text:
Talk:Turner Fenton Secondary School

History?

 * 1) W. J. Fenton built.
 * 2) W. J. Fenton found to be too small, J. A. Turner built nearby to school.
 * 3) J.A. Turner opened, W. J. Fenton became a vocational school.
 * 4) J.A. Turner found to have too many students, while W.J. Fenton's enrollment declined.
 * 5) J.A. Turner's Visual Arts department begins to use some of W.J. Fenton's space
 * 6) In 1992, the two schools merge and become Turner Fenton Secondary School, also branded as Turner Fenton Campus.  (This was also partly fueled by an Ontario law that allows Separately-funded Catholic schools to have first crack at buying closed schools -- which the Peel board wanted to avoid)
 * 7) Post-2000, Turner Fenton Campus name dropped, apparently due to concerns of the school appearing "elitist"
 * 8) Even now, school is over-capacity.

 * I just happened to find this entry on my old high school, which was quite amusing. Unfortunately, I don't have any of my notes on actual dates for the above...  If anyone wants to expand, cool. Dunro 09:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From VfD
-
 * Turner Fenton Secondary School - again, another high school in suburban Toronto. Same as above. Darkcore 22:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * If the fact that it's Canada's only campus-based high school was expanded on, it could make a good article. Keep.  Rdash 05:24, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Campus-based only means that the school is a merger of two other schools. There's not enough there, even, to expand upon. Darkcore 17:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everyking 06:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not relevant. (Disclosure: see above.) Bearcat 08:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles on significant buildings are noteworthy. But needs to be updated to conform to WikiProject Schools. Davodd 06:52, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, schools are relevant -- Graham :) 07:43, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a high school. Big deal. Not famous enough to warrant inclusion, IMHO. PMC 17:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the more famous/noteworthy secondary schools. Anthony DiPierro 17:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * What on earth is remotely famous or noteworthy about it? Bearcat 04:13, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * It is Canada's only campus-based high school. Anthony DiPierro 07:10, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, campus-based refers only to the fact that it is a merger of two schools (the Turner School and the Fenton School). Darkcore 08:52, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * So? Anthony DiPierro 09:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * So, IMO, that's not particularly noteworthy or expandable. Darkcore 11:19, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A completely useless school. Claiming it has two campuses is idiotic. Who cares? It is not of any note - please delete or we'll be having any school that has something "special" (and I use the term liberally) placed as an article. Hey, maybe Public School 109 should have an article especially since it has 18 portables. Two campuses is not an important enough fact warranting an article.

There is some significance - now, at least

We've pretty much come to the conclusion that the girls discussed in the above thread are from Turner Fenton Secondary School.
 * Oh goodness, what a sad article. It said they were Mississauga students though... what in particular made you think they're from TFC? --  user:zanimum
 * Turner Fenton is (relatively) close to the Brampton-Mississauga border, and the media sometimes get Brampton confused for Mississauga. However, based on the conversation in that forum, it sounds more like the students went to the IB school in Mississauga (Turner has had IB for approx. 5 years)... Of course, this is all conjecture and not really relevant to the article.Dunro 05:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I thought Turner still had IB. It was the enhanced program they dropped, I heard. Did they really drop both? --  Zanimum 14:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said Turner Fenton dropped IB (they have not, I believe). There is another high school in the Peel Board that offers IB (located in Mississauga).  I was trying to say that the forum postings gave me the impression the aforementioned incident happened at the other school. --Dunro 08:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They still have IB in Turner Fenton... I am an IB graduate from 2008, and my cousin has started Grade 9 hoping to get that Diploma in 2013. I see Turner Fenton having no intention to give up on this program, it is what keeps the name of Turner Fenton respected in the Peel region. --572766 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy over divisive politics and police tactics
Turner Fenton has developed a reputation within the Greater Toronto Area as an outpost of tyranny. The local law enforcement agencies were known to launch brutal crackdowns on dissent by acting as agents of the Turner regime. Peel Regional Police initiated a highly-skilled team of suspected former Israeli commandos to impose law and order on the anarchic school, and were subsequently retained as a permanent presence in the hallowed halls of both buildings; however, abuses of power were rampant. The force was known for its heavy-handed tactics and was rumored to have implemented a harsh series of checkpoints with a Soup Nazi-esque ‘no smiling’ attitude. In addition, they were suspected as being the ringleaders in the eventually failed bid – as it was rumored that the AV club was not willing to participate – to establish an electronic sign banner in the North Cafeteria that would broadcast pro-administration propaganda glorifying the leaders and streaming quotes by Mao, Stalin and Castro about the hypocrisy of capitalism and the illusion of human rights.

It was also suspected that one of the utility and maintenance rooms in the Southern building had, in actuality, been converted into a Soviet-style interrogation room to force confessions out of suspected insurgents and otherwise intimidate opponents into squealing. The team of elite commandos was widely known to overstep its boundaries and try to regulate inter-entity commerce between the school and the adjacent businesses, such as McDonald’s. The restaurant, in particular, was known as being the mouthpiece of the Turner administration and implemented a harsh system of segregation and discrimination against students. The repressive methods employed were generally believed to have initiated a domino effect on surrounding enterprises, whereby the local convenience store enacted an old medieval statute limiting the number of students simultaneously allowed in-store – effectively imposing virtual Apartheid.

The rough methods that the Administration and its agents utilized became a rallying cry for dissidents opposed to the near-Gulag that Turner Fenton became at the start of the 21st century, ultimately culminating in the school’s attempts to suppress opposition by dehumanizing and demeaning students by issuing Orwellian identification cards to be hung around the necks of students. Suddenly faced with the prospects of being branded as if they were cattle, the students collectivized their numerous instruments of resistance – including complaining, grumbling and murmuring – into a surprisingly ineffective confrontation that ultimately failed to wrest control from the administration.

As of this day, a tenuous peace treaty negotiated between the administration and a coalition of senior students from the business, law and biology streams -- and brokered by the so-called 'Group of 4' key stakeholders, consisting of Mayor Susan Fennell, Brampton Transit, the Sears Home Store, and the CUPE Local 1103 unit repairing Kennedy Road -- has been credited with maintaining relative tranquility, as neither the administration nor the students would like a return to pre-2003 hostilities. However, fractures in the student federation, including the exclusion of mathematics and arts students from the bargaining table, as well as the inability of the police to clamp down on the rumored bully-tax for North Cafeteria admission (extorted from weaker pupils by ruthless student militias formed along largely rival sectarian lines), has led many Brampton political analysts to conclude that it is only a matter of time before aggression resumes – a sobering prospect for alumni who negotiated the initial terms of cessation of hostilities.

The Turner administration’s latest conciliatory gesture towards students as an olive branch of cooperation, in the first step to correcting perceived historic injustices, has allegedly included the addition of another vending machine in the North Cafeteria. As of January 2006, the students were too busy – playing cards, passing notes, and stealing chalk – to consider the offer, set to expire at the end of the semester.

 * This was in the article, I'm moving it here so it can be distilled. --  user:zanimum
 * Keep: As a former Turner Fenton Student, I think it's fairly accurate. All I would suggest, though, is that in the 2nd last paragraph, the opening line "As of this day" ought to be more specific.  Anybody know what the exact date was when the treaty was negotiated, and whether it is still holding today?
 * Keep: I know quite a bit about Turner Fenton, and Brampton at large, as I have been a resident of the active city for 15 years, and counting. I think that this account is very accurate and warrants to be kept on this page.  If there is anything about the story specific that you might want to know I might be able to recall the event; unfortunately, I am not sure about the date of the negotiation.  Hope this helps!
 * Delete Clearly tongue-in-cheek and whether or not there is a grain of truth to all this (as I suspect there is), Wikipedia articles are to be NPOV. --Dunro 08:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Was this ever documented in Turneround, which I'm told is now online-only, or any other outside resource, even a blog? If so, it would help prove this as legitimate. -- user:zanimum

WHAT? Did this actually happen?

Unfortunately, yeah, the administration guys were total a-holes about the whole thing. Students were scared -- a lot of my friends transferred out b/c of the sh--. So glad that at U of T, where I go now, we have appeal processes to deal with administration heavy-handedness. And, yeah, this was totally all over the Turner blogs when it shook down, and even documented in Turneround, it needs to get back in the main Wikipedia article so that history isn't repeated. And, yeah, Turneround is online-only at this point, at least, according to my buddies finishing off their last year, but apparently there's no archives and the site is down anyways. The Turneround articles about the controversy were really pro-admin, though, cause the student editors were pretty much stooges and lackeys who couldn't print a word without approval from teachers/principals, so I remember a bunch of students threw Turneround issues outside in the parking lot in protest, which was kinda stupid because they didn't really endear themselves to anyone by littering and just made it worse (some innocent people got suspended, too) but whatever. This article oughta be back in the main thing, after all, Wikipedia's one of the last true vestiges of free speech and rational discussion, so this story needs to be in the main article, despite the administration's attempt to suppress the truth.

 * So can you find a blog mentioning this? Any source is better than nothing at this point. --  Zanimum 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Sigh... this is an encyclopedia, people - not a forum for whiny, teenage angst. Wah - my school is too hard. Wah - the local convenience store will only let 2 people in at a time. Turner is the worst, most crime-ridden school in Brampton - and it didn't get that way by accident. Fix yourselves, and maybe.... JUST MAYBE.... the powers that be will stop treating you like the children you legally still are. Wikipedia is not a forum of free speech and rational discussion.. it's an open source encycopedia of truth and unbiased information. I think you are confusing Wikipedia with LiveJournal, friend.
 * These comments would be a lot easier if they were signed... (you do not have to be logged in. But it tells us the date/time and can at least identify the speaker by IP address.) Please do so by adding --~ to the end of your paragraph. Thanks! --Dunro 08:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete Clearly a student's idea of a joke. I went to Turner for 4 years and that article makes it sound like North Vietnam. Its a lot of BS and should be deleted. --Orion 5 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * KEEP* This is entirely true...I witnessed it first hand...I'm surprised someone had the guts to write this out...they are watching you know...they will trace your IP and silence you by having you arrested for a fabricated incident...you will fall as the soldiers of the past did for standing up against the admin's abuse of basic human rights...May God Be With You!

 * KEEP* Very true. Witnessed this as well...kudos on actually writing about it - you've got bones man.

Christine McGee
I think the Christine McGee needs some clarification, as she obviously graduated before 1992, when the article3 says the school is founded. (and yes, i read the schools history)99.245.81.39 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can anyone provide a source for this claim? The wikipedia entry on her does not corroborate this claim. Dunro 08:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't remember what the source for this was, but she would have graduated from either Turner or Fenton. --  Zanimum 15:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article on Ms.Magee says she attended Erindale, not Turner, Fenton or T-F. PKT (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember the school displaying Christine McGee's photo in the display case across from the office. She went to J.A. Turner.

Request semi-protection
The title says it all, really. A lot of anonymous users from Rogers (99.x.x.x) have been adding irrelevant or low-quality information to the article. Ergosteur 06:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Turner Fenton Secondary School. 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/20141231054243/http://soarconference2014.com/index.html to http://soarconference2014.com/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turner Fenton Secondary School. 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/20160103032239/http://turnerfentonib.com/Application/Grade8Application2014.pdf to http://turnerfentonib.com/Application/Grade8Application2014.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160804155423/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV1GR4CxgYM to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV1GR4CxgYM

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) 18:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Turner Fenton Secondary School


text:
Talk:Korea under Japanese rule

1905 or 1910 for start date?
A few weeks ago, @Magyar Andreasz set the start date of the period to 1905. I'm unsure of this, so wanted to double check.

For the infobox, the params are: | status                = Part of the Empire of Japan | year_start            = 1905

In the lead, it states Korea was a protectorate in 1905. From that article: It is a dependent territory that enjoys autonomy over most of its internal affairs, while still recognizing the suzerainty of a more powerful sovereign state without being a possession. This suggests to me that we shouldn't use 1905 as the start date. However, it may be that language is being imprecisely used; I don't really know the details of the 1905 treaty, maybe it was really part of the Empire. toobigtokale (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 * if no reply in a week, I may revert back to 1910 fyi toobigtokale (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your revert was the correct move. Yue 🌙 08:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Article grade and improvements
Downgraded article to C; it's still not the best. Still lots of poor and unsourced writing that needs to be pruned, and missing lots of info. Doesn't communicate what living in this period was actually like. Going to be significantly rewriting it over the following months. toobigtokale (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 * And the lead (I wrote) is too long :) Need to cut it down eventually toobigtokale (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of this article in birthplaces
Whenever someone's Wikipedia article mentions they were born in Korea during this period, I've come to favor the practice of linking the phrase Korea, Empire of Japan to this article. I think this wording is a decent compromise.

Alternatives include: toobigtokale (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Korea" (non-specific and potentially misleading link)
 * "Japanese Korea" (I think confusing to unfamiliar people and doesn't specify "Empire of Japan")
 * "Korea under Japanese rule" (I think verbose and lacks specificity of "Empire of Japan")
 * "Chōsen" (opaque to people unfamiliar with Japan or Korea)

Colony vs part
@Malan Fun tagging to discuss; please keep in mind WP:3RR and please add sources for these claims. At the moment your recent edits are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH; I'm not saying your edits are wrong, I'm saying our job is just to report what scholars are saying. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Just a note that the editor you tagged was identified as a sockpuppet and has since been blocked Dantus21 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Korea under Japanese rule


text:
Skully

Skully may refer to:

In music

 * David 'Skully' Sullivan Kaplan (born 1979), drummer of Razorlight
 * Noel Simms (1935–2017), ska/reggae singer-percussionist
 * Vin Skully, hip-hop producer of Styles of Beyond
 * Allan 'Skully' Skolski, vocalist of U.S. Chaos

Other people and characters

 * John Skully, English politician
 * Skully, a fictional anthropomorphic parrot in Jake and the Never Land Pirates

Other uses

 * Skully (game), a children's street game
 * Skully (helmet), a motorcycle headgear brand

title: Skully


text:
Talk:List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy

Requested move 11 May 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Both the merger and move proposal have been snow opposed. (non-admin closure)  Winged Blades Godric  09:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy → List of battleships of the Royal Navy – I am merging both List of dreadnought battleships and List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy into one page, List of battleships of the Royal Navy (currently a redirect). Vami _IV✠  08:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 * STRONG OPPOSE (see RM/TR talk) Andy Dingley (talk)
 * Wikipedia talk:Requested moves – wbm1058 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no rationale. There is more than enough material to retain separate lists for pre-dreadnought and dreadnought battleships, and they are distinct types. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: There is plenty enough material. I cite List of battleships of Germany for its length and inclusion of both pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts. The United Kingdom is the only exception to the (admittedly unspoken or unmade) rule of one list of battleships per nation. Additionally, the battleship lists from France and the United States (quick note: these pages, unlike Germany's, are not featured and list several ships that are not battleships as we would define them) are both long but also contain pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts. I believe that, just as with Germany's list and then France and America's, these pages should be one and can be made featured, as one, as long as they have plenty enough supporting material, referencing and in-line citation, and an expert looking over my / other editor's shoulder. – Vami _IV✠  22:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * the RN articles are bigger than the German one, the France is a bare list might need splitting if filled out. US two large lists is better than one really big list. And adding more material as required (summaries to add to bare tables etc would only make them longer. As the article says 'In 1907 before ...HMS Dreadnought the Royal Navy had 62 battleships in commission or building, a lead of 26 over France and 50 over Germany'. Being in two parts does not preclude FA for both or either. Ie Oppose  GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 * It is apparent that there is opposition to a merger. There should be a merger discussion first. Then we can discuss changing titles. For now I have made List of battleships of the Royal Navy into a set index, without prejudice either to this move proposal or to the extent of any merger. Srnec (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose page merger without proper discussion. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose both the rename and the merger. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Question
Is it acceptable if I continue to improve the unmerged version of this article while this discussion is ongoing? I've made a series of small and I feel constructive edits to the page since last revert. – Vami _IV✠  06:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Dreadnought battleships" is a poor title
I don't know why a list of dreadnought battleships includes anything after the N3-class. The Nelson-, KGV-, and Lion-classes were quite explicitly treaty battleship designs, and Vanguard is considered a fast battleship. Having them lumped in with a list called "dreadnought battleships" is incorrect and confusing.

Rather than split the article again, I propose the article be renamed to remove "dreadnought" from the title. Thus, take over the existing List of battleships of the Royal Navy content-less article, or come up with another proper alternative for the article. ☽Dziban303 »»  Talk☾  01:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy. 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/20110724042028/http://www.rna-10-area.net/files/VanguardOct07.pdf to http://www.rna-10-area.net/files/VanguardOct07.pdf

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) 01:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
The ed17, I do not agree with your move of this list and so have reverted it in accordance with WP:RMUM. I am happy to discuss here. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Hi, I moved it to maintain consistency with all of the other warship lists, which categorize by country. (Plus, not everyone knows what a "royal navy" is.) Happy to start a requested move, depending on your reasoning for keeping it at the current name. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the response. My reasoning in WP:CONSISTENCY with other Royal Navy ship type lists (please look at the lists included in Template:Royal Navy ship types).  Whilst some warship lists categorise by country, this is far from universal and not just confined to the Royal Navy, a few examples include List of ships of the Royal Australian Navy, List of ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, List of ships of the Republic of Korea Navy, List of ships of the Portuguese Navy, all of the lists within Template:Swedish Navy ship types and all of the lists within Template:United States Navy ship types.  Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC).
 * , while I'd prefer we be consistent all the way across, surely you'll note that the lists there at least have the country name in them. This is the exception. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my earlier post. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I disagree, all use the WP:COMMONNAME for that navy. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC).


text:
HMS Hood

HMS Hood (pennant number 51) was a battlecruiser of the Royal Navy (RN). Hood was the first of the planned four Admiral-class battlecruisers to be built during the First World War. Already under construction when the Battle of Jutland occurred in mid-1916, that battle revealed serious flaws in her design, and despite drastic revisions she was completed four years later. For this reason, she was the only ship of her class to be completed, as the Admiralty decided it would be better to start with a clean design on succeeding battlecruisers, leading to the never-built G-3 class. Despite the appearance of newer and more modern ships, Hood remained the largest warship in the world for 20 years after her commissioning, and her prestige was reflected in her nickname, "The Mighty Hood".

Hood was involved in many showing-the-flag exercises between her commissioning in 1920 and the outbreak of war in 1939, including training exercises in the Mediterranean Sea and a circumnavigation of the globe with the Special Service Squadron in 1923 and 1924. She was attached to the Mediterranean Fleet following the outbreak of the Second Italo-Ethiopian War in 1935. When the Spanish Civil War broke out the following year, Hood was officially assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet until she had to return to Britain in 1939 for an overhaul. By this time, advances in naval gunnery had reduced Hood's usefulness. She was scheduled to undergo a major rebuild in 1941 to correct these issues, but the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939 kept the ship in service without the upgrades.

When war with Germany was declared, Hood was operating in the area around Iceland, and she spent the next several months hunting for German commerce raiders and blockade runners between Iceland and the Norwegian Sea. After a brief overhaul of her propulsion system, she sailed as the flagship of Force H, and participated in the destruction of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir. Transferred to the Home Fleet shortly afterwards, Hood was dispatched to Scapa Flow, and operated in the area as a convoy escort and later as a defence against a potential German invasion fleet.

In May 1941, Hood and the battleship HMS Prince of Wales (53) were ordered to intercept the GERMAN BATTLESHIP Bismarck and the heavy cruiser GERMAN CRUISER Prinz Eugen, which were en route to the Atlantic, where they were to attack convoys. On 24 May 1941, early in the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Hood was struck by several German shells, exploded, and sank with the loss of all but 3 of her crew of 1,418. Due to her publicly perceived invincibility, the loss affected British morale.

The RN conducted two inquiries into the reasons for the ship's quick demise. The first, held soon after the ship's loss, concluded that Hoods aft magazine had exploded after one of Bismarcks shells penetrated the ship's armour. A second inquiry was held after complaints that the first board had failed to consider alternative explanations, such as an explosion of the ship's torpedoes. It was more thorough than the first board but concurred with the first board's conclusion. Despite the official explanation, some historians continued to believe that the torpedoes caused the ship's loss, while others proposed an accidental explosion inside one of the ship's gun turrets that reached down into the magazine. Other historians have concentrated on the cause of the magazine explosion. The discovery of the ship's wreck in 2001 confirmed the conclusion of both boards, although the exact reason the magazines detonated is likely to remain unknown, since that portion of the ship was obliterated in the explosion.

Design and description

The Admiral-class battlecruisers were designed in response to the German Mackensen-class battlecruiser s, which were reported to be more heavily armed and armoured than the latest British battlecruisers of the Renown-class battlecruiser and the Courageous-class battlecruiseres. The design was revised after the Battle of Jutland to incorporate heavier armour and all four ships were laid down. Only Hood was completed, because the ships were very expensive and required labour and material that could be put to better use building merchant ships needed to replace those lost to the German U-boat campaign.

The Admirals were significantly larger than their predecessors of the Renown class. As completed, Hood had an overall length of 860 ft, a maximum beam of 104 ft, and a draught of 32 ft at deep load. This was 66 ft longer and 14 ft wider than the older ships. She displaced 42670 LT at load and 46680 LT at deep load, over 13000 LT more than the older ships. The ship had a metacentric height of 4.2 ft at deep load, which minimised her roll and made her a steady gun platform.

The additional armour added during construction increased her draught by about 4 ft at deep load, which reduced her freeboard and made her very wet. At full speed, or in heavy seas, water would flow over the ship's quarterdeck and often entered the messdecks and living quarters through ventilation shafts. This characteristic earned her the nickname of "the largest submarine in the Navy". The persistent dampness, coupled with the ship's poor ventilation, was blamed for the high incidence of tuberculosis aboard. The ship's complement varied widely over her career; in 1919, she was authorised 1,433 men as a squadron flagship; in 1934, she had 81 officers and 1,244 ratings aboard.

The Admirals were powered by four Brown-Curtis geared steam turbines, each driving one propeller shaft using steam provided by 24 Yarrow boilers. The battlecruiser's turbines were designed to produce 144000 shp, which would propel the ship at 31 kn, but during sea trials in 1920, Hood's turbines provided 151280 shp, which allowed her to reach 32.07 kn. She carried enough fuel oil to give her an estimated range of 7500 nmi at 14 kn.

Armament
The main battery of the Admiral-class ships consisted of eight BL 15 in Mk I guns in hydraulically powered twin gun turrets. The turrets were designated 'A', 'B', 'X', and 'Y' from bow to stern, and 120 shells were carried for each gun. The ship's secondary armament consisted of twelve BL 5.5 in Mk I guns, each with 200 rounds. They were shipped on shielded single-pivot mounts fitted along the upper deck and the forward shelter deck. This high position allowed them to be worked during heavy weather, as they were less affected by waves and spray compared with the casemate mounts of earlier British capital ships. Two of these guns on the shelter deck were temporarily replaced by QF 4 in Mk V anti-aircraft (AA) guns between 1938 and 1939. All the 5.5-inch guns were removed during another refit in 1940.

The ship's original anti-aircraft armament consisted of four QF 4-inch Mk V guns on single mounts. These were joined in early 1939 by four twin mounts for the QF 4-inch Mark XVI dual-purpose gun. The single guns were removed in mid-1939 and a further three twin Mark XIX mounts were added in early 1940. In 1931, a pair of octuple mountings for the 40 mm QF 2-pounder Mk VIII gun "pom-pom" were added on the shelter deck, abreast of the funnels, and a third mount was added in 1937. Two quadruple mountings for the Vickers 0.5 in Mk III machine gun were added in 1933 with two more mountings added in 1937. To these were added five unrotated projectile (UP) launchers in 1940, each launcher carrying 20 7 in rockets. When they detonated, the rockets shot out lengths of cable that were kept aloft by parachutes; the cable was intended to snag aircraft and draw up the small aerial mine that would destroy the aircraft.

The Admirals were fitted with six fixed 21 in torpedo tubes, three on each broadside. Two of these were submerged forward of 'A' turret's magazine and the other four were above water, abaft the rear funnel. About 28 torpedoes were carried.

Fire control
The ship's main battery was controlled by two fire-control directors. One was mounted above the conning tower, protected by an armoured hood, and was fitted with a 30 ft rangefinder. The other was fitted in the spotting top above the tripod foremast and equipped with a 15 ft rangefinder. Each turret was also fitted with a 30 ft rangefinder. The secondary armament was primarily controlled by directors mounted on each side of the bridge. They were supplemented by two additional control positions in the fore-top, which were provided with 9 ft rangefinders, fitted in 1924–1925. The antiaircraft guns were controlled by a simple high-angle 2 m rangefinder mounted on the aft control position, fitted in 1926–1927. Three torpedo-control towers were fitted, each with a 15 ft rangefinder. One was on each side of the amidships control tower and the third was on the centreline abaft the aft control position.

During the 1929–1931 refit, a high-angle control system (HACS) Mark I director was added on the rear searchlight platform and two positions for 2-pounder "pom-pom" antiaircraft directors were added at the rear of the spotting top, although only one director was initially fitted. The 5.5-inch control positions and their rangefinders on the spotting top were removed during the 1932 refit. In 1934, the "pom-pom" directors were moved to the former locations of the 5.5-inch control positions on the spotting top and the 9 ft rangefinders for the 5.5-inch control positions were reinstalled on the signal platform. Two years later, the "pom-pom" directors were moved to the rear corners of the bridge to get them out of the funnel gases. Another "pom-pom" director was added on the rear superstructure, abaft the HACS director in 1938. Two HACS Mark III directors were added to the aft end of the signal platform the following year, and the Mark I director aft was replaced by a Mark III.

During Hood's last refit in 1941, a Type 279 early-warning radar for aircraft and surface vessels and a Type 284 gunnery radar were installed, although the Type 279 radar lacked its receiving aerial and was inoperable according to Roberts. An Admiralty document indicates however that, following the 1941 refit at Rosyth, Hood's Type 279 radar was indeed functional. The early-warning radar was of a modified type, known as Type 279M, the difference between this and Type 279 being the number of aerials. While Type 279 used two aerials, a transmitter and a receiver, the Type 279M used only a single transceiver aerial. Hood reported an accuracy of 3 degrees with her 279M set.

Protection
The armour scheme of the Admirals was originally based on that of the battlecruiser HMS Tiger (1913) with an 8 in waterline belt. Unlike Tiger, the armour was angled outwards 12° from the waterline to increase its relative thickness in relation to flat-trajectory shells. This change increased the ship's vulnerability to plunging (high-trajectory) shells, as it exposed more of the vulnerable deck armour. Some 5000 LT of armour were added to the design in late 1916, based on British experiences at the Battle of Jutland, at the cost of deeper draught and slightly decreased speed. To save construction time, this was accomplished by thickening the existing armour, rather than redesigning the entire ship. Hood's protection accounted for 33% of her displacement, a high proportion by British standards, but less than was usual in contemporary German designs (for example, 36% for the battlecruiser SMS Hindenburg).

The armoured belt consisted of face-hardened Krupp cemented armour (KC), arranged in three strakes. The main waterline belt was 12 in thick between 'A' and 'Y' barbettes and thinned to 5 to 6 in towards the ship's ends, but did not reach either the bow or the stern. The middle armour belt had a maximum thickness of 7 inches over the same length as the thickest part of the waterline armour and thinned to five inches abreast 'A' barbette. The upper belt was 5 inches thick amidships and extended forward to 'A' barbette, with a short 4-inch extension aft.

The gun turrets and barbettes were protected by 11 to 15 in of KC armour, except for the turret roofs, which were 5 inches thick. The decks were made of high-tensile steel. The forecastle deck ranged from 1.75 to 2 in in thickness, while the upper deck was 2 in thick over the magazines and 0.75 in elsewhere. The main deck was 3 in thick over the magazines and 1 in elsewhere, except for the 2-inch-thick slope that met the bottom of the main belt. The lower deck was 3 inches thick over the propeller shafts, 2 inches thick over the magazines and 1 inch elsewhere.

Live-firing trials with the new 15-inch APC (armour-piercing, capped) shell against a mock-up of Hood showed that this shell could penetrate the ship's vitals via the 7-inch middle belt and the 2-inch slope of the main deck as a result 3-inch plating on the main deck over the slopes was added alongside the magazine spaces at a very late stage of construction and the four aftermost 5.5-inch guns and their ammunition hoists were removed in partial compensation.. A proposal was made to increase the armour over the forward magazines to 5 inches and 6 inches over the rear magazines in July 1919 in response to these trials. To compensate for the additional weight, the 4 midships above water torpedo tubes and the armour for the rear torpedo warheads were removed, and the armour for the aft torpedo-control tower was reduced in thickness from 6 to 1.5 in. However, the additional armour was never fitted pending further trials. As completed, Hood remained susceptible to plunging shells and bombs. The torpedo-warhead armour was reinstated during the ship's 1929–1931 refit.

For protection against torpedoes, she was given a 7.5 ft deep torpedo bulge that ran the length of the ship between the fore and aft barbettes. It was divided into an empty outer compartment and an inner compartment filled with five rows of water-tight "crushing tubes" intended to absorb and distribute the force of an explosion. The bulge was backed by a 1.5-inch-thick torpedo bulkhead.

Aircraft
Hood was initially fitted with flying-off platforms mounted on top of 'B' and 'X' turrets, from which Fairey Flycatchers could launch. During her 1929–1931 refit, the platform was removed from 'X' turret and a rotating, folding catapult was installed on her quarterdeck, along with a crane to recover a seaplane. She embarked a Fairey IIIF from No. 444 Flight of the Royal Air Force (RAF). During the 1932 West Indies cruise, the catapult proved to be difficult to operate in anything but a calm sea, as it was frequently awash in bad weather. The catapult and crane were removed in 1932, along with the flying-off platform on 'B' turret.

Battlecruiser or fast battleship
Although the Royal Navy always designated Hood as a battlecruiser, some modern writers such as Antony Preston have classified her as a fast battleship, since Hood appeared to have improvements over the fast Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. On paper, Hood retained the same armament and level of protection, while being significantly faster.

Around 1918, American commanders, including Vice Admiral William Sims, commander of US naval forces in Europe, and Admiral Henry T. Mayo, commander of the Atlantic Fleet, became extremely impressed by Hood, which they described as a "fast battleship", and they advocated that the US Navy develop a fast battleship of its own. However, the US continued with their established design direction, the slower, but well-protected, South Dakota-class battleship (1920) battleship and the fast and lightly armoured Lexington-class battlecruiser, both of which were later cancelled in accordance with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.

Influences from Hood showed on subsequent Lexington designs, with the reduction of the main armour belt, the change to sloped armour, and the addition of four above-water torpedo tubes to the four underwater tubes of the original design. To add to the confusion, Royal Navy documents of the period often describe any battleship with a maximum speed over 24 kn as a battlecruiser, regardless of the amount of protective armour. For instance, the never-built G3 battlecruiser was classified as such, although it would have been more of a fast battleship than Hood.

The scale of Hood's protection, though adequate for the Jutland era, was at best marginal against the new generation of 16 in gunned capital ships that emerged soon after her completion in 1920, typified by the American Colorado-class battleship and the Japanese Nagato-class battleship s. The Royal Navy were fully aware that the ship's protection flaws still remained, even in her revised design, so Hood was intended for the duties of a battlecruiser, and she served in the battlecruiser squadrons through most of her career. Late in her career, Hood was outclassed by the armour and protective arrangement of Second World War-era fast battleships, but few of the RN's available "big gun" vessels could match Bismarck's speed.

Construction
Construction of Hood began at the John Brown shipyard in Clydebank, Scotland, as yard number 460 on 1 September 1916. Following the loss of three British battlecruisers at the Battle of Jutland, 5,000 tons of extra armour and bracing were added to Hood's design. Most seriously, the deck protection was flawed—spread over three decks, it was designed to detonate an incoming shell on impact with the top deck, with much of the energy being absorbed as the exploding shell had to penetrate the armour of the next two decks. The development of effective time-delay shells at the end of the First World War made this scheme much less effective, as the intact shell would penetrate layers of weak armour and explode deep inside the ship. In addition, she was grossly overweight compared to her original design, making her a wet ship with a highly stressed structure.

She was launched on 22 August 1918 by the widow of Rear-Admiral Sir Horace Hood, a great-great-grandson of Admiral Samuel Hood, after whom the ship was named. Sir Horace Hood had been killed while commanding the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron and flying his flag on HMS Invincible (1907)—one of the three battlecruisers which blew up at the Battle of Jutland. To make room in the shipyard for merchant construction, Hood sailed for Rosyth to complete her fitting-out on 9 January 1920. After her sea trials, she was commissioned on 15 May 1920, under Captain Wilfred Tompkinson. She had cost £6,025,000 to build.

With her conspicuous twin funnels and lean profile, Hood was widely regarded as one of the finest-looking warships ever built. She was also the largest warship afloat when she was commissioned, and retained that distinction for the next 20 years. Her size and powerful armament earned her the nickname of "Mighty Hood" and she came to symbolise the might of the British Empire itself.

Interwar service
Shortly after commissioning on 15 May 1920, Hood became the flagship of the Battlecruiser Squadron of the Atlantic Fleet, under the command of Rear-Admiral Sir Roger Keyes. After a cruise to Scandinavian waters that year, Captain Geoffrey Mackworth assumed command. Hood visited the Mediterranean in 1921 and 1922 to show the flag and to train with the Mediterranean fleet, before sailing on a cruise to Brazil and the West Indies in company with the battlecruiser squadron.

Captain John Im Thurn was in command when Hood, accompanied by the battlecruiser HMS Repulse (1916) and Danae-class cruisers of the 1st Light Cruiser Squadron, set out on a world cruise from west to east via the Panama Canal in November 1923. The objective of the cruise was to remind the dominions of their dependence on British sea power and encourage them to support it with money, ships, and facilities. They returned home 10 months later in September 1924, having visited South Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and some smaller colonies and dependencies, and the United States.

While in Australia in April 1924, the squadron escorted the battlecruiser HMAS Australia (1911) out to sea, where she was scuttled in compliance with the Washington Naval Treaty. The battlecruiser squadron visited Lisbon in January 1925 to participate in the Vasco da Gama celebrations before continuing on to the Mediterranean for exercises. Hood continued this pattern of a winter training visit to the Mediterranean for the rest of the decade. Captain Harold Reinold relieved Captain im Thurn on 30 April 1925 and was relieved in turn by Captain Wilfred French on 21 May 1927.

Hood was given a major refit from 1 May 1929 to 10 March 1931, and afterwards resumed her role as flagship of the battlecruiser squadron under the command of Captain Julian Patterson. Later that year, her crew participated in the Invergordon Mutiny over pay cuts for the sailors. It ended peacefully and Hood returned to her home port afterwards. The battlecruiser squadron made a Caribbean cruise in early 1932, and Hood was given another brief refit between 31 March and 10 May at Portsmouth. Captain Thomas Binney assumed command on 15 August 1932 and the ship resumed her previous practice of a winter cruise in the Mediterranean the next year. Captain Thomas Tower replaced Captain Binney on 30 August 1933. Her secondary and antiaircraft fire-control directors were rearranged during another quick refit between 1 August and 5 September 1934.

While en route to Gibraltar for a Mediterranean cruise, Hood was rammed in the port side quarterdeck by the battlecruiser HMS Renown (1916) on 23 January 1935. The damage to Hood was limited to her left outer propeller and an 18 in dent, although some hull plates were knocked loose from the impact. Temporary repairs were made at Gibraltar before the ship sailed to Portsmouth for permanent repairs between February and May 1935. The captains of both ships were court-martialled, as was the squadron commander, Rear-Admiral Sidney Bailey. Tower and Bailey were acquitted, but Renown's Captain Sawbridge was relieved of command. The Admiralty dissented from the verdict, reinstated Sawbridge, and criticised Bailey for ambiguous signals during the manoeuvre.

The ship participated in King George V's Silver Jubilee Fleet Review at Spithead the following August. She was attached to the Mediterranean fleet shortly afterwards and stationed at Gibraltar at the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War in October. Captain Arthur Pridham assumed command on 1 February 1936 and Hood returned to Portsmouth for a brief refit between 26 June and 10 October 1936. She formally transferred to the Mediterranean fleet on 20 October, shortly after the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. On 23 April 1937, the ship escorted three British merchantmen into Bilbao harbour despite the presence of the Nationalist cruiser SPANISH CRUISER Almirante Cervera that attempted to blockade the port. Hood was refitted at Malta in November and December 1937, and had her submerged torpedo tubes removed. Captain Pridham was relieved by Captain Harold Walker on 20 May 1938 and he, in turn, was relieved when the ship returned to Portsmouth in January 1939 for an overhaul that lasted until 12 August.

Hood was due to be modernised in 1941 to bring her up to a standard similar to that of other modernised First World War-era capital ships. She would have received new, lighter turbines and boilers, a secondary armament of eight twin 5.25 in gun turrets, and six octuple 2-pounder "pom-poms". Her 5-inch upper-armour strake would have been removed and her deck armour reinforced. A catapult would have been fitted across the deck and the remaining torpedo tubes removed. In addition, the conning tower would have been removed and her bridge rebuilt. The ship's near-constant active service, resulting from her status as the Royal Navy's most battle-worthy fast capital ship, meant that her material condition gradually deteriorated, and by the mid-1930s, she was in need of a lengthy overhaul. The outbreak of the Second World War made removing her from service near impossible, and as a consequence, she never received the scheduled modernisation afforded to other capital ships such as Renown and several of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. The ship's condensers were in such bad condition by this time that much of the output from the fresh-water evaporators was required to replenish the boiler feedwater and could not be used by the crew to wash and bathe or even to heat the mess decks during cold weather, as the steam pipes were too leaky. These problems also reduced her steam output so that she was unable to attain her designed speed.

Second World War
Captain Irvine Glennie assumed command in May 1939 and Hood was assigned to the Home Fleet's Battlecruiser Squadron while still refitting. When war broke out later that year, she was employed principally to patrol in the vicinity of Iceland and the Faroe Islands to protect convoys and intercept German merchant raiders and blockade runners attempting to break out into the Atlantic. On 25 September 1939, the Home Fleet sortied into the central North Sea to cover the return of the damaged submarine HMS Spearfish (69S). The fleet was spotted by the Germans and attacked by aircraft from the KG 26 and KG 30 bomber wings. Hood was hit by a 250 kg bomb from a Junkers Ju 88 bomber that damaged her port torpedo bulge and her condensers. By early 1940, Hood's machinery was in dire shape and limited her best speed to 26.5 kn; she was refitted between 4 April and 12 June.

Operation Catapult
Hood and the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal (91) were ordered to Gibraltar to join Force H on 18 June where Hood became the flagship. Force H took part in the destruction of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir in July 1940. Just eight days after the French surrender, the British Admiralty issued an ultimatum that the French fleet at Oran intern its ships in a British or neutral port to ensure they would not fall into Axis hands. The terms were rejected, and the Royal Navy opened fire on the French ships berthed there. The results of Hood's fire are not known exactly, but she damaged the FRENCH BATTLESHIP Dunkerque, which was hit by four fifteen-inch shells and was forced to beach herself. Hood was straddled during the engagement by Dunkerque; shell splinters wounded two men. Dunkerque's sister ship, FRENCH BATTLESHIP Strasbourg, managed to escape from the harbour. Hood and several light cruisers gave chase, but gave up after two hours; Hood had dodged a salvo of torpedoes from a French sloop and had damaged a turbine reaching 28 kn.

Return to home waters
Hood was relieved as flagship of Force H by Renown on 10 August, after returning to Scapa Flow. On 13 September she was sent to Rosyth along with the battleships HMS Nelson (28) and HMS Rodney (29) and other ships, to be in a better position to intercept a German invasion fleet. When the threat of an invasion diminished, the ship resumed her previous roles in convoy escort and patrolling against German commerce raiders. Hood, Renown and Repulse were deployed to the Bay of Biscay on 5 November to prevent the heavy cruiser GERMAN CRUISER Admiral Scheer from using French ports after she had attacked Convoy HX 84, but the German ship continued into the South Atlantic.

In January 1941, the ship began a refit that lasted until March; even after the refit she was still in poor condition, but the threat from the German capital ships was such that she could not be taken into dock for a major overhaul until more of the King George V-class battleship (1939) battleships came into service. Captain Ralph Kerr assumed command during the refit, and Hood was ordered to sea in an attempt to intercept the German battleships GERMAN BATTLESHIP Gneisenau and GERMAN BATTLESHIP Scharnhorst upon the refit's completion in mid-March. Unsuccessful, she was ordered to patrol the Bay of Biscay against any breakout attempt by the German ships from Brest, France. Hood was ordered to the Norwegian Sea on 19 April when the Admiralty received a false report that the GERMAN BATTLESHIP Bismarck had sailed from Germany. Afterwards, she patrolled the North Atlantic before putting into Scapa Flow on 6 May.

Battle of the Denmark Strait
When Bismarck sailed for the Atlantic in May 1941, Hood, flying the flag of Vice-Admiral Lancelot Holland, together with the newly commissioned battleship HMS Prince of Wales (53), was sent out in pursuit along with several other groups of British capital ships to intercept the German ships before they could break into the Atlantic and attack Allied convoys. The German ships were spotted by two British heavy cruisers (HMS Norfolk (78) and HMS Suffolk (55)) on 23 May, and Holland's ships intercepted Bismarck and her consort, the heavy cruiser GERMAN CRUISER Prinz Eugen, in the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland on 24 May.

The British squadron spotted the Germans at 05:37 (ship's clocks were set four hours ahead of local time—the engagement commenced shortly after dawn), but the Germans were already aware of their presence, Prinz Eugen's hydrophones having previously detected the sounds of high-speed propellers to their southeast. The British opened fire at 05:52 with Hood engaging Prinz Eugen, the lead ship in the German formation, and the Germans returned fire at 05:55, both ships concentrating on Hood. Prinz Eugen was probably the first ship to score when a shell hit Hood's boat deck, between her funnels, and started a large fire among the ready-use ammunition for the anti-aircraft guns and rockets of the UP mounts. Just before 06:00, while Hood was turning 20° to port to unmask her rear turrets, she was hit again on the boat deck by one or more shells from Bismarck's fifth salvo, fired from a range of approximately 16650 m. A shell from this salvo appears to have hit the spotting top, as the boat deck was showered with body parts and debris. A huge jet of flame burst out of Hood from the vicinity of the mainmast, followed by a devastating magazine explosion that destroyed the aft part of the ship. This explosion broke the back of Hood, and the last sight of the ship, which sank in only three minutes, was her bow, nearly vertical in the water. A note on a survivor's sketch in the possession of the British Naval Historical Branch gives 63.33333°N, -31.83333°W as the position of the sinking. An apparently precise location of the wreck is given in the documentary "How the Bismarck Sank HMS Hood" as 63.40412°N, -32.0645°W. Hood sank stern first with 1,418 men aboard. Only three survived: Ordinary Signalman Ted Briggs (1923–2008), Able Seaman Robert Tilburn (1921–1995), and Midshipman William John Dundas (1923–1965). The three were rescued about two hours after the sinking by the destroyer HMS Electra (H27), which spotted substantial debris but no bodies.

Aftermath of the sinking
Prince of Wales was forced to disengage by a combination of damage from German hits and mechanical failures in her guns and turrets after Hood was sunk. Despite these problems, she had hit Bismarck three times. One of these hits contaminated a good portion of the ship's fuel supply and subsequently caused her to steer for safety in occupied France where she could be repaired. Bismarck was temporarily able to evade detection, but was later spotted and sunk on 27 May.

The official Admiralty communiqué on the loss, broadcast on the day of the sinking, reported that: "during the ... action, HMS Hood ... received an unlucky hit in a magazine and blew up." The first formal board of enquiry into the loss, presided over by Vice-Admiral Sir Geoffrey Blake, reported on 2 June, less than a fortnight after the loss. It endorsed this opinion, stating that: "(c) (The) probable cause of the loss of HMS Hood was direct penetration of the protection by one or more 15-inch shells at a range of 16500 yd, resulting in the explosion of one or more of the aft magazines."

The Vice Chief of Naval Staff, Acting Vice-Admiral Tom Phillips and others criticised the conduct of the inquiry, largely because no verbatim record of witnesses' testimony had been kept. Moreover, Sir Stanley V. Goodall, Director of Naval Construction came forward with an alternative theory, that the Hood had been destroyed by the explosion of her own torpedoes. As a result, a second Board was convened under Rear-Admiral Harold Walker and reported in September 1941. This investigation was, in the words of one author, "much more thorough than was the first, taking evidence from a total of 176 eyewitnesses to the disaster", and examined both Goodall's theory and others (see below). The Board came to a conclusion almost identical to that of the first board, expressed as follows:

"That the sinking of Hood was due to a hit from Bismarcks 15-inch shell in or adjacent to Hoods 4-inch or 15-inch magazines, causing them all to explode and wreck the after part of the ship. The probability is that the 4-inch magazines exploded first."

Both boards of enquiry exonerated Vice-Admiral Holland from any blame regarding the loss of Hood.

Memorials to those who died are spread widely around the UK, and some of the crew are commemorated in different locations. One casualty, George David Spinner, is remembered on the Portsmouth Naval memorial, the Hood Chapel at the Church of St John the Baptist, in Boldre, Hampshire, and also on the gravestone of his brother, who died while serving in the Royal Air Force in 1942, in the Hamilton Road Cemetery, Deal, Kent.

Modern theories on the sinking
The exact cause of the loss of Hood remains a subject of debate. The principal theories include the following causes:
 * A direct hit from a shell penetrated to a magazine aft. Such a shell could only have come from Bismarck, since Prinz Eugen was no longer firing at Hood at the time of the explosion. As noted above, this version of events was almost taken for granted at the time of the sinking. Doubt first arose as a result of eyewitness testimony that the explosion that destroyed Hood originated near the mainmast, well forward of the aft magazines (for example, the sketch shown prepared for the second board of enquiry by Captain Leach of Prince of Wales).

At the second board, expert witnesses suggested that what was observed was the venting, through the engine-room ventilators, of a violent—but not instantaneous—explosion or deflagration in the 4-inch shell magazines. The same deflagration would have collapsed the bulkhead separating the 4-inch and 15-inch magazines, resulting very quickly in a catastrophic explosion similar to those previously witnessed at Jutland. This theory was ultimately adopted by the board.
 * A shell, falling short and travelling underwater, struck below the armoured belt and penetrated a magazine. During the same action, Prince of Wales received a hit of this type from a 15-inch shell, which travelled underwater for about 80 ft, struck about 28 ft below the waterline, penetrated several light bulkheads and fetched up, without exploding, against the torpedo bulkhead. The second board considered this theory improbable, arguing that the fuse, had it worked at all, would have detonated the shell before it reached the ship. According to Jurens's calculations, one of Bismarck's shells that fell approximately 20 ft short of Hood could have penetrated the side of the ship beneath the armour belt and would have detonated in the vicinity of the ship's magazines if the fuse worked.
 * The ship was destroyed by the explosion of her own torpedoes. According to Goodall's theory, the ship's torpedoes could have been detonated either by the fire raging on the boat deck or, more probably, by a direct hit from Bismarck. This would have blown out the side of the ship, destroying the girder strength of the hull; the force of water entering the hole, at a speed of nearly 30 kn, would then shear the stern section from the rest of the hull.
 * The fire on the boat deck penetrated to a magazine. Evidence given to the second board indicated that the doors for the 4-inch ammunition supply trunks were closed throughout the action. It remains possible that a door or trunk could have been opened up by an enemy shell, admitting flames to the magazine. Alternative routes for admission of flame could have been the ventilation or venting arrangements of the magazines or, as Ted Briggs suggested, through the floor of a 15-inch gunhouse.
 * The explosion was initiated by 4-inch ammunition stored outside the magazines. Writing in 1979, the naval historian Antony Preston claimed that the aft magazines of Hood were "surrounded by additional 4-inch (102 mm) anti-aircraft shells outside the armoured barbettes. Such unprotected stowage could have been detonated either by the boat-deck fire or by a shell from Bismarck."
 * The ship was blown up by her own guns. At the second board, eyewitnesses reported unusual types of discharge from the 15-inch guns of Hood, suggesting that a shell could have detonated within the gun, causing an explosion within the gunhouse. It is possible that, under the stress of combat, the safety measures, introduced after the disasters at Jutland to prevent such an explosion reaching the magazines, could have failed.

An extensive review of these theories (excepting that of Preston) is given in Jurens's 1987 article. Its main conclusion is that the loss was almost certainly precipitated by the explosion of a 4-inch magazine, but that there are several ways this could have been initiated, although he rules out the boat deck fire or the detonation of her torpedoes as probable causes. In Jurens's opinion, the popular image of plunging shells penetrating Hoods deck armour is inaccurate, as by his estimation the angle of fall of Bismarcks 15-inch shells at the moment of the loss would not have exceeded about 14°, an angle so unfavourable to penetration of horizontal armour that it is actually off the scale of contemporaneous German penetration charts. Moreover, computer-generated profiles of Hood show that a shell falling at this angle could not have reached an aft magazine without first passing through some part of the belt armour. On the other hand, the 12-inch belt could have been penetrated if Hood had progressed sufficiently far into her final turn.

Inspection of the wreck has confirmed that the aft magazines did indeed explode. The stern of the Hood was located, with the rudder still in place, and it was found that this was set to port at the time of the explosion. Furthermore, a section of the bow immediately forward of 'A' turret is missing, which has led historian and former Dartmouth lecturer Eric J. Grove and expedition leader David Mearns to believe that "either just before or just after leaving the surface, the bow suffered massive internal damage from an internal explosion", possibly a partial detonation of the forward 15-inch magazines.

It has been suggested that the fatal fire spread from the aft end of the ship through the starboard fuel tanks, since the starboard side of Hood "appears to be missing most, if not all, of its torpedo bulge plating".

The evidence of the wreck refutes Goodall's theory of a torpedo explosion, while the eyewitness evidence of venting from the 4-inch magazine prior to the main explosion conflicts with the theory that the Hood was blown up by her own guns. The other theories listed above remain valid possibilities.

In their study of the battleship Bismarcks operational history released in 2019, including its engagement with Hood, Jurens, William Garzke, and Robert O. Dulin Jr. concluded that Hoods destruction was most likely caused by a 380-mm shell from Bismarck that penetrated the deck armour and exploded in the aft 4-inch magazine, igniting its cordite propellant, which in turn ignited the cordite in the adjacent aft 15-inch magazine. Rapid expansion of the resulting combustion gases from the conflagration then caused structural failure, passing out through the sides of the ship as well as forward and upwards via the engine room vents, expelling the aft main battery turrets and causing the stern to be detached from the rest of the hull at the aft armoured bulkhead.

Wreck
In 2001, British broadcaster Channel 4 commissioned shipwreck hunter David Mearns and his company, Blue Water Recoveries, to locate the wreck of Hood, and if possible, produce underwater footage of both the battlecruiser and her attacker, Bismarck. This was to be used for a major event documentary to be aired on the 60th anniversary of the ships' battle. This was the first time anyone had attempted to locate Hood's resting place. Mearns had spent the previous six years privately researching the fate of Hood with the goal of finding the battlecruiser, and had acquired the support of the Royal Navy, the HMS Hood Association and other veterans groups, and the last living survivor, Ted Briggs.

The search team and equipment had to be organised within four months, to take advantage of a narrow window of calm conditions in the North Atlantic. Organisation of the search was complicated by the presence on board of a documentary team and their film equipment, along with a television journalist who made live news reports via satellite during the search. The search team also planned to stream video from the remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) directly to Channel 4's website.

After footage of Bismarck was collected, Mearns and the search team began scanning a 600 sqnmi search box for Hood; completely covering the area was estimated to take six days. Areas that Mearns felt were more likely to hold the wreck were prioritised, and the side-scan sonar located the battlecruiser in the 39th hour of the search.

Hood's wreck lies on the seabed in pieces among two debris fields at a depth of about 2,800 m. The eastern field includes the small piece of the stern that survived the magazine explosion, as well as the surviving section of the bow and some smaller remains, such as the propellers. The 4-inch fire-control director lies in the western debris field. The heavily armoured conning tower is located by itself, a distance from the main wreck. The amidships section, the biggest part of the wreck to survive the explosions, lies inverted south of the eastern debris field in a large impact crater. The starboard side of the amidships section is missing down to the inner wall of the fuel tanks and the plates of the hull are curling outward; this has been interpreted as indicating the path of the explosion through the starboard fuel tanks.

It is further supposed that the small debris fields are the fragments from the aft hull where the magazines and turrets were located, since that section of the hull was totally destroyed in the explosion. The fact that the bow section separated just forward of 'A' turret is suggestive that a secondary explosion might have occurred in this area. Other researchers have claimed that the final salvo fired by Hood was not a salvo at all, but flame from the forward magazine explosion, which gave the illusion of Hood firing for the last time. This damage, ahead of the armoured bulkhead, could have been implosion damage suffered while Hood sank, as a torpedo room that had been removed during one of her last refits approximates the site of the break.

It was the opinion of Mearns and White who investigated the wreck that this was unlikely as the damage was far too limited in scale, nor could it account for the outwardly splayed plates also observed in that area. Bill Jurens points out that there was no magazine of any kind at the location of the break and that the location of the break just forward of the forward transverse armoured bulkhead suggests that the ship's structure failed there as a result of stresses inflicted when the bow was lifted into the vertical position by the sinking stern section. Furthermore, the current position of the plates at the edge of the break reflects only their last position, not the direction they had first moved.

The forward section lies on its port side, with the amidships section keel up. The stern section rises from the seabed at an angle. This position shows the rudder locked into a 20° port turn, confirming that orders had been given (just prior to the aft magazines detonating) to change the ship's heading and bring the aft turrets 'X' and 'Y' to bear on the German ships.

In 2002, the site was officially designated a war grave by the British government. As such, it remains a protected place under the Protection of Military Remains Act of 1986.

Expeditions to retrieve ship's bell
In 2012, the British government gave permission for Mearns to return to the site of Hood's final resting place to retrieve one of her two ship's bells which were lying in a small open debris field some way from the wreck herself. With the backing of the HMS Hood Association, Mearns planned to return the bell to Portsmouth where it would form part of the first official and permanent memorial to the sacrifice of her last crew at the newly refitted National Museum of the Royal Navy.

The expedition also took the opportunity to re-film the wreck and survey her using techniques unavailable in 2001. As before, with the exception of the attempted retrieval of the ship's bell, a strict look-but-do not-touch policy was adhered to. The original attempt, sponsored by Paul Allen and using his yacht Octopus, was abandoned after ten days in September 2012 due to unfavourable weather conditions. In 2015, the same team attempted a second recovery operation and Hood's bell was retrieved on 7 August 2015. After conservation work, Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, unveiled the bell at the museum on 24 May 2016 – the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Denmark Strait. The bell was rung eight times in a commemorative service at midday attended by descendants of crew members who died in the battle before being placed in the museum's exhibit on the Battle of Jutland.

The recovered bell was originally carried on the pre-dreadnought battleship HMS Hood (1891). Before being installed on the battlecruiser, the bell was inscribed around its base with the words: "This bell was preserved from HMS Hood battleship 1891–1914 by the late Rear Admiral, The Honourable Sir Horace Hood KCB, DSO, MVO killed at Jutland on 31st May 1916." There is a second inscription on the side of the bell that reads "In accordance with the wishes of Lady Hood it was presented in memory of her husband to HMS Hood battle cruiser the ship she launched 22nd August 1918." In addition to the two inscriptions, the bell still wears vivid royal blue paint work on its crown as well as its interior.

Surviving relics
Some relics from the time of Hood's sinking still exist. A large fragment of the wooden transom from one of Hood's boats was washed up in Norway after her loss and is preserved in the National Maritime Museum in London. A metal container holding administrative papers was discovered washed ashore on the Norwegian island of Senja in April 1942, almost a year after the Battle of the Denmark Strait. The container and its contents were subsequently lost, but its lid survived and was eventually presented to the Royal Navy shore establishment HMS Centurion in 1981.

Other surviving relics are items that were removed from the ship prior to her sinking:

5.5-inch guns
Two of Hood's 5.5-inch guns were removed during a refit in 1935, and shipped to Ascension Island, where they were installed as a shore battery in 1941, sited on a hill above the port and main settlement, Georgetown, where they remain. The guns were restored by the RAF in 1984.

The Ascension Island guns saw action only once, on 9 December 1941, when they fired on the GS U-124 (1940), as it approached Georgetown on the surface to shell the cable station or sink any ships at anchor. No hits were scored, but the submarine crash-dived and retreated.

Fragments of propeller

As a result of a collision off the coast of Spain on 23 January 1935, one of Hood's propellers struck the bow of Renown. While dry-docked for repairs, Renown had fragments of this propeller removed from her bilge section. The pieces of the propeller were kept by dockyard workers: ''"Hood" v "Renown" Jan. 23rd. 1935 was stamped on one surviving example, and "Hood V Renown off Arosa 23–1–35"'' on another. Of the known surviving pieces, one is privately held and another was given by the Hood family to the Hood Association in 2006. A third piece was found in Glasgow, where Hood was built. It is held by a private collector and stamped HMS HOOD v HMS RENOWN 23 1 35.

title: HMS Hood


text:
Flag Desecration Amendment

The Flag Desecration Amendment (often referred to as the Flag-Burning Amendment) is a proposed addition to the Constitution of the United States that would allow the U.S. Congress to prohibit by statute and provide punishment for the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States. The concept of flag desecration continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol, preserving free speech, and upholding the liberty said to be represented by that national symbol. While the proposal passed by the two-thirds majority required in the House of Representatives several times, in each instance it failed to attain the same required super-majority in the Senate, or was never voted upon in the Senate at all.

While the proposed amendment is frequently referred to colloquially in terms of expression of political views through "flag burning", the language would permit the prohibition of all forms of flag desecration, which may take forms other than burning, such as using the flag for clothing or napkins.

The most recent legislative attempt to propose a flag desecration amendment to come to a vote in both the House and Senate in the same congressional session failed in the Senate by one vote on June 27, 2006. Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) introduced a joint resolution to make it an unconstitutional ban on flag burning on June 14, 2019, and received support from the Trump administration, but the resolution was unsuccessful. Daines reintroduced the resolution on June 14, 2021.

Historical background
The first federal Flag Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1968 in response to protest burnings of the flag at demonstrations against the Vietnam War. Over time, 48 of the 50 U.S. states also enacted similar flag protection laws. In 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned all of these statutes by a 5–4 vote in the case Texas v. Johnson as unconstitutional restrictions of public expression. Congress responded to the Johnson decision afterwards by passing another flag protection act. In 1990, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Johnson by the same 5–4 majority in United States v. Eichman declaring that flag burning was constitutionally protected free speech.

In both cases, William J. Brennan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy (Kennedy also authored a separate concurrence in Johnson), and the dissenters in both cases were then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist (who authored a dissent in Johnson), and justices John Paul Stevens (who authored dissents in both cases), Byron White and Sandra Day O'Connor.

The decisions were controversial and have prompted Congress to consider the only remaining legal avenue to enact flag protection statutes—a constitutional amendment. Following the Johnson decision, successive sessions of Congress considered creating a flag desecration amendment. From 1995 to 2005, beginning with the 104th Congress, the proposed amendment was approved biennially by the two-thirds majority necessary in the U.S. House of Representatives, but it consistently failed to achieve the same constitutionally required super-majority vote in the U.S. Senate. During some sessions, the proposed amendment did not even come to a vote in the Senate before the expiration of the Congress' term. In June 2006 during the 109th Congress, the amendment failed by one vote in the Senate. Some Senate Republican aides indicated that almost a dozen of the Republican senators who voted for the amendment were privately opposed to it, and they believed that these senators would have voted to defeat the amendment if required.

Proposed amendment
The full text of the amendment (passed several times by the U.S. House of Representatives) is as follows:

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

This proposed amendment would empower Congress to enact statutes criminalizing the burning or other "desecration" of the United States flag in a public protest. The wording is permissive rather than mandatory; that is, it permits Congress to prohibit flag burning, but it does not require it. The question of whether flag burning should be banned would become a matter for the legislature to decide, rather than the courts.

Proponents of legislation to proscribe flag burning argue that burning the flag is a very offensive gesture that deserves to be outlawed. Opponents maintain that giving Congress such power would essentially limit the principle of freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and symbolized by the flag itself.

The theories underlying these First Amendment principles include: a robust national discourse about political and social ideas; individual self-realization; the search for truth; and speech as a "safety valve". These concepts are expounded in both the majority and dissenting opinions of the cases described below. There Justice William Joseph Brennan, Jr. noted that the "principal function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."

Polls
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in June 2006 has shown 56% supporting a constitutional amendment, down from 63% favoring a flag burning amendment in Gallup's 1999 poll. Another poll conducted by CNN in June 2006 also found that 56% of Americans supported a flag desecration amendment. In contrast, a summer 2005 poll by the First Amendment Center found that 63% of Americans opposed amending the constitution to outlaw flag burning, up from 53% in 2004.

A June 2020 YouGov poll found that 49% think it should be illegal to burn or intentionally destroy the flag, while 34% said it should be legal.

Congressional votes
During each term of Congress from 1995 to 2005, the proposed amendment was passed by the House of Representatives, but not the Senate, falling four votes short on two occasions in the upper house. As approved by the House of Representatives each time, the joint resolutions called for ratification by state legislatures, of which a minimum of 38 state legislative approvals would be required (three-fourths of the 50 states), within a period of seven years following the proposal by both houses of Congress. As can be seen by the votes in the House of Representatives, support for the amendment appears to be slipping with only 286 'yea' votes during the 109th Congress in 2005, in contrast to the 312 'yea' votes almost a decade earlier during the 104th.

The chronology of the Congress' action upon the flag-desecration amendment runs over a period of more than ten years:

To be added to the Constitution, it must be approved by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting in both houses of Congress, as well as be ratified by at least three-fourths of either (1) the 50 state legislatures or (2) ratifying conventions in each of the 50 states (Congress has the power to choose the mode of ratification). Senators had until the end of 2006 to take action on H.J. Res. 10 during the remainder of the 109th Congress. On March 7, 2006, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced that he would bring the bill for consideration in June 2006. On Monday, June 26, 2006, the Senate began debate on the proposed amendment. The following day, the amendment, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch, fell one vote short in the Senate, with 66 in support and 34 opposed. The Republican nay votes were Bob Bennett (UT), Lincoln Chafee (RI), and Mitch McConnell (KY). The vote on Senator Richard Durbin's alternative amendment, which would have given Congress the power to ban flag desecration intended to intimidate or breach peace on federal land, was 36–64. Opponents pointed to the proximity of the vote to the November 7, 2006 Congressional Election, and claimed that the vote (and a recent vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment) was election year grandstanding.

Potential interpretations of the amendment
In 2005, the First Amendment Center published a report titled "Implementing a Flag-Desecration Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: An end to the controversy ... or a new beginning?" The report pointed out that the effect of the proposed amendment would likely be challenged on collateral matters in ways that will require the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, to parse the exact meaning of ambiguous terms contained therein. The focus of the report was on the meanings that would be assigned to the phrases, "physical desecration" and "flag of the United States".

The phrase "physical desecration" might be open to various interpretations concerning the uncertainty of the context of desecration. For example, uncertainty exists over whether the term includes the wearing of the flag as clothing, as a tattoo, or flying a flag upside-down. It is uncertain what can be interpreted as "physical desecration". Does it require that the flag be physically damaged, or made to appear damaged? It is also unclear whether "virtual flag desecration" (which could be defined as an artistic depiction of flag desecration, a computerized simulation of flag desecration, or burning any object which has a flag on it) would be subject to the amendment. There is also the question whether the perpetrator of such an act is required to have a specific intent to "desecrate" to be prosecuted. The Report of the 108th Congress, in proposing this amendment, stated:

"... 'desecrate' means deface, damage, or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action..."

This seems to suggest that the amendment will apply only to acts where the actor intends offense.

Since the amendment would allow prohibition against only "the flag of the United States", it could be construed as only applying to flags that are the property of the United States government, as opposed to personal or private property. This language could also be interpreted as being limited to flags that meet the exact specifications for the United States flag laid out in federal law. It is unclear what effect the amendment would have with respect to former flags of the United States, such as the 48-star flag that preceded the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, or the original 13-star Betsy Ross flag, or how far from the traditional definition of a flag a symbol could deviate (for example, having orange stripes instead of red) before falling out of the ambit of the amendment's jurisdiction.

The First Amendment Center concluded that the Supreme Court was likely to interpret this language narrowly, resulting in decisions that would not satisfy either proponents or opponents of the proposed amendment. These questions would necessarily await the interpretative role of the courts, and such a process would likely require several years for the resolution of each issue.

title: Flag Desecration Amendment


text:
Talk:Danzig Research Society

Can we please not use this page as a place to edit war over the name of the city in question? If edit wars continue, it will be protected, as any other page in unstoppable edit war. Pakaran. 21:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- Im am all for that, not having edit wars. Unfortunately a number of contributors make it their business to deliberately distort history, by changing names to what they were n o t. Therefore constant corrections are required in the name of accuracy.

-

That's fine - and I agree that you're in the right on this one, especially given the name of the society itself. May I suggest you create an account and log in so you get credit for your work? Pakaran. 21:08, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Double content and blind reverts
I have to point out that user Molobo, who was blocked for ignoring the 3RR and/or for using sock puppets, inserted double content into the article. After this mess was cleaned up, Tirid Tirid who is suspected of being a sock puppet, simply reverted to this double content article, claiming to "rm POV". I urge these users and their puppet masters to stop editing wikipedia, after they have shown their inability do to so properly. --Matthead 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand the current version of this article is full of weasel terms and dubious statements... Halibutt 14:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sachsen Poland seems like a fancy way to refer to the fact that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a personal union with Saxony. However, contrary to what this article states, the town belonged to Poland at that time and not to the monarch nor to his other domain, Saxony. Also, the statement of "German-speaking Central and Eastern Europe" seems highly dubious. Where is the "German-speaking Eastern Europe"? I'd reword that to something like "society was one of the oldest research societies in Central and Eastern Europe" simply. Halibutt 14:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, the mention of the post-WWII territorial arrangements seems completely irrelevant to this article. And even if it was, it should be portrayed neutrally. It was the Potsdam agreement that gave these areas back to Poland, not just Soviet Union. Halibutt 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Danzig Research Society. 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/20060928054834/http://www.scholarly-societies.org/history/1743ngd.html to http://www.scholarly-societies.org/history/1743ngd.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050427215259/http://www.pg.gda.pl/januszajtis/2000/1.PDF to http://www.pg.gda.pl/januszajtis/2000/1.pdf

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) 18:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Danzig Research Society


text:
John Ball (golfer)

John Ball Jr. (24 December 1861 – 2 December 1940) was an English amateur golfer of the late 19th and early 20th century.

Early life
Ball was born in Hoylake, Cheshire (now Merseyside). His father was the prosperous owner of the Royal Hotel, located near the Royal Liverpool Golf Club, in Hoylake. Ball grew up playing golf as a youth on the Royal Liverpool course, which was established in his early boyhood.

In 1878, at the age of 16, Ball finished fifth in The Open at Prestwick. His run of Amateur titles began in 1888 and stretched until 1912, when he was 51 years old. His best year was 1890, when he won both the Amateur and Open Championships. Bobby Jones, who won the Grand Slam in 1930, is the only other golfer in history to win those two tournaments in the same year.

Golf career
After winning The Amateur Championship in 1888, Ball became the first English-born player to win The Open Championship in 1890, and in the same year won his second Amateur, the first to win both titles in the same year. Ball subsequently won the 1892, 1894, 1899, 1907, 1910, and 1912 Amateurs, a record eight titles in all, in addition to two runner-up finishes. Ball also won four Irish Amateur titles. He retired with a 99–22 record (81.8%) at The Amateur Championship. Ball was also runner-up in the 1892 Open Championship, finishing three strokes behind Harold Hilton.

Ball dominated amateur golf in Great Britain. He won all the important golf championships as well as the hearts and respect of his country. In the words of British golf historian Donald Steele, "No golfer ever came to be more of a legend in his own lifetime."

Although he gripped the club tightly in the palms of both hands, Ball's swing was the most graceful and stylish of his era. Bernard Darwin wrote, "I have derived greater aesthetic and emotional pleasure from watching John Ball than from any other spectacle in the game." Ball learned the game competing against Harold Hilton on the links at Hoylake. In 1878, at the age of 16, he competed in his first Open Championship and finished fourth at Prestwick. Ball was famous for refusing to carry a niblick, which had the loft of a modern-day 8- or 9-iron. He scorned the use of that club, describing it as "another bloody spade," and admonished the Rules of Golf Committee of the Royal and Ancient for permitting such horrid-looking contraptions to be allowed in competition. In a bunker, Ball would simply lay open the blade of a mid-iron and float the ball toward the hole with a smooth swing. He disliked the introduction of the increasing number of shallow cross bunkers to many courses, often parkland courses, calling them in derisory terms, ' geranium beds'.

It was this stubbornness and dogged determination that made Ball such a lion in match play. Darwin once noted that Ball had "a strong vein of hostility and if he wanted a particular player's blood, he would fight his way through a tournament with the sole object of getting at him." Darwin added, "That was not a personal hostility, but rather a desire to measure himself against a foe really worthy of him."

Words from Ball are hard to find. He was a shy, modest man who went about his business promptly without wasted motion. In his book, Sixty Years of Golf, Robert Harris wrote that "John's soft, whispering voice, his stoicism, his pawky jibs at easy rules and innovations, his relentless criticism of moderns with their fuss, and his total outlook on the game, were the very essence of golf."

Death and legacy
Ball died in Holywell, Wales, on 2 December 1940. Ball served his country during the Second Boer War. He was inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame in 1977, and in 2018 a blue plaque was installed at Royal Liverpool Golf Club to commemorate his achievements.

Tournament wins

 * Note: This list may be incomplete.

 * 1888 The Amateur Championship, St. George's Challenge Cup
 * 1889 St. George's Challenge Cup
 * 1890 The Amateur Championship, St. George's Challenge Cup, The Open Championship
 * 1891 St. George's Challenge Cup
 * 1892 The Amateur Championship
 * 1893 Irish Amateur Open Championship,
 * 1894 The Amateur Championship, Irish Amateur Open Championship
 * 1899 The Amateur Championship, Irish Amateur Open Championship,
 * 1907 The Amateur Championship
 * 1910 The Amateur Championship
 * 1912 The Amateur Championship

Club competitions

 * Royal Liverpool Golf Club
 * 1881 Autumn Dowie Silver Cup Medal, Autumn Kennard Gold Medal, St. Andrews Day Gold Cross
 * 1882 Club Spring Gold Medal, Spring Connaught Challenge Star Medal, Autumn Dowie Silver Cup Medal, Autumn Kennard Gold Medal
 * 1883 Club Spring Gold Medal, Summer Lubbock Gold Medal, Autumn Kennard Gold Medal, St. Andrews Day Gold Cross
 * 1884 Spring Connaught Challenge Star Medal, Summer Lubbock Gold Medal, Autumn Dowie Silver Cup Medal
 * 1885 Club Spring Gold Medal, Summer Lubbock Gold Medal, Autumn Dowie Silver Cup Medal, Autumn Kennard Gold Medal
 * 1886 Summer Lubbock Gold Medal, Autumn Dowie Silver Cup Medal, Autumn Kennard Gold Medal, St. Andrews Day Gold Cross
 * 1887 Club Spring Gold Medal, Spring Connaught Challenge Star Medal, Summer Lubbock Gold Medal, Autumn Dowie Silver Cup Medal, Autumn Kennard Gold Medal, St. Andrews Day Gold Cross, Spring Challenge Vase, Spring Muir Jug
 * 1889 Club Spring Gold Medal, Spring Connaught Challenge Star Medal, Autumn Dowie Silver Cup Medal
 * 1892 Club Spring Gold Medal, Spring Connaught Challenge Star Medal, Autumn Dowie Silver Cup Medal, Autumn Kennard Gold Medal, St. Andrews Day Gold Cross
 * 1893 Summer Lubbock Gold Medal, St. Andrews Day Gold Cross, Silver Bowl

 * Leasowe Golf Club
 * 1899 Harvie Prize, Captain's Prize

Sources:

Results timeline
Note: Ball only played in The Open Championship and The Amateur Championship. {{legend|lime|Win}} {{legend|yellow|Top 10}} {{legend|#eeeeee|Did not play}} LA = Low amateur NYF = Tournament not yet founded NT = No tournament CUT = missed the half-way cut WD = withdrew "T" indicates a tie for a place R256, R128, R64, R32, R16, QF, SF = Round in which player lost in match play

Team appearances

 * England–Scotland Amateur Match (representing England): 1902, 1903 (winners), 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910 (winners), 1911, 1912
 * Coronation Match (representing the Amateurs): 1911

title: John Ball (golfer)