text:
Talk:Victoria Falls

Early threads, including proposed name change
Orders of magnitude links need adding. I'll say this about "dual unit" articles -- they're a mess to read, all parentheses everywhere :( -- Tarquin 17:23 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I am not aware that anybody has agreed upon what the "seven world wonders" are. I only know the old ones. Pls clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.105.63 (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to start a flamewar here, but I think we should consider moving this article to Mosi-oa-tunya and doing a redirect from Victoria Falls. The falls are no doubt best known as Victoria Falls in English, but this is purely a colonial name bestowed by Dr. Livingston. A colonial name bestowed by an outsider after a foreign monarch should not be considered the proper name for a great landmark that already had a proper name when Dr. Livingston "discovered" it. Ntk 04:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold and go ahead and move it rather than just throw the question out there. Ntk 04:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * First of all, cut and paste moves are bad, and violations of the GFDL. If in the future you want to move a page, please use the "Move" button at the top of the page.  I have reverted the two pages to the previous status quo, until more discussion can be had.  Being bold is fine, but please let the community have more than 20 minutes to reply to such a drastic change. I've copied this discussion from Talk:Mosi-oa-Tunya, and think further discussion should take place here, for clairity. Gentgeen 10:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not using the Move button, that was my mistake, although from what I have read it is debatable whether it "violates the GFDL," but thanks for correcting me on that. I won't go ahead and move it properly now because I don't want to start a mess of reversions, so I will open the discussion presenting an argument for both names, and why I think that Mosi-oa-Tunya is the best choice.  I will reconsider moving it after some discussion takes place (or fails to take place).
 * Victoria Falls—this is much more widely used and known worldwide, at least in English. Futhermore both Zambia and Zimbabwe have English as official languages, and the name used and recognized locally as well.
 * Mosi-oa-Tunya—this is the original name of the falls in the local language. It is still locally used and recognized.  Furthermore the park in Zambia containing the falls is called Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park, not Victoria Falls National Park.  Mosi-oa-Tunya is already often used along with Victoria Falls, and often in preference to Victoria Falls, by many organizations including UNESCO.  Victoria Falls, on the other hand, is a colonial name given by a foreign explorer in honor of a foreign monarch, and is thus a relic of colonialism and cultural imperialism.  Furthermore, the greater prevalence of the name Victoria Falls is not a strong argument in favor of it—for instance Myanmar is still much better known as its colonial name Burma in English even though it has long been independent.  Lastly, I do not feel this is a terribly drastic change and it certainly does not make the article less useful or easy to find, since my revision prominently retained both names and Victoria Falls would still redirect to the same article. Ntk 19:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I ment to get back to this sooner. According to Naming conventions (use English), the most common name used in English is the proper title for an article.  If the efforts to change the commonly used name to Mosi-oa-Tunya result in it becoming the most common name in English for the falls, then the page can easily be moved to that title.
 * A similar situation to this one, a well known geologic feature named in English after a distant head of state while the native name is still known and used, can be seen at Mount McKinley. Mount McKinley is named Denali in atleast one of the native languages of Alaska, is located in Denali National Park,  Denali is the name of the mountain used by the state government, and is widely known to many speakers; yet the mountain's article is still located at a title named after an American president, as that is the most common name for the mountain in the English language.  However, Denali does redirect to that page, as is appropiate. Gentgeen 00:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Denali example is not parallel. While it is true that Denali was the native local name, Alaska has long been part of the United States, and even so, Inuits are a minority people in Alaska today.  So it would be unreasonable to suggest at this point that we should not call Mt. McKinley after an American president, because even if a person were to disagree with the United States's possession of Alaska, it is a fact.  It's not like someone is trying to call it Mt. Lenin or something like that.  Whereas Mosi-oa-Tunya is an African falls in an African country.  The only reason it is called Victoria Falls is because of a foreign explorer and some colonial history--and these countries have long since been independent of imperialism.
 * That said, I will not attempt to move it again. Although the policy you cite does mention some uncertainty (i.e. "There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name."), if we are following that policy it would certainly indicate towards using Victoria Falls.  I do not completely agree with this policy--when people call something by the wrong name, the only way a better name will be established is if they see it.  To cite an example, for hundreds of years white people called Native Americans (or First Nations), "Indians."  Now most Americans call them by "Native Americans," and this happened not because people liked it better, but because this was introduced top-down in texts, books, media, government and schools.  But this is not the place to debate policy, so I won't push for moving the name unless or until the policy is changed.  I will, however, make some slight modifications to the article to NPOV it a bit.  Right now it makes it look as if Mosi-oa-Tunya is no longer used at all. NTK 03:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. In English, the place is called Victoria Falls. I doubt more than a handful of English speakers ever even heard of Mosi-oa-Tunya. Leave it at Victoria Falls. RickK 01:10, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * As I said before, moving it to Mosi-oa-Tunya is not going to confuse anyone, thanks to the magic of redirects and the fact that I included the name Victoria Falls prominently at the beginning of the article in my modified version. And as I said just because it is most prevalent doesn't make it the best name.  Again I cite Myanmar, which the great majority of Westerners know as Burma.  Why should people who know hardly anything about the country or the place anyway get to decide what to call it?  Why not look at the local people's interest?  What about places that don't have an "English" name?  There are plenty of other precedents for changing to more appropriate, NON-English names.  i.e. Formosa (Portugese) -> Taiwan (Mandarin Chinese).  But as I said I will not contest this unless there is a different consensus developing on the policy page.  NTK 03:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Well that is all very nice, but is not how articles are named on Wikipedia. They are not named according to what they should be called, which is inherently POV, but what they are called.  It's not Wikipedia's job to tell people what things should be called. Taiwan is at Taiwan because that is what is mainly known as these days. If Victoria Falls becomes known widely as Mosi-oa-Tunya then let it be moved but not before. Booshank (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to voice my support for a name change to Mosi-oa-Tunya. I am not Zambian by descent, but I was born in Livingstone, lived there for 16 years and visit regularly. So I hope I can give a more local POV. Zambians have great respect for Dr. Livingstone and his work, and this is why Livingstone is the only town in Zambia to retain its old colonial name. Every other town was renamed. The same goes for Victoria Falls town on the Zimbabwean side. People in both countries are very lenient and accommodating and use both Victoria Falls and Mosi-oa-Tunya interchangeably. Zambians, especially in Livingstone, prefer the Mosi-oa-Tunya but tourists sometimes do not know of the local name prior to visiting and so, out of courtesy, Zambians will use Victoria Falls. As for confusion, I don't think there will be a problem. A quick Google search with both names shows that there is a 50:50 split among the top 10 results as to which name appears first. Of course this article is the first and if we were to remove it, then Mosi-oa-Tunya appears first in 5 links while Victoria Falls in 4. In the end I believe the Zambians and the Zimbabweans should decide which name to use as they have been blessed to be the custodians of this true wonder of our world. --Drsjlazar (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I know this discussion is over, but I must have my say in that moving to Mosi is just plain stupid and absurd. The situation would be the same as moving the Orange River to Gariep, or (as you said) moving Mount Mck. NTK you are very ignorant in some respects, but this is not your fault, you say the falls was named after a 'foreign explorer'. Well first of all the 'native' black inhabitants' were more foreign than the 'explorer' since the 'black natives' only reached the location a few years earlier. Also, who ever said that Mosi is that native name? NTK, there are some people called White Zimbabweans, and I guess in your case, they are foreign. I guess you could then say that all Chinese Americans are foreign, and any Chinese person that has been to Australia is just a Foreign explorer??! These White Zimbabweans (who are of mostly 19th/20th century English decent call the Falls almost exclussivly VF. As for Mount McKinley, although Alaska has a white majority (which by the way is only about 65%), the surrounding area has a Native American majority, so why is it still at McKindley? We don't we call China by it's native name (Zhonghue, or something like that?), afterall, a FOREIGN EXPLORER probably gave it that name??? And lastly, Victoria falls is OFFICIALLY called Victoria Falls and Mosi-.., so why don't we call Derry, by it's official name: Londonderry????? Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Without getting into the Derry/Londonderry name dispute, the situation is that the Zambian side is officially Mosi-oa-tunya and the Zimbabwean side is officially Victoria Falls. This is reflected in the naming of the national parks (zm, zw), the town on the Zim side and in the UNESCO designation (which uses both).Babakathy (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Interesting, I didn't know that. If we have RS to that effect, shouldn't it be in the article?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * UNESCO is cited in world heritage infobox, the parks names are referenced on their pages. Babakathy (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Babakathy (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been over for a while but, why does nobody bring up the point that calling it Victoria falls is essentially typical british arrogance and culture erasure during the colonial era. This is Africa, regardless of how many english speakers, or how shortly before it was named victoria falls that the natives moved into the area, the british never had a right to name it. As NTK brings up, changing terms to more culturally sensitive ones is something that must be done actively. It`s not just gonna happen. Part of that active change is to rename pages like this to the primary cultural name, Mosi-oa-Tunya. I mean, the page does a good job of explaining the name, and Mosi-oa-Tunya brings you to this page, but that`s the problem. When I search for Mosi-oa-Tunya, this is all that shows up. The primary name is Victoria falls, and Mosi-oa-Tunya falls out of the spotlight. In the interest of undoing british colonial era cultural erasure sites like this need to take the lead in being more culturally sensitive. Starting by renaming this page Mosi-oa-Tunya with Victoria Falls being more of an afterthought. Only listed as clarification for people looking for Victoria falls who don`t know that it`s actually called Mosi-oa-Tunya. -S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.157.115.143 (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 * This discussion not only has been over for a while; it began almost 14 years ago. (Time for a little archiving, I think.) Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. We are not complicit in perpetuating the lesser evils of colonialism; our content and our titles simply reflect what reliable sources say about the world, warts and all. Bottom line: the title of this article is fully in line with Wikipedia policy and will not be changed without changing the policy. Rivertorch FIREWATER  20:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Victoria Falls--why the move?
Victoria Falls (as opposed to Victoria falls) appears to be overwhelmingly the most common English formulation of this name, according to both Google and its entries at Britannica and Encyclopedia.com. Any particular justification for moving it to "Victoria falls"? For now I'm being bold and moving it back according to the consensus above, but if anyone has a sourced explanation for why it ought to be here, post a note here and we'll figure it out. Cheers, --Dvyost 19:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

________________

However much some posters try to dress up their justifications, the proposal here is very simply political correctness. Wikipedia should avoid PC at all times. It matters not what the locals call it. What matters is what the place is UNIVERSALLY KNOWN as. Danzig is a good example. The Poles now insist everyone calls it Gdansk, but ask a man in the street to describe where it is or if they've even heard of it and he won't know. Wheras Danzig was universally recognised. We British do not call Rome 'Roma'; we don't call Brussels 'Bruxelles';we don't call Munich 'Munchen'. i could go on but you get the point, I hope. As someone else said above, this is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE edition of Wikipedia. Again, we should be using the universally known appellations, not obscure ones.

86.139.185.234 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Quite. One doesn't get the same argument for moving the title on the Niagara Falls talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Leaping water
The part of the Falls I thought was "Devil's cataract" (and have called so in a caption), is named as "Leaping water" under the sub-head "The Falls. It's probably me that's wrong, but anyone know about this? JackyR 14:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Devil's cataract is the official name as per signs in Victoria Falls National Park. Babakathy (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Most Spectular?
I believe this goes against NPOV, isnt it a matter of opinion? Give me insight... --217.129.205.214 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (AKA Chaos Reaver.... I lost my pass, please bear with me as I look for it... LOLOL ;) )

 * The article actually says "one of the most spectacular", which is pretty woolly. It's also hard to disagree with given the Falls keep cropping up on naff "seven natural wonders of the world lists" . But yes, true WP style would be, eg, "described by source X as one of the most spectacular...". If you wanna research it - the job's yours! JackyR 23:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

water flow units of measure (per second or per minute)
The section Victoria_Falls currently uses the 'per minute' water flow rate whereas other parts of the article use the 'per second' rate. Other wikipedia waterfall articles also use 'per second', e.g. Boyoma_Falls and other sites as well, e.g. http://www.world-waterfalls.com/database.php?s=N&t=W&orderby=avevolume&sortLimit=5000. IIRC, most waterfall articles I've seen use the 'per second' measure. Maybe the entries in this section should be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaze0010 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Esperanto milestone
The Esperanto version of this page is the 50,000th Wikipedia article written in that language. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed expansion and reorganisation
I have been looking at this article with the aim of rectifying the lack of in-line references and expanding the info on how the falls formed, the gorges, and the wildlife. But I’ve come to the conclusion that the article needs a bit of reorganisation. There is duplication, for instance flow rates are in separate paragraphs under ‘The Falls’ and 'Below The Falls’. Secondly, some of the flow rate figures aren’t supported by references from good hydrology sources. The statement ‘During the wet season the falls have over 500 million litres. . of water falling over its crestline each minute’, which is on the UNEP website, is contradicted by this hydrological reference (see Annex 13) which gives a figure one-third of this (and I agree with the comment above that flow rates should be cu m/sec, with cu ft/sec in brackets. The article tries too hard to establish the Falls’ credentials as bigger than Niagara and Iguazu Falls. Lastly many of the measurements are inaccurate eg the height of 128 m/420 ft is contradicted by references which give 108 m/360 ft as the greatest height (Rainbow Falls). I have also checked some of the horizontal distances on Google Earth and come up with some different figures. I propose this reorganisation:

Introductory section emphasising right up front the three most notable features of the falls, ie size, gorges, wildlife. Then get the ‘world’s largest issue’ out of the way in 2-3 sentences, then give location details. The use these headings/subheadings (latter indicated by indents): Physical features — Flood and dry season flow rates The Victoria Falls Gorges How the Victoria Falls formed History of the area — Up to 1900 — Since 1900 — Victoria Falls Bridge — Tourism National parks — Vegetation — Fauna References External links Rexparry sydney 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Revisions and additions made, 11 March.
As flagged above, I have revised the article with in-line references, and added material on how the falls formed, on the gorges, on historical backgrounds to tourism at the falls, and on wildlife/vegetation. I have moved some details (such as measurements on the bridge) to that article. I have tried to avoid duplication. If I have not carried over any previous points it may have been because I couldn't find a reference for them, if they are still pertinent please re-instate; and accept apologies. I have not put in a lot of specific information about visitor facilities because this changes, and is quite well covered on the websites of the Zambia & Zimbabwe tourist boards listed at the top of external links. Rexparry sydney 10:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Link
Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a related articles on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=173 concerning environmental issues at the Falls, Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Video
I have uploaded a victoria falls video to wikimedia commons. File name is Smoke_that_thunders_victoria_falls_1.ogg. Please add it to this article. Uttam H — Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Flood and dry season flow rates
Text is hiding behind the table and video, but I don't know how this can be corrected. Myriam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.67 (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputes on Livingstone being first European to see the falls
A couple of times recently edits have been made by anonymous users claiming that Voortrekker (Boer) hunters visited the falls before Livingstone and were the first white people to see them. There is no written evidence for this, whereas there are ample documents for Livingstone's visit and that is why he is credited by academic geographers and historians as having 'discovered the falls for western science'. Furthermore numerous authors have addressed the question, and in particular the claims by or for: In 1939 the Afrikaaner author Servaas Le Roux wrote "Pioneers and Sportsmen of South Africa 1760-1890" (Salisbury, S. Rhodesia, 1939, published by the author and printed by The Art Printing Works). Le Roux's purpose was to highlight the discoveries of Afrikaaners, but on p119 he wrote: "I have no hesitation in saying, after many years of careful investigation of the claims of all the possible visitors to the Falls before Livingstone, that there are no grounds whatsoever for believing that anyone but Livingstone was the first European to see them". So I suggest that if anyone else wants to put in any material claiming DL was not the first European at the falls they should first put it here on the talk page saying who, when and what the reference is so that it can be discussed before being put in the article. Rexparry sydney 12:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Karel Trichardt in 1838
 * Jan Viljoen, Erasmus Jacobs and Engelbrecht Viljoen, 1851
 * W H Pretorius and Stoffel Snyman in 1855.

It is claimed that Swedish historian Christer Blomstrand in 2004 unearthed a map in the archives of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm. Drawn by Swedish explorer and trader Charles John Andersson, it is the first known map of northern Namibia. It was drawn in 1852 during Andersson's expedition with British scientist Francis Galton. The map includes Victoria Falls, identified by its indigenous name of Mosi-oa-tunya, and predates Livinstone's visit to the falls by a few years! Tendrody (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture of turists swimming to their deaths
What is this picture about? Is this practice endorsed by the authorities? Unfortunately, I've never been at the Victoria Falls (yet), but I've been at the Iguazu Falls and I know that tourists have died at its bottom when their authorities-sanctioned boat trips went wrong, etc. I mean, I don't see the point of showing dangerous conduct in order to depict the natural beauty of the place. Are we being responsible enough, considering Wikipedia's young audience? Aldo L (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * If the photo is authentic, it should remain. Wikipedia is not censored.  Individuals are allowed to do stupid things.  —EncMstr 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * This is a relatively safe practice that is actively being advertised by travel agents and websites. I could not find any news article of people dying by going over the edge. This of course does not make it proof of being safe. It is however one of the major attractions when going to Victoria Falls. It is only done during the low water season to ensure relative safety. If your objection due to a danger factor, please keep in mind some of the other attractions apart from the falls themselves at Victoria falls :

 * White Water Rafting
 * Bungi Jumping
 * Abseil, rap jump, zip line, and gorge swinging
 * Helicopter flights
 * Microglider rides
 * Elephant back safari
 * Walk with young lions
 * Tandem skydiving

 * You may notice all these are relativity safe as well.Bain (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Swimming in the pool is allowed for about 4 months of the year when the river is low. No one has died doing this. Yes people do occasionally fall off the falls when to close to the edge but its NEVER happened at Devils pool despite the article saying it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.72.124.125 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To the idiot who said 'PLZZZ ADD CLIMATE'
Do your own research! Wikipedia is not your personal on-demand information source. If it's there, it's there. If not, find it and put it there. People like this contribute to Wikipedia's lack of general acceptance by many members of academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.232.245 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Continental/Country maps to locate features
The latitude and longitude coordinates are very useful, but the depiction of a location within a larger context is valuable, as well. Thanks to anyone that can help with this. HomeBuilding 70.130.33.25 (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Media section
I suggest incorporating the media withn the article itself like the pictures rather than having a section all by itself    Juthani1    tcs 23:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

has anyone gone over it and lived?
like in a barrel or whatever? TCO (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. However, I have heard of many who have fallen into the falls and died, their bodies only being recovered much later (days to weeks) at either the 'Boiling pot' or kilometers downstream.--Drsjlazar (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Many' have not fallen of the falls. About 1 every 2 years. Others have jumped or fallen into the gorge. I have lived there 20 years and know of only about 5 people that have gone over the actual falls.

No one has gone over and lived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.72.124.125 (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Old drift link
The Old drift link links to a page about glacial morainic landscapes not about the Geographic location in Zimbabwe or Zambia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 07:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Largest in the World???
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tallest waterfall by far is Angel Falls since it is one kilometer tall. According to the table in this page, Iguazu is longer and sees a larger flow. So, where does the claim of "The Largest in the World" come from? Javierggt (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC) dunnno

--68.146.38.146 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. The article has some rationalizations for it, but I'm not sure they hold water. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the biggest single, coherant drop (Niagara and Iguazu are divided), and has the highest volume for such a waterfall (Angel Falls has only a fraction).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given those qualifications, it would qualify. Angel and Niagara obviously do not, no matter how you slice it. Angel is tallest, but it's just a creek spilling over a high ledge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Old drift link
The Old drift link links to a page about glacial morainic landscapes not about the Geographic location in Zimbabwe or Zambia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Babakathy (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Elijah wood
No one bothered to mention Elijah wood on this page, and yet on his own bio page...states he crossed the victoria falls. Majinsnake (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even with a reliable source I don't see why this is worth including. Zarcadia (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If there was widespread coverage I could see including this in a section similar to Niagara Falls. -- Neil N  talk to me  23:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. As noted, the current title is the common name used to refer to this topic in English language reliable sources and we give little weight to official names.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Falls → Mosi-oa-Tunya – I have, 9 years later, moved the page from Victoria Falls (or so I tried). The government of Zimbabwe has indicated that it shall rename the falls to "Mosi-oa-Tunya" (source). In Zambia, the falls are already referred to as such (source). It seems to be fairly Bad faith to continue using the phrase "Victoria Falls" when it is neither the official name nor the local name. Even the page for Burma/Myanmar's largest city is Yangon, not Rangoon.

This is not about "colonialism" or the relative merits of Queen Victoria or Robert Mugabe, it is about the common and official names. Although I cannot help but feel there is something disconcerting about people feeling entitled to determine what things ought to be called in contravention to the relevant authorities and people themselves. But if one wants to bring up the example of Burma, it is that there is controversy over what the country is to be called in English and between Burmans. This is quite different, there is no one (of relevance) claiming the falls should be called "Victoria Falls" and there is no authority that refers to it as such. The article should at least follow suit.

In the event of a changed name "general English language sources" obviously cannot apply because the name is new (furthermore Mosi-oa-Tunya is the English name). Furthermore, unlike an example of Nelspruit, there is, as said before, no real opposition. The usage will change. I recall how quick Wikipedia was, far quicker than any other impartial news source, to start referring to Bradley Manning as Chelsea Manning despite no common usage, and no legal basis to the name. If that is the standard that such a high-profile name change can pass scrutiny for, it certainly should here. Simfan34 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Please read what I added to your talk page before tossing out accusations of bad faith. -- Neil N  talk to me  03:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I did. --Simfan34 (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose – WP follows common usage, not official renaming. When the new name becomes widely used we can consider changing the article.  In the mean time, the article should mention the renaming, but not move to follow it.  If you recall the Manning case, you should know that the quick change was reverted until after the new name caught on widely in the press. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Defer decision – If both state parties (Zambia and Zimbabwe) officially refer to the site as Mosi-oa-Tunya, then that is a very powerful argument to change the title. But as yet Zimbabwe has not gazetted any change of name and officially still refers to the falls, town and National Park as VF. Currently some statements have been made by the president and various politicians but no action has been taken by government to change the names. Wait. Babakathy (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Common name in English-language reliable sources is Victoria Falls. It's irrelevant what a government wants to call it as we are not obliged to use an official name. Zarcadia (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes, wait.  Once the name change is official, universally accepted, *and* in common usage, then you will have an argument for moving the article.  WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; we do not break news.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per too soon. A search of Google News indicates Victoria Falls is the common name by far right now. This situation seems similar to Mumbai which was officially renamed by the government in 1995 but Wikipedia's article title changing in 2005. -- Neil N  talk to me  00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that speedy and undiscussed move of the Manning article was reverted after a lengthy discussion and only reinstated after yet another long-winded discussion. Why? Because we follow reliable sources. Red Slash 05:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"The smoke that thunders" indeed
I object to the translation of "Mosi-oa-Tunya" as "The smoke that thunders" because it's not idiomatic, is not how names of things are generally formed in English, and sounds too much like Bwana-speak. Why not just translate it as "Heap big smoke loud boom-boom" and be done with it for cryen out loud.

When things are named in English, by native English speakers, "The X that Y" is very rare (I can't think of any examples, in fact.)

The literal meaning of the individual words in ""Mosi-oa-Tunya", whatever they are, are not important. Translation is not done word-by-word. When I read a translation of an Albanian novel, I want to read "Dutch jammed his gun barrel against the teller's forehead", not "Dutch against the teller's head top pushed his gun tube", notwithstanding that the original Albanian sentence might have been formed that way.

If I discovered (let's say) a geological formation consisting of a hot rock (and I wanted the name to convey that quality), I would name it "Burning Rock" and not "The Rock that Burns" because that's how English speakers roll. On the same principle, the idiomatic translation of "Mosi-oa-Tunya" should be "Thundering Smoke". "The smoke that thunders" simply reinforces the otherness of the people who named it, and not just otherness but, by implication, lack of sophistication.

I mean, I can translate "Je, si kushughulikia kwamba, rafiki yangu; ni haramu" as "Don't handle that, my friend; it's forbidden" or "Bwana! No touch! Taboo!". Which translation makes the speaker sound smarter, and which makes him sound like an ignorant savage? Same deal is in play here, granted a lot more subtly.

I reluctantly haven't made this change (although I propose to absent objection) because as we see here it's not just a Wikipedia problem. Reliable sources are mostly ignorant and unthinkingly blockheaded too. How much we're obligated to follow reliable sources in mistranslating things to make local people sound like illiterate savages ought to be an open question, though. Herostratus (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection having been raised over the eight-year window allowed, I have gone ahead and made this change.

caves in the falls?
I was browsing google earth and browsed the 360 images of the Zambia side of the east end of the falls. It showed that during low river levels there may be caves in the cliff but that it may not be possible to get to those caves. anybody care to comment on this? are they caves or simply dark squarish, smooth lined spots on the side of the cliffs? these spots have perfect right angles, straight sides and top/bottoms leading one to think they were carved out and not from natural erosion patterns. 24.29.193.138 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

this article needs more references
There are paragraphs without citations in the following sections: Please add references before removing the maintenance tag. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 18:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Size
 * Formation
 * Pre-colonial history
 * Zambia's independence and Rhodesia's UDI
 * Tourism in recent years

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Victoria Falls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701005448/http://www.dams.org/docs/kbase/studies/cszzanx.pdf to http://www.dams.org/docs/kbase/studies/cszzanx.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/mosi-oa-.html
 * Added tag to http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/mosi-oa-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Move to Victoria Falls, Zambia
I think the renaming of the article from Victoria Falls to Victoria Falls, Zambia is ill-advised. The falls lie between Zambia and Zimbabwe, this change of name seems to imply that the falls "belong" to Zambia and not Zimbabwe. I do understand the problem of disambiguation but the falls in Scotland Victoria Falls, Wester Ross are not well known. The falls in Africa certainly are the Primary Topic and all the other uses of Victoria Falls need to be qualified. I would like the present page Victoria Falls, Zambia to be returned to be Victoria Falls and the the page presently Victoria Falls moved to Victoria Falls (disambiguation) Wayne Jayes (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. This water feature is the prime usage of the term, and is never referred to with a qualifier. IdreamofJeanie (talk)
 * After discussion with, I agree that Victoria Falls, Zambia may not be the best title. The (African) waterfall has a good claim to being the primary topic, with ten times more page views and incoming links than the town.  I was responsible for sneaking the Scottish waterfall into the dab, and I agree that it's much less important.  Certes (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello all,how about Victoria Falls (waterfall)? Fsmatovu 20:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I concur with Wayne Jayes. Let us do it. Fsmatovu 20:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: Victoria Falls (disambiguation) exists but can safely be overwritten as it's a redirect to the falls with no history. Certes (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the undiscussed move and returned the page to its stable title per WP:RMUM. If necessary, please initiate a move request through WP:RM to see if there is consensus for moving the page to another title. The disambiguation page is at Victoria Falls (disambiguation). Dekimasu よ! 22:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 * There is absolutely no call for titling this article anything other than Victoria Falls. Except in a couple of rare and limited contexts, the waterfall is what everyone means when they say or write the phrase Victoria Falls. The situation is roughly parallel to that of Niagara Falls, which also needs no disambiguation in its title (although in that case there are a couple of sizable cities bearing the name). Rivertorch FIREWATER  17:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing of paragraph on drainage history
This addition is really interesting. I've been trying without success to source it, and I've tagged its first sentence in the meantime. I found several good sources, including a couple of PDFs 1 2, and this article, which is detailed and seems sensible (I'm not quite sure it's an RS), but I was unable to verify the content per se. Pinging User:Lumos3. Do you have a reference we could add? Rivertorch FIREWATER  03:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added some sources.The main story is in the Botswana governments tourist guide, and this is backed up by scholarly journals.  Lumos3 (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Location of Victoria Falls
It is already stated near the top of the lede that the falls are located on the border between Zambia and Zimbabwe. I suggest "Border between Zambia and Zimbabwe" is a reasonable description for the location parameter in the infobox. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I recommend to use this article as source for location: Makuvaza, S. 2012. Who Owns the Special Area at Victoria Falls World Heritage Site? Political, Organizational and Governmental Interests. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 3(1): 42-63. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Victoria Falls


text:
Ōyama Iwao

Prince Ōyama Iwao (大山 巌) was a Japanese field marshal, and one of the founders of the Imperial Japanese Army. He was representative of the outstanding military commanders of the late modern period.

Early life
Ōyama was born in Kagoshima to a samurai family of the Satsuma Domain. as a younger paternal cousin to Saigo Takamori. A protégé of Ōkubo Toshimichi, he worked to overthrow the Tokugawa Shogunate and thus played a major role in the Meiji Restoration. He served as the commander of the Detached First Brigade during the Boshin War. At the Battle of Aizu, Ōyama was the commander of the Satchōdo's field artillery positions on Mount Oda. During the course of the siege, he was wounded by an Aizu guerilla force under Sagawa Kanbei.

Since at least 1904, local accounts have confused Ōyama Iwao with Sukeichi Oyama (1858-1922), Japanese engraver who studied at Temple Hill Academy in Geneseo, New York, United States.

Military career

In 1870, Ōyama was sent overseas to the École spéciale militaire de Saint-Cyr in France (August 1870 – March 1871) to study and was appointed the official Japanese military observer to the Franco-Prussian War. He also spent three years (July 1871 – October 1874) in Geneva studying foreign languages, and became fluent in Russian. Ōyama Iwao is the first recorded Japanese customer for Louis Vuitton, having purchased some luggage during his stay in France. After promotion to major general, he went to France again for further study, together with Kawakami Sōroku. On his return home, he helped establish the fledgling Imperial Japanese Army, which was soon employed in suppressing the Satsuma Rebellion, although Ōyama and his elder brother were cousins of Saigō Takamori.

In the First Sino-Japanese War, Ōyama was appointed the commander-in-chief of the Japanese Second Army, which after landing on Liaodong Peninsula, carried Port Arthur by storm, and subsequently crossed to Shandong, where it captured the fortress of Weihaiwei. After the war, Ōyama was disparaged by American reporter Trumbull White for failing to restrain his troops during the Port Arthur Massacre.

For his services Ōyama received the title of marquis under the kazoku peerage system, and, three years later in January 1898, he became a field-marshal. In the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 he was appointed the Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese armies in Manchuria. As Supreme Commander of the Japanese Manchurian Army, Ōyama had complete authority over all Japanese land operations during the war, and personally directed the tactics of Japanese forces in all major battles, winning the Battle of Liaoyang and repulsing Russian counter-attacks at the Battle of Shaho and the Battle of Sandepu. He was replaced by General Kodama Gentarō briefly during early 1905 due to illness, but recovered to direct Japanese forces in the final Battle of Mukden.

After Japan's victory, Emperor Meiji elevated him in September 1907 to the rank of prince (公爵), the highest rank of the Empire of Japan.

Political career and death
As the War Minister in several cabinets and as the Chief of the Army General Staff, Ōyama upheld the autocratic power of the oligarchs (genrō) against democratic encroachments. However, unlike Yamagata Aritomo, Ōyama was reserved and tended to shun politics. From 1914 to his death he served as the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal (内大臣), and in this capacity attended the accession ceremony of the Emperor Taishō, which took place in Kyoto in November 1915.

In 1906, Ōyama was awarded the Order of Merit by King Edward VII. His Japanese decorations included Order of the Golden Kite (1st class) and Order of the Chrysanthemum.

Ōyama died at the age of seventy five in 1916, and was accorded a state funeral. Ōyama was a large man, and enjoyed large meals. His weight exceeded 210 lb, and may have contributed to his death, possibly arising from diabetes.

Family
Ōyama's first wife Sawa died of puerperal disorder. Second wife Sutematsu (a survivor of the Battle of Aizu, a sister of former Aizu retainers Yamakawa Hiroshi and Yamakawa Kenjirō) was one of the first female students sent to the United States as part of the Iwakura Mission in the early 1870s. She spent eleven years there, graduating from Vassar College in 1882. In the next year she accepted her former enemy's proposal.

Ōyama was Emperor Meiji's first candidate for rearing future emperor Hirohito as a sort of surrogate father in 1901, in accordance with royal customs, but Ōyama declined and the role instead went to Count Kawamura Sumiyoshi.

Ōyama's first son Takashi, a navy cadet, died in the accidental explosion and sinking of the cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Matsushima in 1908. Second son Kashiwa (ja) became an archaeologist after he retired from the army.

House
Ōyama, who spoke and wrote several European languages fluently, also liked European-style architecture. During his tenure as the War Minister, he built a large house in Tokyo modelled after a German castle.

Although he was very pleased with the design, his wife Sutematsu did not like it at all, and insisted that the children's room be remodelled in Japanese style, so that they would not forget their Japanese heritage. The house was destroyed by the Great Kantō earthquake in 1923 or possibly by American air raids during World War II.

Kimigayo
In 1869, the British military band instructor John William Fenton, who was then working in Yokohama as an o-yatoi gaikokujin, told the members of Japan's military band about the British national anthem "God Save the King" and emphasised the necessity of a similar national anthem for Japan. The band members requested artillery Captain Ōyama Iwao, who was well versed in Japanese and Chinese literature, to select appropriate words and Ōyama selected the poem which came to be used in Japan's national anthem kimigayo.

Honours

From the Japanese Wikipedia

Japanese

 * JPN Kyokujitsu-sho blank BAR.svg Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun (1 November 1882; Second Class: 9 November 1877)
 * Count (7 July 1884)
 * Imperial Constitution Promulgation Medal (Japan).png Imperial Japanese Constitution Promulgation Commemorative Medal (25 November 1889)
 * JPN Kyokujitsu-sho Paulownia BAR.svg Grand Cordon of the Order of the Paulownia Flowers (5 August 1895)
 * Marquess (5 August 1895)
 * 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War Medal.png 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War Medal (18 November 1895)
 * 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War Medal (Japan).png 1904–05 Russo-Japanese War Medal (1 April 1906)
 * JPN Kinshi-kunsho blank BAR.svg Order of the Golden Kite, First Class (1 April 1906; Second Class: 5 August 1895)
 * JPN Daikun'i kikkasho BAR.svg Collar of the Order of the Chrysanthemum (1 April 1906; Grand Cordon: 3 June 1902)
 * Prince (21 September 1907)
 * Taisho Enthronement Commemorative Medal (Japan).png Imperial Accession Commemorative Medal (10 November 1915)
 * Silver gift cup set (1 April 1916)
 * First World War Medal (Japan).png First World War Medal (1 April 1916)

Court order of precedence

 * Senior sixth rank (May 1871)
 * Senior fifth rank (24 February 1875)
 * Fourth rank (16 December 1879)
 * Senior fourth rank (24 May 1880)
 * Third rank (27 December 1884)
 * Second rank (19 October 1886)
 * Senior second rank (20 December 1895)
 * Junior First Rank (10 December 1916; posthumous)

Foreign

 * Cavaliere di Gran Croce OCI Kingdom BAR.svg Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown of Italy (20 March 1883)
 * Order of the Crown - military (Prussia).png Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown of Prussia (4 February 1884)
 * Cavaliere di gran Croce Regno SSML BAR.svg Grand Cross of the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus of the Kingdom of Italy (9 February 1885)
 * Ord.CoronaFerrea - GC.png Knight First Class of the Order of the Iron Crown of Austria-Hungary (9 February 1885)
 * RUS Order White Eagle BAR.png Knight Grand Cordon of the Order of the White Eagle of the Russian Empire (1885)
 * Order of the Crown of Thailand - 1st Class (Thailand) ribbon.svg Order of the Crown of Thailand, 1st Class (1 May 1891)
 * Order of the Osmanie lenta.png Order of Osmanieh, 1st Class of the Ottoman Empire (27 May 1891)
 * Order of Merit of the Prussian Crown - ribbon bar.png Knight of the Order of Merit of the Prussian Crown with swords (22 March 1906)
 * Galó de l'Orde del Mèrit (UK).svg Order of Merit (OM) of the United Kingdom (5 April 1906)
 * Legion_Honneur_GC_ribbon.svg Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour of France (27 December 1906; Grand Officer: 13 April 1883)

Other

 * Namesake of Oyama, British Columbia, a small town in British Columbia, Canada and Oyama Regional Park in Saskatchewan, Canada.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ōyama Iwao


text:
USS Illinois (BB-7)

USS Illinois (BB-7) was a pre-dreadnought battleship built for the United States Navy. She was the lead ship of the Illinois-class battleship, and was the second ship of the U.S. Navy to be named for the 21st state. Her keel was laid down in February 1897 at the Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company, and she was launched in October 1898. She was commissioned in September 1901. The ship was armed with a main battery of four 13 in guns and she had a top speed of 16 kn.

Illinois served with the European Squadron from 1902 to 1903, and with the North Atlantic Fleet until 1907, by which time it had been renamed the Atlantic Fleet. During this time, she accidentally collided with two other battleships. From December 1907 to February 1909, she circumnavigated the globe with the Great White Fleet. From November 1912, the ship was used as a training ship. She was lent to the state of New York in 1919 for use as a training vessel for the New York Naval Militia. The ship was converted into a floating armory in 1924 as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty, and it was as a floating armory, barracks and school that she served for the next thirty years. In January 1941 she was reclassified as IX-15 and renamed Prairie State so that her former name could be given to USS Illinois (BB-65), a new Iowa-class battleship. Prairie State was ultimately sold for scrap in 1956.

Description
Design work on the Illinois-class battleship of pre-dreadnought battleships began in 1896, at which time the United States Navy had few modern battleships in service. Initial debate over whether to build a new low-freeboard design like the Indiana-class battleships in service or a higher-freeboard vessel like USS Iowa (BB-4) (then under construction) led to a decision to adopt the latter type. The mixed secondary armament of 6 and 8 in guns of previous classes was standardized to just 6-inch weapons to save weight and simplify ammunition supplies. Another major change was the introduction of modern, balanced turrets with sloped faces instead of the older "Monitor"-style turrets of earlier American battleships.

Illinois was 374 ft long overall and had a beam of 72 ft and a draft of 23 ft. She displaced 11565 LT as designed and up to 12250 LT at full load. The ship was powered by two-shaft triple-expansion steam engines rated at 10000 ihp, driving two screw propellers. Steam was provided by eight coal-fired fire-tube boilers, which were ducted into a pair of funnels placed side by side. The propulsion system generated a top speed of 16 kn. As built, she was fitted with heavy military masts, but these were replaced by cage masts in 1909. She had a crew of 536 officers and enlisted men, which increased to 690–713.

She was armed with a main battery of four 13 in/35 caliber guns in two twin-gun turrets on the centerline, one forward and aft. The secondary battery consisted of fourteen 6 in/40 caliber Mark IV guns, which were placed in individual casemates in the hull. For close-range defense against torpedo boats, she carried sixteen 6-pounder guns, also mounted individually in casemates along the side of the hull, and six 1-pounder guns. As was standard for capital ships of the period, Illinois carried four 18 in torpedo tubes in deck mounted launchers.

Illinois's main armored belt was 16.5 in thick over the magazines and the propulsion machinery spaces and 4 in elsewhere. The main battery gun turrets had 14 in thick faces, and the supporting barbettes had 15 in of armor plating on their exposed sides. Armor that was 6 in thick protected the secondary battery. The conning tower had 10 in thick sides.

Construction – 1906
Illinois was laid down on 10 February 1897 by the Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company of Newport News, Virginia. She was launched on 4 October 1898 and commissioned on 16 September 1901. The ship's first commander was Captain George A. Converse. Illinois was the first member of her class to be authorized, but the last to enter service. After commissioning, the ship began a shakedown cruise in the Chesapeake Bay, followed by initial training. She left the area on 20 November to test a new floating dry dock in Algiers, Louisiana. The ship was back in Newport News in January 1902. She served briefly as the flagship of Rear Admiral Robley D. Evans from 15 to 28 February; during this period, she took part in a reception for Prince Henry of Prussia, the brother of the German Kaiser.

On 30 April, now flying the flag of Rear Admiral A.S. Crowninshield, Illinois departed for a tour of Europe. She stopped in Naples, Italy on 18 May; here, Crowninshield took command of the European Squadron. Illinois took part in training exercises and ceremonial duties in European waters for the next two months, until 14 July, when she ran aground outside Oslo, Norway. She had to steam to Britain for repairs, which were carried out at Chatham. She left the port on 1 September for maneuvers with the rest of the fleet in the Mediterranean and South Atlantic.

On 10 January 1903, Illinois was reassigned to the North Atlantic Fleet, where she remained for the next four years. Her time was occupied with peacetime training exercises, gunnery practice, and various ceremonial activities. During this period, she was involved in two accidents with other battleships of the North Atlantic Fleet. The first took place on 30 March 1903, when she collided with USS Missouri (BB-11). The second collision occurred on 31 July 1906, and took place with her sister ship USS Alabama (BB-8). Also that year, Illinois was the first ship to win the Battenberg Cup.

Great White Fleet

The ship's next significant action was the cruise of the Great White Fleet around the world, which started with a naval review for President Theodore Roosevelt in Hampton Roads. The cruise of the Great White Fleet was conceived as a way to demonstrate American military power, particularly to Japan. Tensions had begun to rise between the United States and Japan after the latter's victory in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, particularly over racist opposition to Japanese immigration to the United States. The press in both countries began to call for war, and Roosevelt hoped to use the demonstration of naval might to deter Japanese aggression.

On 17 December, the fleet steamed out of Hampton Roads and cruised south to the Caribbean and then to South America, making stops in Port of Spain, Rio de Janeiro, Punta Arenas, and Valparaíso, among other cities. After arriving in Mexico in March 1908, the fleet spent three weeks conducting gunnery practice. The fleet then resumed its voyage up the Pacific coast of the Americas, stopping in San Francisco and Seattle before crossing the Pacific to Australia, stopping in Hawaii on the way. Stops in the South Pacific included Melbourne, Sydney, and Auckland.

After leaving Australia, the fleet turned north for the Philippines, stopping in Manila, before continuing on to Japan where a welcoming ceremony was held in Yokohama. Three weeks of exercises followed in Subic Bay in the Philippines in November. The ships passed Singapore on 6 December and entered the Indian Ocean; they coaled in Colombo before proceeding to the Suez Canal and coaling again at Port Said, Egypt. While there, the American fleet received word of an earthquake in Sicily. Illinois, the battleship USS Connecticut (BB-18), and the supply ship USS Culgoa were sent to assist the relief effort. The fleet called in several Mediterranean ports before stopping in Gibraltar, where an international fleet of British, Russian, French, and Dutch warships greeted the Americans. The ships then crossed the Atlantic to return to Hampton Roads on 22 February 1909, having traveled 46729 nmi. There, they conducted a naval review for Theodore Roosevelt.

Later career

On 4 August 1909, Illinois was decommissioned in Boston. The ship then underwent a major modernization, receiving new "cage" masts and more modern equipment. She spent the next three years in active service with the fleet, before being decommissioned once more on 16 April 1912. She returned to service on 2 November for major training maneuvers with the Atlantic Fleet. Illinois made training cruises to Europe with midshipmen from the US Naval Academy in mid-1913 and 1914. By 1919, she had been decommissioned at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. On 23 October 1921, she was loaned to the New York Naval Militia for training purposes. The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, which mandated significant reductions in naval strength, stipulated that Illinois must be rendered incapable of warlike action. As a result, she was converted into a floating armory at the New York Navy Yard in 1924 and was assigned to the New York Naval Reserve.

On 8 January 1941, the ship was reclassified from BB-7 to IX-15, and was renamed Prairie State so that her name could be used for the new battleship USS Illinois (BB-65), which would be laid down a week later. Throughout World War II, she served with the U.S. Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School, based in New York. After the end of the war, Prairie State was kept as a barracks ship for a Naval Reserve unit. On 31 December 1955, the old ship was stricken and subsequently towed to Baltimore, where she was sold for scrap to Bethlehem Steel on 18 May 1956.

title: USS Illinois (BB-7)


text:
HGM-25A Titan I

The Martin Marietta SM-68A/HGM-25A Titan I was the United States' first multistage intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in use from 1959 until 1962. Though the SM-68A was operational for only three years, it spawned numerous follow-on models that were a part of the U.S. arsenal and space launch capability. The Titan I was unique among the Titan models in that it used liquid oxygen and RP-1 as propellants; all subsequent versions used storable propellants instead.

Originally designed as a backup in case the U.S. Air Force's SM-65 Atlas missile development ran into problems, the Titan was ultimately beaten into service by Atlas. Deployment went ahead anyway to more rapidly increase the number of missiles on alert and because the Titan's missile silo basing was more survivable than Atlas.

The succeeding LGM-25C Titan II served in the U.S. nuclear deterrent until 1987 and had increased capacity and range in addition to the different propellants.

History
By January 1955, the size of nuclear weapons had been shrinking dramatically, allowing the possibility of building a bomb that could be carried by a missile of reasonable size. The Titan I program began on the recommendation of the Scientific Advisory Committee. The committee presented to the United States Air Force (USAF) their findings of the technical feasibility to develop weapons (bombs) and their delivery systems (intercontinental range ballistic missiles) that were completely invulnerable to "surprise" attack.

The reduction in the mass of nuclear warheads allowed full coverage of the entire Sino-Soviet land mass, and the missile control capabilities were also upgraded. The Titan I would be fully independent in controlled flight from launch to the ballistic release of the warhead, which would descend to its target by the combination of gravity and air resistance alone. In May 1955 the Air Materiel Command invited contractors to submit proposals and bids for the two stage Titan I ICBM, formally beginning the program. In September 1955, The Martin Company was declared the contractor for the Titan missile. In early October the Air Force's Western Development Division was ordered to start work. The Titan was developed in parallel with the Atlas (SM-65/HGM-16) ICBM, serving as a backup with potentially greater capabilities and an incentive for the Atlas contractor to work harder. Martin was selected as the contractor due to its proposed organization and method of igniting a liquid fueled engine at high altitude.

The Titan I was initially designated as a bomber aircraft (B-68), but was later designated SM-68 Titan and finally HGM-25A in 1962.

Program management
The previous strategic missile programs of the Air Force had been administered using the "single prime contractor concept" (later called the weapon system concept). This had resulted in three badly botched programs; the programs of the Snark, Navaho and RASCAL missiles had slipped an average of 5 years and had cost overruns of 300 per cent or more. In response, the Teapot Committee was tasked with evaluating requirements for ballistic missiles and methods of accelerating their development. As a result of the ensuing recommendations, the USAF established the Western Development Division and Brigadier General Bernard Schriever was detailed to command it. Schriever devised an entirely new organization for program management. The Air Force was to act as "prime contractor," the Ramo-Woolridge Corporation was contracted to provide systems engineering and technical direction of all ballistic missiles. The airframe contractor also would assemble the sub-systems provided by other Air Force contractors. At the time, this new organization was very controversial.

The Titan I represented an evolution of technology when compared to the Atlas missile program, but shared many of the Atlas' problems. The liquid oxygen oxidizer could not be stored for long periods of time, increasing the response time as the missile had to be raised out of its silo and loaded with oxidizer before a launch could occur. The main improvements of the Titan I over the first Atlas's deployed were vertical storage in a fully underground silo and an improved fully internal inertial guidance system. Later Atlas E/F models were equipped with what would have been the Titan I's guidance system The Titan I would be deployed with the Bell Labs radio-inertial guidance system.

Budgetary problems
The Titan, proposed as a fallback in case the Atlas failed, was by December 1956 accepted by some as a "principal ingredient of the national ballistic missile force." At the same time, others pushed for the cancellation of the Titan program almost from the beginning, arguing that it was redundant. Despite counterarguments that the Titan offered greater performance and growth potential than the Atlas as a missile and space launch vehicle, the Titan program was under constant budgetary pressure. In the summer of 1957 budget cuts led Secretary of Defense Wilson to reduce the Titan production rate from the proposed seven per month to two a month, which left the Titan as a research and development program only. However, the Sputnik crisis, which started 5 October 1957, ended any talk of canceling Titan. Priority was restored, and 1958 saw increases in funding and plans for additional Titan squadrons.

Flight testing
The Titan I flight testing consisted of the first stage only Series I, the cancelled Series II, and Series III with the complete missile.

A total of 62 flight test missiles were constructed in various numbers. The first successful launch was on 5 February 1959 with Titan I A3, and the last test flight was on 29 January 1962 with Titan I M7. Of the missiles produced, 49 launched and two exploded: six A-types (four launched), seven B-types (two launched), six C-types (five launched), ten G-types (seven launched), 22 J-types (22 launched), four V-types (four launched), and seven M-types (seven launched). Missiles were tested and launched in Florida at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station from Launch Complexes LC15, LC16, LC19, and LC20.

The four A-type missile launches with dummy second stages all occurred in 1959 and were carried out on 6 February, 25 February, 3 April, and 4 May. The guidance system and stage separation all performed well, and aerodynamic drag was lower than anticipated. Titan I was the first program to have a new missile succeed on the initial attempt, which left launch crews unprepared for the series of failures that followed.

On 14 August 1959, the first attempt to fly a Lot B missile with a live stage and dummy warhead ended in disaster. The missile was released 3.9 seconds earlier than intended before it had built up sufficient thrust. One of the umbilicals was prematurely jerked free as the missile lifted, another umbilical sent an automatic cutoff command, and the Titan fell back onto the pad and exploded, causing extensive damage to LC-19. The pad was not used again for six months.

On 12 December 1959, the second attempt to launch a complete Titan (Missile C-2) took place at LC-16. One pad umbilical failed to detach at ignition, and an automatic shutoff signal terminated thrust before the missile could be released by the launcher mechanism. Ground crews quickly repaired the umbilical, and a second launch attempt was made two days later. However, the Titan exploded almost as soon as it was released by the launcher mechanism. The mishap was quickly traced to the Range Safety destruct charges on the first stage inadvertently going off. Martin technicians had moved the activator relay into a vibration-prone area during repair work on the missile, and testing confirmed that the shock from the pad hold-down bolts firing was enough to set off the relay. Because the RSO charges had spilled out the propellants and minimized mixing of them, the explosion was not as powerful as that of Titan B-5, and so damage to LC-16 was less extensive. The pad was repaired in only two months.

On 2 February 1960, LC-19 returned to action as Missile B-7 marked the first successful flight of a Titan with a live upper stage. On 5 February, LC-16 returned to action by hosting Missile C-4. The second attempt at a Lot C Titan failed at T+52 seconds when the guidance compartment collapsed, causing the RVX-3 reentry vehicle to separate. The missile pitched down and the first stage LOX tank ruptured from aerodynamic loads, blowing the stage to pieces. After the first stage destroyed itself, the second stage separated and began engine ignition, sensing that normal staging had taken place. With no attitude control, it began tumbling end-over-end and quickly lost thrust. The stage plummeted into the Atlantic Ocean some 30–40 miles downrange. After the successful flight of Missile G-4 on 24 February, Missile C-1's second stage failed to ignite on 8 March due to a stuck valve preventing the gas generator from starting. On 1 July, the newly opened LC-20 hosted its first launch when Missile J-2, an operational prototype, was flown. Unfortunately, a broken hydraulic line caused the Titan's engines to gimbal hard left almost as soon as the tower was cleared. The missile pitched over and flew onto a near-horizontal plane when Range Safety sent the destruct command at T+11 seconds. The burning remains of the Titan impacted 300 meters from the pad in an enormous fireball. The piece of plumbing responsible for the missile failure was retrieved—it had popped out of its sleeve resulting in loss of first stage hydraulic pressure. The sleeve was not tight enough to hold the hydraulic line in place, and the pressure being imparted into it at liftoff was enough to pop it loose. Examination of other Titan missiles found more defective hydraulic lines, and the Missile J-2 debacle caused a wholesale review of manufacturing processes and improved parts testing.

The next launch at the end of the month (Missile J-4) suffered premature first stage shutdown and landed far short of its planned impact point. Cause of the failure was a LOX valve closing prematurely, which resulted in the rupture of a propellant duct and thrust termination. Missile J-6 on 24 October set a record by flying 6100 miles. The J series resulted in minor changes to alleviate the second stage shutting down prematurely or failing to ignite.

The string of failures during 1959–60 led to complaints from the Air Force that Martin–Marietta weren't taking the Titan project seriously (since it was just a backup to the primary Atlas ICBM program) and displayed an indifferent, careless attitude that resulted in easily avoidable failure modes such as Missile C-3's range safety command destruct system relays being placed in a vibration-prone area.

In December, Missile V-2 was undergoing a flight readiness test in a silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The plan was to load the missile with propellant, raise it up to firing position, and then lower it back into the silo. Unfortunately, the silo elevator collapsed, causing the Titan to fall back down and explode. The blast was so violent that it ejected a service tower from inside the silo and launched it some distance into the air before coming back down.

A total of 21 Titan I launches took place during 1961, with five failures. On 20 January 1961, Missile AJ-10 launched from LC-19 at CCAS. The flight ended in failure when an improper disconnect of a pad umbilical caused an electrical short in the second stage. The Titan performed well through the first stage burn, but after second stage separation, the fuel valve to the gas generator failed to open, preventing engine start. Missiles AJ-12 and AJ-15 in March were lost due to turbopump problems. Missile M-1's second stage lost thrust when the hydraulic pump failed. Missile SM-2 experienced early first stage shutdown; although the second stage burn was successful, it had to run to propellant depletion instead of a timed cutoff. The added stress of this operation apparently resulted in a failure of either the gas generator or turbopump, as the vernier solo phase ended prematurely. Missile M-6's second stage failed to start when an electrical relay malfunctioned and reset the ignition timer.

With attention shifting to the Titan II, there were only six Titan I flights during 1962, with one failure, when Missile SM-4 (21 January) experienced an electrical short in the second stage hydraulic actuator, which gimbaled hard left at T+98 seconds. Staging was performed successfully, but the second stage engine failed to start.

Twelve more Titan Is were flown in 1963–65, with the finale being Missile SM-33, flown on 5 March 1965. The only total failure in this last stretch of flights was when Missile V-4 (1 May 1963) suffered a stuck gas generator valve and loss of engine thrust at liftoff. The Titan fell over and exploded on impact with the ground.

Although most of the Titan I's teething problems were worked out by 1961, the missile was already eclipsed not only by the Atlas, but by its own design successor, the Titan II, a bigger, more powerful ICBM with storable hypergolic propellants. The launch pads at Cape Canaveral were quickly converted for the new vehicle. Vandenberg Launch Complex 395 continued to provide for operational test launches. The last Titan I launch was from LC 395A silo A-2 in March 1965. After a brief period as an operational ICBM, it was retired from service in 1965 when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara made the decision to phase out all first generation cryogenically fueled missiles in favor of newer hypergolic and solid-fueled models. While decommissioned Atlas (and later Titan II) missiles were recycled and utilized for space launches, the Titan I inventory were stored and eventually scrapped.

Characteristics
Produced by the Glenn L. Martin Company (which became "The Martin Company" in 1957), Titan I was a two-stage, liquid-fueled ballistic missile with an effective range of 6,101 nautical miles (11,300 km). The first stage delivered 300,000 pounds (1,330 kN) of thrust, the second stage 80,000 pounds (356 kN). The fact that Titan I, like Atlas, burned Rocket Propellant 1 (RP-1) and liquid oxygen (LOX) meant that the oxidizer had to be loaded onto the missile just before launch from an underground storage tank, and the missile raised above ground on the enormous elevator system, exposing the missile for some time before launch. The complexity of the system combined with its relatively slow reaction time – fifteen minutes to load, followed by the time required to raise and launch the first missile. Following the launch of the first missile the other two could reportedly be fired at $7 1/2$-minute intervals. Titan I utilized radio-inertial command guidance. The inertial guidance system originally intended for the missile was instead eventually deployed in the Atlas E and F missiles. Less than a year later the Air Force considered deploying the Titan I with an all-inertial guidance system but that change never occurred. (The Atlas series was intended to be the first generation of American ICBMs and Titan II (as opposed to Titan I) was to be the second generation deployed). The Titan 1 was controlled by an autopilot which was informed of the missile's attitude by a rate gyro assembly consisting of 3 gyroscopes. During the first minute or two of the flight a pitch programmer put the missile on the correct path. From that point the AN/GRW-5 guidance radar tracked a transmitter on the missile. The guidance radar fed missile position data to the AN/GSK-1 (Univac Athena) missile guidance computer in the Launch Control Center. The guidance computer used the tracking data to generate instructions which were encoded and transmitted to the missile by the guidance radar. Guidance input/output between the guidance radar and guidance computer occurred 10 times a second. Guidance commands continued for the stage 1 burn, the stage 2 burn and the vernier burn ensuring the missile was on the correct trajectory and terminating the vernier burn at the desired velocity. The last thing the guidance system did was to determine if the missile was on the right trajectory and pre-arm the warhead which then separated from the second stage. In case of the failure of the guidance system at one site, the guidance system at another site could be used to guide the missiles of the site with the failure.

Titan I also was the first true multi-stage (two or more stages) design. The Atlas missile had all three of its main rocket engines ignited at launch (two were jettisoned during flight) due to concerns about igniting rocket engines at high altitude and maintaining combustion stability. Martin, in part, was selected as the contractor because it had "recognized the 'magnitude of the altitude start problem' for the second stage and had a good suggestion for solving it." Titan I's second-stage engines were reliable enough to be ignited at altitude, after separation from the first stage booster. The first stage, besides including heavy fuel tanks and engines, also had launch interface equipment and the launch pad thrust ring with it. When the first stage had finished consuming its propellant, it dropped away, thereby decreasing the mass of the vehicle. Titan I's ability to jettison this mass prior to the ignition of the second stage meant that Titan I had a much greater total range (and a greater range per pound of second-stage fuel) than Atlas, even if the total fuel load of Atlas had been greater. As North American Aviation's Rocketdyne Division was the only manufacturer of large liquid propellent rocket engines the Air Force Western Development Division decided to develop a second source for them. Aerojet-General was selected to design and manufacture the engines for the Titan. Aerojet produced the LR87-AJ-3 (booster) and LR91-AJ-3 (sustainer). George P. Sutton wrote "Aerojet's most successful set of large LPRE was that for the booster and sustainer stages of the versions of the Titan vehicle".

The warhead of the Titan I was an AVCO Mk 4 re-entry vehicle containing a W38 thermonuclear warhead with a yield of 3.75 megatons which was fuzed for either air burst or contact burst. The Mk 4 RV also deployed penetration aids in the form of mylar balloons which replicated the radar signature of the Mk 4 RV.

Specifications

 * Liftoff thrust: 1,296 kN
 * Total mass: 105,142 kg
 * Core diameter: 3.1 m
 * Total length: 31.0 m
 * Development cost: $1,643,300,000 in 1960 dollars.
 * Flyaway cost: $1,500,000 each, in 1962 dollars.
 * Total production missiles built: 163 Titan 1s; 62 R&D Missiles – 49 launched & 101 Strategic Missiles (SMs) – 17 launched.
 * Total deployed strategic missiles: 54.
 * Titan base cost: $170,000,000 (US$ 0B in 2024)

First Stage:
 * Gross mass: 76,203 kg
 * Empty mass: 4,000 kg
 * Thrust (vac): 1,467 kN
 * Isp (vac): 290 s (2.84 kN·s/kg)
 * Isp (sea level): 256 s (2.51 kN·s/kg)
 * Burn time: 138 s
 * Diameter: 3.1 m
 * Span: 3.1 m
 * Length: 16.0 m
 * Propellants: liquid oxygen (LOX), kerosene
 * Number of engines: two Aerojet LR87-3

Second Stage:
 * Gross mass: 28,939 kg
 * Empty mass: 1,725 kg
 * Thrust (vac):356 kN
 * Isp (vac): 308 s (3.02 kN·s/kg)
 * Isp (sea level): 210 s (2.06 kN·s/kg)
 * Burn time: 225 s
 * Diameter: 2.3 m
 * Span: 2.3 m
 * Length: 9.8 m
 * Propellants: liquid oxygen (LOX), kerosene
 * Number of engines: one Aerojet LR91-3

Athena guidance computer
The UNIVAC Athena computer calculated ground commands to transmit to the Titan missile as part of Western Electric's missile guidance system. The Athena was the "first transistorized digital computer to be produced in numbers." It consisted of ten cabinets plus console on a 13.5 by 20 foot (4.1 by 6 m) floor plan. It used radar tracking of the missile to compute Titan flight data to the necessary burn-out point to start a ballistic trajectory toward the target. On-board Titan attitude control rolled the missile to maintain the missile antenna aligned to the ground antenna. Computer commands were transmitted to the missile from a ground transmitter a "quarter mile out" (0.25 mi). Completed in 1957, the Athena weighed 21000 lb.

The Athena computer used a Harvard architecture design with separate data and instruction memories by Seymour Cray at Sperry Rand Corporation and cost about $1,800,000.

Used with the computer were the:
 * AN/GSK-1 Computer Set Console (OA-2654)
 * Friden, Inc. terminal with paper tape equipment
 * "massive motor-generator set with 440 volt 3 phase AC input [that] weighed over 2 tons" at remote locations
 * input from one of two large AN/GRW-5 Western Electric radars in silos each with "20 foot (6 m) tall antenna" raised prior to launch and locked to the raised Titan's "missileborne antenna".

The "battleshort" mode ("melt-before-fail") prevented fail-safe circuits such as fuses from deactivating the machine e.g., during a missile launch. The last Athena-controlled launch was a Thor-Agena missile launched in 1972 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the last of over 400 missile flights using the Athena.

Service history
The production of operational missiles began during the final stages of the flight test program. An operational specification SM-2 missile was launched from Vandenberg AFB LC-395-A3 on 21 January 1962, with the M7 missile launched on the last development flight from Cape Canaveral's LC-19 on 29 January 1962. There were 59 XSM-68 Titan Is manufactured I in 7 developmental lots. One hundred and one SM-68 Titan I missiles were produced to equip six squadrons of nine missiles each across Western America. Fifty-four missiles were in silos in total, with one missile as a spare on standby at each squadron, bringing to 60 in service at any one time. Titan was originally planned for a 1 X 10 (one control center with 10 launchers) "soft" site. In mid-1958 it was decided that the American Bosh Arma all-inertial guidance system designed for Titan would, because production was insufficient, be assigned to Atlas and the Titan would switch to radio-inertial guidance. The decision was made to deploy Titan squadrons in a "hardened" 3 X 3 (three sites with one control center and three silos each) to reduce the number of guidance systems required. (Radio-inertial guided Atlas D squadrons were similarly sited).

Although Titan I's two stages gave it true intercontinental range and foreshadowed future multistage rockets, its propellants were dangerous and hard to handle. Cryogenic liquid oxygen oxidizer had to be pumped aboard the missile just before launch, and complex equipment was required to store and move this liquid. In its brief career, a total of six USAF squadrons were equipped with the Titan I missile. Each squadron was deployed in a 3x3 configuration, which meant each squadron controlled a total of nine missiles divided among three launch sites, with the six operational units spread across the western United States in five states: Colorado (with two squadrons, both east of Denver), Idaho, California, Washington, and South Dakota. Each missile complex had three Titan I ICBM missiles ready to launch at any given time.

 * 568th Strategic Missile Squadron April 1961 – March 1965
 * Larson AFB, Washington

 * 569th Strategic Missile Squadron June 1961 – March 1965
 * Mountain Home AFB, Idaho

 * 724th Strategic Missile Squadron April 1961 – June 1965
 * Lowry AFB, Colorado

 * 725th Strategic Missile Squadron April 1961 – June 1965
 * Lowry AFB, Colorado

 * 850th Strategic Missile Squadron June 1960 – March 1965
 * Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota

 * 851st Strategic Missile Squadron February 1961 – March 1965
 * Beale AFB, California

Silos
Weapon System 107A-2 was a weapon system. It encompassed all of the equipment and even the bases for the Titan I strategic missile. The Titan I was first American ICBM designed to be based in underground silos, and it gave USAF managers, contractors and missile crews valuable experience building and working in vast complexes containing everything the missiles and crews needed for operation and survival. The complexes were composed of an entry portal, control center, powerhouse, terminal room, two antenna silos for the ATHENA guidance radar antennas, and three launchers each composed of: three equipment terminals, three propellant terminals, and three missile silos. All connected by an extensive network of tunnels. Both antenna terminals and all three launchers were isolated with double door blast locks the doors of which could not be open at the same time. This was to ensure that if there was an explosion in a missile launcher or the site was under attack, only the exposed antenna and/or missile silo would be damaged.

The launch crew was composed of a missile combat crew commander, missile launch officer (MLO), guidance electronics officer (GEO), ballistic missile analyst technician (BMAT), and two electrical power production technicians (EPPT). There were also a cook and two Air Police. During normal duty hours there was a site commander, site maintenance officer, site chief, job controller/expediter, tool crib operator, power house chief, three pad chiefs, three assistant pad chiefs, another cook and more air police. There could be a number of electricians, plumbers, power production technicians, air conditioning technicians, and other specialist when maintenance was being performed.

These early complexes while safe from a nearby nuclear detonation, however, had certain drawbacks. First, the missiles took about 15 minutes to fuel, and then, one at a time, had to be lifted to the surface on elevators for launching and guidance, which slowed their reaction time. Rapid launching was crucial to avoid possible destruction by incoming missiles. Even though Titan complexes were designed to withstand nearby nuclear blasts antenna and missile extended for launch and guidance were quite susceptible to even a relatively distant miss. The missiles sites of a squadron were placed at least 17 (usually 20 to 30) miles apart so that a single nuclear weapon could not take out two sites. The sites also had to be close enough that if a site's guidance system failed it could "handover" its missiles to another site of the squadron.

The distance between the antenna silos and the most distant missile silo was between 1,000 and 1300 ft. These were by far the most complex, extensive and expensive missile launch facilities ever deployed by the USAF. Launching a missile required fueling it in its silo, and then raising the launcher and missile out of the silo on an elevator. Before each launch, the guidance radar, which was periodically calibrated by acquiring a special target at a precisely known range and bearing, had to acquire a radio on the missile (missile guidance set AN/DRW-18, AN/DRW-19, AN/DRW-20, AN/DRW-21, or AN/DRW-22). When the missile was launched, the guidance radar tracked the missile and supplied precise velocity range and azimuth data to the guidance computer, which then generated guidance corrections that were transmitted to the missile. Because of this, the complex could only launch and track one missile at a time, although another could be elevated while the first was being guided.

Retirement
When the storable-fueled Titan II and the solid-fueled Minuteman I were deployed in 1963, the Titan I and Atlas missiles became obsolete. They were retired from service as ICBMs in early 1965.

The final launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) occurred on 5 March 1965. At that time, the disposition of the 101 total production missiles was as follows: (three at VAFB, one at each of five bases, one at Lowry, and 20 in storage at SBAMA elsewhere)
 * 17 were test launched from VAFB (September 1961 – March 1965)
 * one was destroyed in Beale AFB Site 851-C1 silo explosion 24 May 1962
 * 54 were deployed in silos on 20 January 1965
 * 29 were in storage at SBAMA

The 83 surplus missiles remained in inventory at Mira Loma AFS. It did not make economic sense to refurbish them as SM-65 Atlas missiles with similar payload capacities had already been converted to satellite launchers. About 33 were distributed to museums, parks and schools as static displays (see list below). The remaining 50 missiles were scrapped at Mira Loma AFS near San Bernardino, CA; the last was broken up in 1972, in accordance with the SALT-I Treaty of 1 February 1972.

By November 1965 the Air Force Logistics Command had determined that the cost of modifying the widely dispersed sites to support other ballistic missiles was prohibitive, and attempts were made to find new uses. By Spring 1966 a number of possible uses and users had been identified. By 6 May 1966 the Air Force wanted to retain 5 Titan sites and the General Services Administration had earmarked 1 for possible use. The USAF removed equipment it had uses for, the rest was offered to other government agencies. Eventually no sites were retained and all were salvaged. The chosen method was the Service and Salvage contract, which required the contractor to remove the equipment the government wanted before proceeding with scrapping. This accounts for the varied degree of salvage at the sites today. Most are sealed today, with one in Colorado that is easily entered but also very unsafe. One is open for tours.

The 26 ATHENA guidance computers, when declared surplus by the federal government, went to various United States universities. The one at Carnegie was used as an undergraduate project until 1971, when the former electrical engineering undergraduate students (Athena Systems Development Group) orchestrated its donation to the Smithsonian Institution. One remained in use at Vandenberg AFB until it guided a last Thor-Agena launch in May 1972. It had guided over 400 missiles.

On 6 September 1985 Strategic Defense Initiative (AKA "Star Wars" program), a scrapped Titan I Second Stage was used in a Missile Defense test. The MIRACL Near Infrared Laser, at White Sands Missile Range, NM was fired at a stationary Titan I second stage that was fixed to the ground. The second stage burst and was destroyed by the laser blast. The second stage was pressurized with nitrogen gas to 60-psi and did not contain any fuel or oxidizer. A follow-up test 6 days later was conducted on a scrapped Thor IRBM, its remnants reside at the SLC-10 Museum at Vandenberg AFB.

Static displays and articles

Of the 33 Titan I Strategic Missiles and two (plus five possible) Research and Development Missiles that were not launched, destroyed, or scrapped, several survive today:

 * B2 57-2691 Cape Canaveral Air Force Space & Missile Museum, Florida Horizontal
 * R&D (57–2743) Colorado State Capitol display 1959 (SN belongs to a Bomarc) Vertical
 * R&D G-type Science and Technology Museum, Chicago 21 June 1963 Vertical
 * SM-5	60-3650	Lompoc? Horizontal
 * SM-49	60-3694	Cordele, Georgia (west side of I-75, exit 101 at U.S. Route 280). Vertical
 * SM-53	60-3698 Site 395-C Museum, Vandenberg AFB, Lompoc, Ca. (from March AFB) Horizontal
 * SM-54	60-3699	Strategic Air Command & Aerospace Museum, Ashland, Nebraska. Vertical
 * SM-61	60-3706 Gotte Park, Kimball, NE (only first stage standing, damaged by winds in '96?)	Vertical (damaged by winds 7/94 ?)
 * SM-63 	60-3708	In storage at Edwards AFB (still there?) Horizontal
 * SM-65	61-4492	NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California. Horizontal
 * SM-67	61-4494	Titusville High School, Titusville, Florida (on Route US-1) removed, was horizontal
 * SM-69	61-4496 (full missile)	 Discovery Park of America in Union City, Tennessee. It has been restored to correct external appearance and is now vertically displayed on the grounds. Its upper stage engine was also restored and on display.
 * SM-70	61-4497 Veterans Home, Quincy, IL Vertical (removed and sent to DMAFB for destruction in May 2010)
 * SM-71	61-4498	U.S. Air Force Museum, now AMARC (to go to PIMA Mus.) Horizontal
 * SM-72	61-4499	Florence Regional Airport Air and Space Museum, Florence, South Carolina. Horizontal
 * SM-73	61-4500	former Holiday Motor Lodge, San Bernardino (now missing?). Horizontal
 * SM-79	61-4506	former Oklahoma State Fair Grounds, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 1960s Horizontal
 * SM-81	61-4508	Kansas Cosmosphere, Hutchinson, Kansas. In storageTitan I at Discovery Park of America in Union City, TN.jpg in Union City, TN.]]
 * SM-86	61-4513 Beale AFB (not on display, was horizontal, removed 1994) Horizontal
 * SM-88	61-4515 (st. 1) Pima Air & Space Museum, outside DM AFB, Tucson, Arizona, now WPAFB Horizontal
 * SM-89 	61-4516 (st. 2) Pima Air Museum, outside DM AFB, Tucson, Arizona, now WPAFB Horizontal
 * SM-92	61-4519 (st. 1) Kansas Cosmosphere, Hutchinson, Kansas.	(acq. 11/93 from MCDD) 	Vertical (st 1 mate to SM-94 st 1)
 * SM-93	61-4520 (st. 2) SLC-10 Museum, Vandenberg AFB, Lompoc, Ca. Horizontal  (only stage 2)
 * SM-94	61-4521 (st. 1) Kansas Cosmosphere, Hutchinson, Kansas. (acq. 6/93 from MCDD)	Vertical (st 1 mate to SM-92 st 1)
 * SM-96	61-4523	South Dakota Air and Space Museum, Ellsworth AFB, Rapid City, South Dakota. Horizontal
 * SM-101	61-4528 Estrella Warbirds Museum, Paso Robles, CA (2nd stage damaged) HorizontalTitan I engine.jpg
 * SM-?? (stg. 2 only) former SDI laser test target (whereabouts?)
 * SM-?? (stg. 1 only) former Spaceport USA Rocket Garden, Kennedy Space Center, Florida.	 Vert. (stg 1 mated to stg 1 below)
 * SM-?? (stg. 1 only) former Spaceport USA Rocket Garden, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Vert. (stg 1 mated to stg 1 above)
 * SM-?? (stg. 1 only) Science Museum, Bayamon, Puerto Rico Vert. (stg 1 mated to stg 1 below)
 * SM-?? (stg. 1 only) Science Museum, Bayamon, Puerto Rico (top half from Bell's Junkyard) Vert. (stg 1 mated to stg 1 above)
 * SM-?? (full missile) former Outside main gate of White Sands Missile Range, N.M. false report?	Vertical
 * SM-?? (full missile) Spacetec CCAFS Horizontal

Note: Two stacked Titan-1 first stages created a perfect illusion of a Titan-2 Missile for museums above.

Prospective manned flights
The Titan I was considered for use as the first missile to put a man in space. Two of the firms responding to an Air Force "Request for Proposal" for "Project 7969," an early USAF project to "Put a Man in Space Soonest (MISS)". Two of the four firms which responded, Martin and Avco, proposed using Titan I as the booster.

title: HGM-25A Titan I