hesitant to simply start slicing details such as "General So-n-so named his dog after the ship." In light of this, the entire passage concerning all the celebrities who sailed that day could be excised—including Walter Cronkite. I'll see if I can do some pruning. —Dilidor (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to thank you for the professional copyedits you made to the article. They did more good than bad, so I didn't nitpick on the bads :) I thought I should make a post about my intentions. The problem with cutting information typically means that citations get messed around. For example, right now the information about serving as a 'brig' during WWII are not backed up by the current citation ie: the DANFS article does not mention that. Now I have to track down a reference and clean up the Constellation fanboy cruft. Slow and steady is how I prefer to go. Brad (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And today there are several editors throwing more feces into the article. Fast as I can remove it. Brad (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed about 1000 words from the article and likely will find more during a second closer look. If not, the article is more in line with size guidelines now. Brad (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting segment that covers some unanswered questions of the Andrew Jackson figurehead incident is on youtube. Brad (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is okay to refer to a ship as "it" once the ship is no longer in commission. For example, it is okay to call Constitution it, starting from the present day and other periods when it was not actively sailing. I understand the tradition of referring to ships as "she" is very old and (very cherished still), but there are still sources saying that as early as 1753, sailors would refer to ships as "it" instead of "she" It is okay to refer to a ship in the neuter instead of the feminine.

So, to my friends on Wikipedia, please either leave me alone, or assist or support me as I make these reasonable, small edits. Please not attempt to block me, or I may just report you.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.2.49 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:SHE4SHIPS, a Wi[k]ipedia guideline, once a pronoun is used to refer to the ship, the article should remain "internally consistent". "She" is used 177 times to refer to the ship and "her" is used 148 times. "It" is used 0 times. Once your edits were reverted, you need to stop re-adding them and discuss the issue on talk page. While you have started this discussion, you are also continuing to make the same edits, now for the third time, despite the clear, multiple warnings posted to your IP user talk page. Your edits are disruptive and if you continue, you are the one who will be reported and very likely blocked from editing. Please find another article to make your "small helpful edits to", but just make sure your aren't violating project guidelines (or edit warring). Thank you - wolf 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added note - I see you had to be reverted three more times by two more editors. You are now edit-warring as well as disrupting that article. I added a welcome notice to your IP user talk page, please read it. You need to have some understanding of the policies here. Also; Constitution is still in commission, and as for "I believe that it is okay to refer to a ship as "it" once the ship is no longer in commission.", that has no bearing here (along with the fact that it sounds like a bunch of nonsense). Stop disrupting the page. Thank you - wolf 19:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Wolfchild (cool name, btw).

My apologies. Still, I think other people would agree with me (except for my "vandalous" efforts.)

I will stop editing this page without warning. But I am not dropping this argument any time soon.

Also, with all due respect, I have a decent understanding of the rules here, but that doesn't mean I may forget some small policies here and there. I should remember to be more considerate.

To finish, thank you for reminding me to include a link to this issue: http://www.traveller.com.au/everyone-asks-why-are-ships-called-she-gyr2t0, Please see LLOYD'S LIST. Trust me, it is NOT nonsense.

Thanks again, and let's create no more trouble for each other.

Your friend in editing (if you'll consider me your friend that is),

Wiscipidier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.2.49 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hartley (2007), p. 346 harvp error: no target: CITEREFHartley2007 (help) (see Tangier), includes the section:

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, autonomous corsairs out of Tangier were attacking American shipping and holding the sailors of many nations for ransom. In response, US commodore Preble sailed into Tangier harbor in 1803 and pulled off a daring rescue of American prisoners.

Was that source mistaken and this was only a squadron of gunboats enforcing a ship exchange, as this article currently suggests? or are both accounts just focusing on different parts of the same event? It'd be nice to hear about the "daring rescue" of enslaved Americans here, if there was more to it than "I'll give you your floating toys back if you give us our floating toys back".—Mr Spear (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Nautilus page, the squadron's gunboat diplomacy at Tangier also led to the reaffirmation/renewal of the Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship.—Mr Spear (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

During her era, and for wooden ships since, the transverse members weren’t called ribs. They are frames, almost always made up of multiple pieces called futtocks. So, not only are the riders not “ribs”, a ship like Constitution does not have any ribs. That was then a term reserved for boats and canoes, whose ribs are almost always single pieces. In fact, many wooden boats used both frames and ribs, with the strakes fitted to the frames and floors, and then the lighter ribs fitted to the strakes.

A rider was much like a frame in appearance, except put on the diagonal. Like frames, riders were made up of pieces, also called futtocks, “rider futtocks” in full. Qwirkle (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What jack does Constitution fly? I've gotten conflicting information saying she does and doesn't fly the First Navy Jack even after the USN's switchover back to the Union Jack. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]