text:
All Good Things... (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

"All Good Things..." is the series finale of the syndicated American science fiction television series Star Trek: The Next Generation. It comprises the 25th and 26th episodes of the seventh season and is the 177th and 178th episodes of the series overall. It aired on May 23, 1994. The title is derived from the expression "All good things must come to an end", a phrase used by the character Q during the episode itself.

Set in the 24th century, the series follows the adventures of the Starfleet crew of the Federation starship Enterprise-D. The plot involves Captain Jean-Luc Picard jumping through time and the formation of an anomaly that defies causality, the whole situation being a test that allows Picard to demonstrate human potential to the Q Continuum by making an intuitive leap of faith to understand the cause of, and how to eliminate, the anomaly before it destroys humanity.

The finale received universal acclaim, and marked the transition of the cast to films featuring the show's cast and settings, as well as passing the television audience to Star Trek spin-offs based on similar settings to The Next Generation.

Plot
Capt. Jean-Luc Picard inexplicably finds his mind jumping among three points in time: the present (stardate 47988); seven years earlier, just prior to the starship USS Enterprise-D's first mission during the episode "Encounter at Farpoint"; and over twenty-five years into the future, where an aged Picard has retired to the family vineyard in La Barre, France. These jumps occur without warning, and the resulting discontinuity in Picard's behavior leaves him and those around him confused and concerned about his mental health.

In the present, Picard is ordered to take the Enterprise to the edge of the Romulan Neutral Zone to investigate a spatial anomaly. In the future, he convinces his ex-wife, Dr. Beverly Picard, to take him on the USS Pasteur to find the anomaly. In the past, despite having Enterprise's mission to Farpoint Station cancelled by Starfleet to investigate the anomaly, Picard insists on continuing, believing the impending encounter with the omnipotent being Q to be more important. After reaching the place where he had first encountered Q, Picard finds himself back in Q's courtroom as seen in the first episode. Q reveals that the trial never concluded, and the current situation is humanity's last chance to prove themselves to the Q Continuum, but he secretly reveals that he is the cause of Picard's time jumping. Q challenges Picard to solve the mystery of the anomaly, cryptically stating that Picard will destroy humanity.

As Picard arrives at the anomaly in all three time periods, he discovers that the anomaly is much larger in the past, but does not exist at all in the future. As the past and present Enterprises scan the anomaly with inverse tachyon pulse beams, the Pasteur is attacked by Klingon ships, but the crew is saved due to the timely arrival of the Enterprise under the command of Admiral William Riker. Q once again appears to Picard and takes him to Earth 3.5 billion years ago, where the anomaly, growing larger as it moves backwards in time, has enveloped the whole of the Alpha Quadrant and has prevented the formation of life on Earth. When Picard returns to the future, he discovers the anomaly has just appeared, created as a result of his orders, and the tachyon pulses from the three eras are sustaining it. Data and Geordi determine the anomaly is an anti-time rift and that they can stop it by having all three Enterprises fly into the center of it and create static warp shells. Picard relays the orders to each Enterprise. Each ship suffers catastrophic damage, with Q telling the future Picard that "all good things must come to an end" just before the future Enterprise explodes.

Picard finds himself facing Q in the courtroom as before. Q congratulates Picard for being able to think in multiple timelines simultaneously to solve the puzzle, which is proof that humanity can still evolve, much to his surprise. Q admits to helping Picard solve it with the time jumping, since he was the one that put them in this situation, and then goes on to explain that the anomaly has been stopped and that his past and present have been restored. He then withdraws from the courtroom and bids farewell to Picard by saying "See you ... out there". Picard then returns to the Enterprise of the present, no longer jumping through time.

As the senior staff members play their regular poker game, they reflect on the details of the future the captain related to prevent them from drifting apart. For the first time, Picard decides to join the game, expressing regret he had not done so before, and being reminded that he was always welcome.

Production
Ronald D. Moore and Brannon Braga expected Michael Piller, the show's head writer and one of its executive producers, or Jeri Taylor would write the finale; consequently, they wound up writing "All Good Things..." concurrently with Star Trek Generations, often confusing aspects of the two. The finale took a month to write.

The idea of what the series finale should be about had been a matter of discussion in the writers' room for a year or two prior to the finale being written. The writers knew early on they wanted to do an episode featuring Q, to "bookend" his key role in the pilot. An early draft of the script for the episode included a section with Captain Picard as Locutus of Borg, but was cut on the insistence of Piller, who thought the show worked best with fewer timelines to jump between. According to Braga, Hugh, the rescued Borg from "I, Borg" would have appeared, rescuing Picard from the Borg Collective. Also cut from the script was a segment where the crew had to steal the Enterprise from a Starfleet museum (similar to events in the movie Star Trek III: The Search for Spock). The final scene, in which the crew play a hand of poker together, was the last scene shot for the show.

John de Lancie returned for his recurring role as Q. Former cast members Denise Crosby (whose regular character Tasha Yar had died in the first season, and who had made two guest appearances since) and Colm Meaney (who had left the series during the sixth season, when his recurring character Miles O'Brien became a regular on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), reprised their roles for scenes set in the past.

The vineyard scene was shot at Callaway Vineyard and Winery in Temecula in southern California, in the United States.

As the final scenes were filmed on the last day, the support staff and production crew came down to the set to see the end of the shoot on the series.

A behind-the-scenes retrospective documentary called Journey's End: The Saga of Star Trek: The Next Generation, hosted by Jonathan Frakes, was filmed at the same time as the finale was being produced.

Reception
The finale was said to be written as a "valentine" to the show's fans, and is often regarded as one of the series' best episodes.

Broadcast
Both parts of "All Good Things..." were first broadcast on May 23, 1994, in broadcast syndication. It received Nielsen ratings of 17.4, placing it in first place in its timeslot. This was the highest rating received by any episode of the season, and of the series. Until the broadcast of the episodes, the previously highest rated broadcast of The Next Generation had been the pilot episode, "Encounter at Farpoint", with Nielsen ratings of 15.7.

Critical reception
Contemporary reviews were positive. In 1994, USA Today called the two-part finale a "picture-perfect" ending to the series, giving it 3 1/2 stars out of 4. "All Good Things..." won the 1995 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, and helped the show earn a 1994 Emmy nomination for Outstanding Drama Series.

The episode ranked fifth in Entertainment Weekly's list of top 10 Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) episodes in 2007. In 2011, Zack Handlen of The A.V. Club gave both parts of the two-hour finale an 'A' rating. Writing for Tor.com, Keith DeCandido lauded the episode; comparing it favorably against other Star Trek series finales, he felt that "All Good Things..." is "the perfect ending to [The Next Generation]", bringing events full circle back to series premiere "Encounter at Farpoint", showcasing the talents of the entire cast, as well as keeping its optimistic "Roddenberrian view of humanity." He also compared the show favorably with the best episodes of the seventh season, including "Parallels", "The Pegasus", and "Lower Decks".

In 2015, The Hollywood Reporter noted this episode's scene where Picard sits down at the card game table as one of the top ten "most stunning" moments of TNG. In 2016, SyFy ranked "All Good Things..." as the 4th best time travel plot of all Star Trek television episodes, and Radio Times ranked the final scene the 8th best moment in all Star Trek, noting Troi's line about Picard having been welcome to join their game, and Picard's line "The sky's the limit" with the camera pulling away on the group before credits roll. IGN ranked this the 7th best episode of all Star Trek series prior to Star Trek: Discovery.

Marcus Berkmann's book Set Phasers to Stun: 50 Years of Star Trek said of the episode, "[it] is about symmetry, squaring the circle, giving shape to the series and also to the universe in which the series exists." In 2017, Den of Geek ranked this episode as one of top 25 "must watch" episodes of TNG when paired with the series pilot "Encounter at Farpoint."[42] In 2017, Nerdist ranked this finale the tenth best episode of TNG.

Io9/Gizmodo ranked the fictional spacecraft design shown in this episode, Admiral Riker's Enterprise-D from the future, as the 6th of 11 Enterprises in the Star Trek franchise. CBR ranked this episode the fifth best time-travel episode of all Star Trek. ThoughtCo ranked the episode as the 4th best episode of this series, pointing out that it is rare for a finale of a television show to be as well received by audiences as this one was. Also in 2019, The Hollywood Reporter ranked "All Good Things..." among the top twenty five episodes of TNG. Screen Rant ranked "All Good Things..." the seventh best episode of TNG. They also ranked it as the most important episode to watch in preparation for the series Star Trek: Picard.

The Digital Fix said this was the third best episode of TNG. SciFiPulse.net ranked this episode one of the top seven about Picard. ScreenRant said this was the best Star Trek series finale, stating that it's the "well-known, beloved king of finales." Cinemablend ranked this one of the top ten episodes of TNG. Tom's Guide said that this was the best episode for Q, and a great send-off for the character.

Home media release and other adaptations
"All Good Things..." was originally released on VHS in the UK in its original 90 minute version, it was then re-released a few months later with a retrospective documentary "Journey's End: The Saga Of Star Trek: The Next Generation" as well as trailers for all seven Star Trek feature films. It was later released as a standalone Blu-ray with exclusive features.

On July 7, 1997 "All Good Things..." was released on a PAL-format LaserDisc in the United Kingdom, for 19.98 pounds.

This was released in Japan on LaserDisc on October 9, 1998, as part of the half-season collection Log.14: Seventh Season Part.2. This set included episodes from "Lower Decks" to Part II of "All Good Things", with English and Japanese audio tracks.

A novelization of the episode was published by Pocket Books in June 1994. It was written by Michael Jan Friedman in two weeks. It was published in hardcover and as a result, Friedman looked to expand on the episode to warrant the release. Scenes featuring Katherine Pulaski, Lwaxana Troi and Wesley Crusher were added. He suggested that the inclusion of further scenes with other characters made the novelization more of an ensemble piece rather than the actual episode which is very Picard focused. It was one of five novelizations to be made of The Next Generation episodes, alongside "Encounter at Farpoint", "Unification", "Relics" and "Descent".

The paid online/streaming version of this episode, such as through Amazon Prime Video and/or a Paramount+ subscription, is a condensed cut for syndication. For example, sections of dialogue are missing from Part II, such as the exchange between Worf and Picard at 51:05, when Worf says "You have always used your knowledge of Klingon honor and tradition to get what you want from me..."

Legacy
Writers for the TV show Lost cited Picard's time travel in the episode "All Good Things..." as a reference for how characters traveled through time in their 2008 episode "The Constant".

After, and even during the time film shooting wrapped up for TNG, work also focused on the film Generations which was released later that year in 1994. Meanwhile, a successor to TNG, Star Trek: Voyager was in development and was shooting by later in 1994, and aired in January 1995 for the launch of UPN. The launch episode, one of the most expensive in TV history at $23 million, was watched by about 21.3 million people.

The 1995 Star Trek novel Crossover by Michael Jan Friedman is set after this episode but before the movie Generations.

According to producer Kevin Feige, "All Good Things..." served as an inspiration for character evolution in Avengers: Endgame.


text:
Talk:Moment magnitude scale

Re contested contribution
Dr. Ampuero: I thank you for your interest in contributing, and please convey my thanks to Dr. Heaton for his interest. However, Wikipedia is not entirely free-form in how we go about matters; there are certain policies and processes we need to conform to. These are often a bit clunky (which is to say, not yet perfect), but that is how things are. If you won't mind, I would like to offer some guidance that will make the process of contributing easier.

Please note that First and foremost is the policy of ] (often referred to as [[WP:V). Basically it means that all content is based on reliable, published sources, and must be cited to those sources. Even if Dr. Heaton personally wrote and signed the material you added, that is not adequate: it has to be attributed to a verifiable source. (I note that this material does contain citations, albeit incomplete. Those are fixable, so not really at issue.)

But if the text you added is verbatim from a source, then, as Jasper Deng noted in his edit summary, there is a possible copyright issue. This may require some discussion.

I point out that while "boldness" in editing is encouraged, reversion should also be respected. In particular, immediately restoring your material is improper. (See WP:BRD for an explanation.) So please understand that my undoing of your edit should not be taken as lack of appreciation, but that there are some issues that need to be resolved. Particularly: is the material you added verbatim from a soucrce? And if so, what source? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Dear J. Johnson: Thank you for the much needed explanation of the process. The text I added was written by Prof. Heaton after a coffee hour discussion we had at the Caltech Seismolab, together with Prof. Kanamori, in 2015. Prof. Kanamori, now retired, was one of the authors of the scientific article that defines the moment magnitude scale. The three of us are colleagues at the Caltech Seismolab, the place where the magnitude scales originated, including Richter's. A result of that discussion was the idea to improve the Wikipedia pages on moment magnitude scale and seismic moment. Prof. Heaton emailed me this text circa 03/23/2015, asking me to incorporate it in Wikipedia. He is fully aware that the text can be modified (and hopefully improved) by the community. I wrote "verbatim" in my edit summary just to record that this is really a contribution to Wikipedia by Prof. Heaton. Please let me know how to proceed now. Ampuero (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I made other edits to the article today, some are substantial and intended to fix common misconceptions. Hopefully it is more clear now how my edits you deleted last night will fit with the rest of the article. I intend to polish the whole if you restore my edits. Ampuero (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Wow! Look at the that guy go!!

 * You're getting ahead of me. In particular, I can't restore your earlier edits without losing the subsequent edits. It's probably easiest and best to just proceed from where we are at. The important thing is that what ever you add (aside from short quotes) is not verbatim text of anything that has been published anywhere else; that would raise a copyright issue. If someone advises you on what to add, no problem, but note that you are responsible for whatever you add.

 * All (essentially) needs to be attributed to a source. I see you are adding sources, but there are some details that need work. As the previous "style" of citation used here wasn't so great I am going to just run through and switch every thing to a better style. The main points are that all the sources will have full citations in the "Sources" section, done up in templates, and "in-line" cites will be "short-cites". Well, as I find time to do that.

 * One point of contention: isn't ML still determined in many places? On that basis shouldn't the section header refer to "Richter scale" not as a "former scale", but the "original scale"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, ML is used everywhere for small earthquakes, because seismic moment (the quantity needed to compute Mw) cannot be measured if the earthquake is too small and waves are too attenuated. So I agree the header should read "original scale". Perhaps the view that Richter's scale is obsolete comes from the fact that Mw supersedes ML for large earthquakes and by design matches ML for moderate-size earthquakes. That covers most earthquakes that matter to the public in highly seismic places (like California). However, the small earthquakes, for which we can't measure Mw, are of public concern in places that are not traditionally exposed to earthquakes. These include regions that have been recently exposed to anthropogenic seismicity induced by gas production, waste water disposal, etc, where houses were not built with earthquakes in mind. I may add somewhere a note about the use of ML after adding more explanation about how seismic moment is measured/estimated. Ampuero (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * My understanding (for what all it's worth) is that Mw is now the standard scale (in part because it is derivable from physical parameters), and the preferred scale for events over ~ M 5 (because it is non-saturating). I don't see "not traditionally[historically?]exposed to earthquakes" as significant; but perhaps ML is more significant for small "local" (i.e., non-teleseismic) quakes that might not register out of the area? I have also seen comments that ML is faster, easier to calculate (for a preliminary determination), but is that still a factor, given all the fancy software available nowadays?

 * Other questions come to mind in connection with the magnitude template I'm working on; I'll ping you from there later on. Right now I'm going to work on the citations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * You just trashed some complicated edits I was doing. Please back-off until I give an all-clear. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Sorry about that newbie mistake, I did not realize you were working on it. Ampuero (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * My speculation about why someone would write "former scale" (which I interpreted as meaning "obsolete scale") comes from seeing seismologists frustrated with the habit of media reporters to call all magnitudes Richter (as noted at the end of the intro of this wiki article). The official earthquake catalogs of the Southern California Seismic Network use Richter ML for M<4ish. Otherwise we use Mw. That is what "preferred" means: we use it when possible. But reporters in California never report about small M<4 earthquakes, so they are never accurate to report the official magnitude as Richter magnitude. However, in Groningen, The Netherlands, the public can make a big deal of a M3ish earthquake and Dutch reporters are very likely correct to report its M as a Richter magnitude. It would be less confusing if reporters just dropped the "on Richter's scale", but they have their own ways. A reporter / science writer's perspective here: https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/June-2007/Off-the-Scale . See also this twitter thread: https://twitter.com/seismo_steve/status/893862117136269312 Ampuero (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I suspect "former" was (vaguely subconciously?) meant in respect of former status as the standard scale. At any rate, the point about "M" no longer being de facto "Richter" is made at several articles, so eventually it will become general knowledge. One small problem is that the USGG website that used to explain this (see the notes) was removed when the USGS did their big, website revamp.

 * I am done for now (the "in-use" tag is removed); won't get to the other questions till tonight at the earliest. You might notice: 1) use of {citation} templates instead of {cite}; 2) full citations in text moved to "Sources" and 3) replaced with short-cites ({Harv} templates). Still more cleanup needed. More on this later. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * You might also notice that I generally have "p=" in my short-cites. It's reminder to editors that we really should have the "in-source specifier" – usually the page number — showing where the material is taken from. If you have any those specifics it would be good to add them. (They are expected for a "Good Article" rating, which I think this could shape up to.)

 * Thanks for adding Thatcher & Hanks. (I had it, then it disappeared. And most suspiciously, Hanks & Kanamori showed up doubled.Hmm.) I also found a detailed citation for Kostrov, 1977. But if you have a copy of it available you might want to check it. I also took out the inconsequential "Magnitude and Intensity" section; I think it is better handled at at Seismic scale. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Just happened to click on your twitter url, and ... there's something ironic: the "Daily Mail" finally gets something right, but it's essentially banned from Wikipedia. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"Nuclear explosions"?
Should the "Nuclear explosions" section be deleted?

While readers might be interested in the seismic equivalent of a nuclear explosion, the essence of the matter is, as stated: "Such comparison figures are not very meaningful." But as currently written the section gets there in rather round-about way, with a lot more detail than is necessary. Even worse, that section is effectively unsourced: the first note is from a Congressional report with no sources, and no attribution, and fails as a reliable source; the other two sources are 404 urls.

As this article has been written at technical level, it should have primary and secondary sources (perhaps textbooks), not blogs. And regardless of the level of the intended audience, it is probably sufficient to explain why the comparison is not meaningful, rather than work out a result only to throw it away.

I am inclined towards deletion. Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I will ask colleagues in this sub-field of Seismology if they care about this section and can improve it. Ampuero (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Quite aside from poor structure and inadequate citation, I doubt that such a section is really germane. If someone wanted to know how a nuclear blast compares with an earthquake, perhaps that could be addressed at seismic moment. But I don't see it as being significant for moment magnitude scale. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Formatting markup
In this article formulas are displayed using the <math> tag, which generates large and bolded LaTex output. For formulas on their own line this is standard and acceptable. However, the same markup has also been used in the text for the sole purpose of formatting the several magnitude scales. That is an undesirable use, as the large and bolded result (e.g.: $$M_w$$) is TOO LOUD, and rather intimidating. It is also unnecessary, as the M template is now available that provides a more reasonable result. (And is easier to use, and provides other features including more consistent use across the encyclopedia.) I am therefore replacing in-line instances of  (and similar instances) with. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Mw comparisons. Need a good chart.
I am going to remove the table under Moment_magnitude_scale. It is not well done, does not provide a good sense of how relates to  (or any other scale), it's just so much clutter.

What we need is a well-done graph, such as Utsu's 2002 figure 1, showing "Relationship between magnitude scales" (seen here as figure 7). Or even Kanamori's (1983) figure 4b. But both of those are copyrighted. Maybe someone knows how to create a similar chart? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

With all that high-grade talent you hang out with, is there any chance you could get someone to contribute a publication grade graph showing the interrelation of the several scales? Some good ones have been done, but the main problem is getting one that the creator (or copyright owner) will grant copyright permission. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * There is not enough information in Utsu (2002) to reproduce his figure conveniently: no equations are given for the curves; the method may be explained in more detail in Utsu (1982) but in Japanese. Fig 4 in Kanamori (1983) is basically a hand drawn sketch from his fig 1. You could try to do the same. These relations between magnitudes are not commonly used by seismologists. We rarely try to convert from one magnitude to another (there are exception of course, like this one from my own work). The different magnitude scales measure different aspects of an earthquake, hence such conversions have a large scatter and using them can lead to loss of information. Ampuero (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I understand about about the doubtfulness of intermagnitude conversions, but was thinking such a graph might convey to non-experts how the scales diverge. Oh, well. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 * You can use figure 6 of Heaton, T.H., Tajima. F., and Mori, A.W., 1986, Estimating ground motions using recorded accelerograms, Surveys in Geophysics, V. 8, pp 25-83 PDF. Tom Heaton wrote to me "I was usgs and thus there is no copyright on this figure. This figure was used by many and often without even a reference." Ampuero (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hey, that will be great. I was looking at another version of that figure, but didn't know if that came under the government exemption. I'll see about grabbing it, but probably won't get to it till after GSA. And of course I'll see that there is credit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I noticed a figure has been added, but its attribution (a URL linking to US Dept of Transportation) seems incorrect. It looks a lot like fig 6 of Heaton et al (1986 PDF).Ampuero (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Hi Pablo! Good to hear from you. I have been formulating some questions for you; perhaps tomorrow.
 * Yes, the key part of that diagram (File:Moment_Magnitude.gif), the data lines, are identical to Fig. 6; someone has merely added the grid and replaced the annotations. (I thought it looked familiar.) And the documentation on WikiCommons is quite deficient. (No creator given, the url does not show that figure, etc.) So: possible copyright violation. I have run out of time for today, but I'll look into this tomorrow. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 * There some sticky issues with that file, so I have asked for advice. For starters, that image isn't really figure 6, it's a look-alike that copied in the data curves of figure 6. Whether that would be a copyright violation I don't know, but if Tom objected I can have the image here "speedily deleted".
 * As to retaining it: as far as I can tell Tom and his coauthors are the creators, but it is not clear if he produced it as a USGS employee. And I don't know how the non-federal status of the coauthors affects this. If Tom has the original graph (from which the published version was derived) and wanted to contribute it, I could make a replacement file. Perhaps you could check with him about this? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Never mind! The source of this file is doubtful (likely Kanamori's), and the essential elements may be under copyright. I have removed it from this article, and it is subject to deletion from WikiCommons. I have in mind a better figure, but don't currently have the time to pick out the data. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove "Nuclear explosions" section?
I propose removal of the Moment magnitude scale section. I would argue that nuclear (or any other kind of) explosions and earthquakes are not directly comparable, and attempting to do so (without more explanation than is suitable here) is misleading. Distinguishing between explosions and quakes is certainly notable, but more for seismology generally; it has nothing to do with this scale. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I second your proposal. Ampuero (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Agree that this should be done. Mikenorton (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Done! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moment magnitude scale. 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/20160504144754/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/docs/020204mag_policy.php to https://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/docs/020204mag_policy.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iris.iris.edu/HQ/Bluebook/chapter5.magnitude.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moment magnitude scale. 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/20090227061735/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/glossary.php to https://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/glossary.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501175603/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=2&faqID=33 to https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=2&faqID=33
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509070347/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/faq.php?categoryID=2 to https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/faq.php?categoryID=2

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) 01:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

On citing equations
Regarding a recent edit summary by Actually, we do need to cite where equations come from. They are (essentially) being quoted, and per our core content policy WP:Verifiability: "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Sure, this is often scamped, but continuance of a bad habit should not be taken as justification.

Proper citation is essential for verification, especially when there are (as we have been having) little spats as to the correct details. Resolution of such matters is generally by getting everyone's eyeballs on the same source. This should be cited immediately adjacent to the equation (not just casually mentioned somewhere in the text). And we really should have an in-source specification such as a page number, else we can't find the equation or formula cited, or (even worse) we find a slightly different formula. (Incidentally: the "named-ref" construction does not allow in-source specification; please use harv templates instead.)

As to the case at hand, the text in the "Definition" section is currently:

Note [12] is to Kanmori 1977, but without any page or equation numbers. The problem is: that formula does not appear in Kanamori 1977. It appears in Kanamori 1978 (but not cited here), and in Hanks & Kanamori 1979 (note [1]) but again without page or equation numbers. Which MAKES ALL OF THIS REALLY HARD TO VERIFY!

So we need to not only cite equations (or rather, their source), but also consider their placement (unambiguously associated with the equation) and specification (page number and, ideally, equation number).

There is also the matter of: which source to use. E.g., can anyone explain why credit for devising the moment magnitude scale is usually given to Kanamori 1978 1977 (his JGR article), which doesn't carry his work through to the actual formula, but not to his 1978 article in Nature, which shows the formula?

Similarly: why do modern sources credit Hanks & Kanamori 1979 with the coefficient of 16.05, though that value appears no where in that paper? (See also Tom Heaton's six-year old comment here.)

I am putting together a table with my best representation of the Mw formula in various sources so that as we sort through this we can be better assured we're all looking at the same item. When I am done other editors should double-check these against the originals. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 * The formula doesn't appear in Kanamori 1977 but he does describe exactly how to make it, without actually writing down the result. Once you have his equation 4' and combine it with the Gutenberg-Richter relation (in the way that he describes) you have the formula. Hanks and Kanamori reference the 1977 paper for the derivation. We could perhaps for completeness cite both the 1977 and 1978 papers. Mikenorton (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You refer to a Kanamori JGR paper in 1978 - I'm not seeing it, what's its title? Mikenorton (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry; the JGR paper is 1977. Citations in the article.
 * I understand that Kanamori is credited with working out how to do the calculations in 1977, and even actually doing them, but the plain fact is he did not explicitly present the formula until 1978. In a WP perspective, doing the derivation would be WP:OR, not, I think, a "routine calculation" covered by WP:CALC. For purposes of verification we could cite some else as crediting the formula to "Kanamori 1977" (just as we could cite someone else for crediting the 16.05 coefficient to Hanks and Kanamori 1979), but citing the putative source directly clearly fails verification. Accurate presentation of these matters requires some care. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I would replace that particular reference by Kanamori (Nature 1978), which is the first publication where the equation appears in that particular form.Ampuero (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Table of Mw formula variants
Best representations of Mw formula variants from different sources. These should be double-checked. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 * The bottom two are swapped (using this IASPEI source for equations 7a & 7b), but otherwise all checks out. Mikenorton (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. (That's why we check!) And I just unswitched them (SI gets the 9.1). Incidentally, what you cited is the 2013 Summary of the WG's recommendations, what I cited is the 2014 Information Sheet 3.3 ("The new IASPEI standards ..."). Which (except for the equation numbers) have identical wording. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

<math> or math?
While trying to display the Hanks & Kanamori 1979 equation 7 (above) in <math> I have difficulty rendering their bold, non-italic "M". Perhaps someone could explain how to do that, but I got wondering (again): (a) Do we have to use <math>? (b) Is it really useful to display equations so $$BIG and BOLD$$? E.g., I am a lot less intimidated by math equations than the most readers, yet even I have often felt put off by Wikipedia pages with such powerful expositions of $$Math$$ (rendered in <math>!). As an alternative, it seems to me that for most cases math is easier to use and displays just as well. Examples:
 * (1) $$ M = {\frac{2}{3}}\log M_0 - 10.7$$
 * (2) $M = 2⁄3 log M 10.7$
 * (3) $M = (log M/1.5) – 10.7$

(1) is in standard <math> markup, with the incorrectly italicized M, and everything is bolded. (2) is in {math} markup, with a correct M, and a tad less bolding. This is also wrapped in <big> to make it the same size as (1). (3) is normal size {math} markup, and a lot less intimidating. And the most accurate representation of the original equation.

Wouldn't the less intimidating {math} format be better? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 * It's not something that bothers me too much personally, but I think that the {math} markup is probably better. Mikenorton (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 * It seems to have been an issue years ago at MOS, though I have yet to dig through all that. As no one has objected, I have started replacing formulas here with {math} renditions, though I'll wrap them in <big> for now so there is less dissonance. For a while we will have both forms in this article, which might be useful for comparison. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead section
I am trying to work up a better lead section, but having a little difficulty pulling together anything entirely satisfying; would be interested in comments on the following candidate. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 * My only concern is that seismic moment is not really the "work done in producing the earthquake". This is a usual confusion stemming from at least two reasons:
 * 1. Units: The units of moment are N.m, the same units as work and energy. But seismic moment is actually the torque (also in N.m) of each of the two force-couples in the double-couple representation of an earthquake. This is somewhat clarified later in the article, in a brief note within brackets, but it would be useful to avoid perpetuating the confusion between work and torque in other parts of the article.
 * 2. History: The initial intent of the moment magnitude was really to measure radiated energy, but the quantity used for practical purposes (seismic moment) was actually a measure of something else. This is, I hope, sufficiently described in the historical section of the article and in the section about energy. The issue is also being pointed out in the literature, e.g. Okal 2019: "we stress the significant scientific value of reporting radiated seismic energy independently of seismic moment (or of reporting several types of magnitude), in order to fully document the rich diversity of seismic sources" (that paper dives deeply into the history and pitfalls of the empirical relation between magnitude and energy developed by Gutenberg and Richter, which was a (imperfect) building block in the development of the moment magnitude scale).
 * I do realize the lead section should be accesible to a broad audience and the relation to torque cannot be grasped before understanding the concept of double-couple. For the sake of accuracy, I would remove the note about "work" in the lead section and other sections. Ampuero (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Hi Ampuero, it's nice to hear from you. From my studies earlier this year I think I have a better grasp of what you are talking about. And I would love it if we could work out a way of explaining that so most readers would understand it. Unfortunately I'm currently pretty much fully engaged on some other work that has a stronger claim to importance and priority, so it will likely be a couple of months before I can get back here. But I am looking forward to it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Consistently with section Relations between seismic moment, potential energy released and radiated energy, I suggest we remove "(a measure of the work done by the earthquake)" from the lead section. Moreover, in section Seismic moment, I suggest we replace "a measure of the work accomplished by the faulting of an earthquake ..." by "a measure of the fault slip and area involved in the earthquake. Its value is the torque of each of the two force couples that form the earthquake's equivalent double-couple".Ampuero (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks Ampuero, I've made your suggested changes. I wasn't so sure about the paranthetic sentence that followed the second change - is that still helpful? Mikenorton (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 * It's useful, but not essential because the interested reader can find that more technical information in the Seismic Moment page Ampuero (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks, I'll leave it be. Mikenorton (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of "local magnitude scale"
Manual of Style/Capital letters says that scientific terms like "local magnitude scale" are lowercase, unless they are derived from proper nouns. If the convention was to capitalize, it would be "Local Magnitude Scale", but "Local magnitude scale" is a weird combination of the two conventions. -- Beland (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 * The MOS doesn't specifically mention any kind of "magnitude scale". It does mention Hermitian matrix and Lorentz transformation, which are parallel to this usage. And we do have cases of "G-R magnitude" (Gutenberg-Richter, ), "Nuttli magnitude", and "JMA magnitude" . What makes "Local magnitude scale" odd is that the ordinary use of "Local" is not as proper noun. But a problem sometimes arises where "local" is used for a local (or regional) scale based on the modern scale and calibrated with local parameters to have comparable results, or for a local scale that is similar but not so calibrated. The latter are sometimes distinguished with a lower-case letter "l": M$w$. So we have we have a special case here, and I think an exception is warranted, so that readers will understand that "Local" is not a generic adjective, but refers to a specific scale.  ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Quote marks for "work" and "Richter"
Greetings, J. Johnson! It seems two editors have now changed
 * (a measure of the "work" done by the earthquake)

to
 * (a measure of the work done by the earthquake)

This is not a quotation from any particular source, so quote marks aren't appropriate here. Yes, "work" is being used in a specific technical sense, but adding quote marks is not in general a way in English to indicate technical usage, and the presence of quote marks makes it sound like the article is weirdly skeptical about the concept of work. If it's necessary to explain to readers in what sense the word is meant beyond providing the link, it should be done explicitly. For example:

 * (a measure of the work—force times distance—done by the earthquake)

-- Beland (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I am not disputing that. What I disputed was removing the quotes from "Richter", as I explained in my edit summary. As you don't mention that, I presume we are okay on that point. If you think there should be some support for that in this article, sure, I can add a note, but it might be a bit before I can get to that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, great. I only asked because you reverted the removal of quote marks from "work" twice, which might not have been intentional. I've removed them again; feel free to add an inline definition if you think it's warranted. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should be quote marks on "Richter" either; I was just taking issues one at a time. Richter magnitude scale is the name of the article on the ML scale, with no quote marks, and article titles are supposed to be the most common name used by general audiences. In general, quote marks are not used around the inventor of a thing that has been named after them, like we don't say: "Newtonian" physics. Apparently sometimes in less technical contexts the phrase "Richter scale" is applied to scales other than ML, possibly including this one. Adding quote marks does not disambiguate which scale is meant by a name which could be interpreted ambiguously; if this is a problem, using an unambiguous name or phrasing can clear it up. The current phrasing here actually doesn't make it clear that the Richter magnitude scale is the same as the ML scale, and the phrase "in terms of" is rather confusing. I'll try a bit of a rewrite. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (FTR, also discussed at Talk:Richter magnitude scale -- Beland (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC))

Logarithms in the formulae should include bases
I attempted to calculate the seismic magnitude from the released energy using the following Kanamori's definition
 * $$ M_w = 2/3 \log E_s - 3.2 $$

Since there was no mention about the log base in the formula, I assumed that the it was e, or Euler's number.
 * $$ M_w = 2/3 \log_{e}(E_s) - 3.2 $$

However, I found that my calculation results fell many orders of magnitude greater than what other online resources indicated. A post in [https://socratic.org/questions/how-much-energy-in-joules-is-released-by-an-earthquake-of-magnitude-8#:~:text=An%20earthquake%20with%20a%20magnitude,e%2B16%20J%20of%20energy. socratic.org] describes the relation between magnitude and energy. It claims that magnitude 8 equqals to 6.309573e+16 joules in energy. When I plug in this number in the formula above, I got 22.588952994535738 as the magnitude. I started to speculate that the base should have been 10 instead of e, and sure enough, when I swapped the base to 10, I got 7.999999979589213 as the final magnitude.
 * $$ M_w = 2/3 \log_{10}(E_s) - 3.2 $$

Since the post on [https://socratic.org/questions/how-much-energy-in-joules-is-released-by-an-earthquake-of-magnitude-8#:~:text=An%20earthquake%20with%20a%20magnitude,e%2B16%20J%20of%20energy. socratic.org] doesn't cite anything, they could also be using a wrong formula, but either way, there should be a clarification on what the base is in all the formulae in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Марсианский (talk • contribs) 07:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Logarithm of non-dimensionless quantities
Please, can we pretend, that not all of us have skipped high school for good, and realise that logarithms of non-dimensionless quantities do not make sense? It is just stupid to write "log(E) = ... (in Joules)", a logarithm of an energy is undefined, basically this amounts to writing nonsense, and adding in brackets an instruction for how to deal with the nonsense. I realise this notation is often used in practice, but slang language is also used in practice yet is avoided on Wikipedia. The proper way would be to make the logarithm argument dimensionless by including the reference quantity there. The given example could be "log(E/1J) = ...". WikiPidi (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Moment magnitude scale


text:
Talk:Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

the 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre
Fyi - The claim that there is no connection to the Popular Front is a bit delusional, on the tombstones of the murderers there is the logo of the Popular Front also: i can't find a source to this claim "The Israeli police concluded it was a lone wolf operation."

this is the best source i found ( cite from the israeli wiki : "The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed after the massacre that the terrorists were among its ranks, but repeated it a few hours later.")

via: https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/20731/

"7.  The Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, the PFLP's military-terrorist wing, issued a formal statement praising the attack in Jerusalem, stressing that the two terrorists belonged to its ranks (Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, November 18, 2014). Note: On November 11, 2014, the PFLP posted a notice on its website calling for confrontations with Israel to be escalated (PFLP website, November 11, 2014).

Left: Notice posted by the PFLP calling for escalation in attacks against Israel (PFLP website, November 11, 2014). Right: Formal PFLP notice claiming responsibility for the terrorist attack (Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, November 18, 2014)

8.  Several hours after the notice was posted the PFLP's military-terrorist wing withdrew its claim of responsibility. Its spokesman Abu Jamal said that "the information about the details of the action was [reported in haste]." In the evening the military-terrorist wing's official website changed the wording of the notice, and instead of the original "heroic action carried out by PFLP heroes," it read, "the heroic action carried out by the shaheeds…" (Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades website, November 18, 2014)."

what does support for the armed wings mean ?
"The PFLP's armed wing in the West Bank and Gaza, the Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades, draws much of its support from student organizations in universities like Al-Quds University (eastern Jerusalem), Bir Zeit University (Ramallah area), An-Najah National University (Nablus), and the Arab American University."

does it mean political support for the armed wing (unlike supporting the movement itself ?) or providing actual aid to the wing armed ?

2A00:A040:196:1A4:82CA:9B9D:7530:BF2F (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Well, it has a citation needed tag, so actually, probably none of the above. It's probably a load of unverifiable bollocks. In fact, I think I'll be removing that right here and now. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The content you restored to the lede does not exist in the body; you either expand it enough for it to be proportionately represented in the lede in this way (at least 35%), or you revert yourself. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong information about Australia m
The lead says that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US (correct), the EU (correct), Japan (correct) and Australia - this one is incorrect. This is the full official list of organizations officially classified as terrorist organizations by the Australian government: https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/what-australia-is-doing/terrorist-organisations/listed-terrorist-organisations - the PFLP is not on the list, so I suggest removing Australia’s name from the lead. 2A02:14F:16F:6B25:EDF0:CF5C:7B68:F49D (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Citations needed
This article needs citations for some of its key claims. The introduction has a line: "[It] promotes a one-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, in a "democratic Palestine", where "Arabs and Jews would live without discrimination"." These quotes are quite interesting and readers would want to know where these quotes come from.
 * What I think should be changed (format using textdiff):

Another key example is in the "Attitude to the Peace Process" section: "George Habash in particular, and various other leaders in general advocated one state with an Arab identity in which Jews were entitled to live with the same rights as any minority. The PFLP declared that its goal was to "create a people's democratic Palestine, where Arabs and Jews would live without discrimination, a state without classes and national oppression, a state which allows Arabs and Jews to develop their national culture.""

Both of these sentences assert attitudes that are different than other Palestinian organizations and so are quite interesting to readers. In fact, they form the main claims of this section. However, there is no citation supporting either sentence. These quotations have been repeated across the internet, but there does not seem to be any source other than this Wikipedia article.

 * Why it should be changed:

Key claims in the article about the positions of the PFLP do not have citations associated with them. This makes it hard for readers to ascertain their validity or to do follow up research.

 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Sansan100 (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"Neo-Stalinism"
I noticed that a recent edit added "Neo-Stalinism" as one of the ideologies. Reading the source leading to "The Palestinian Left Will Not Be Hijacked – A Critique of Palestine: A Socialist Introduction", we can see that the source does not support the view that the PFLP is "Stalinist" and is a critique of literature calling the PFLP "Stalinists". Therefore shouldn't the ideology of the PFLP be listed as "Neo-Stalinism (disputed)" at least, even without adding any more sources? History Emperor (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Arabic Pronunciations
There are far too many mysterious, unsourced, and misspelled Arabic names in Wikipedia. e.g. "al-Sha`biyyah" (with no citation), I don't know about the rest, but that's not pronounced "al" see Sun and moon letters.

A lot of places in Palestine, like the hospitals, e.g. Al-Shifa Hospital, seem to have common English pronunciations that use "al", but they're English not Arabic, leaving out all the Hamzas and Ayns and other letters that are not in English. Potentially Sun and moon letters page is inaccurate or over simplified?

But the PFLP has a lot of propaganda music that distinctly includes "ash-Shabiya" in the pronunciation of the name.

Unfortunately I'm stumped for a source we can actually cite? The official websites are legally dubious in some countries? (NB - The party website is there already, and is justifiable in that context, but since their YouTube channel got banned in early October the videos and media links on that site have all broken, the place that still has the music and speeches is the militant wing website, which is less justifiable on this page, especially just for pronunciation? there's probably better options.)

There might be a citable source out there somewhere with a written pronunciation?

Irtapil (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) abridged Irtapil (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I replaced the unsourced letter-for-letter with a sourced one from Britanica, best I can do for pronunciation is a footnote linking pages of general info. Irtapil (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that transliterations doesn't equate pronunciations. I don't really find a problem with using al- since this is used to transliterate the word rather than aid pronounce it. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

File:PFLP Infobox Flag.svg has been deleted for violating copyright
Would it be possible to create a new infobox flag that doesn't violate copyright? Charles Essie (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Logo_of_PFLP.png is what should be used here.  nableezy  - 17:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't, it's copyrighted. Charles Essie (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fair use here. You cant have copyrighted files on Commons, thats why it is on en.wp instead.  nableezy  - 17:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But we're only allowed to use it here. We need something that can be used on military conflict infoboxes via country data templates. The PFLP has one but it's missing a flag. Charles Essie (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we dont need that, and no file that includes the logo, which is copyrighted, can be created that is not in turn copyrighted. You cant create a derivative work of a copyrighted work and avoid violating that copyright.  nableezy  - 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It worked for these. Charles Essie (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If any of those contain copyrighted logos they should be deleted from commons as well.  nableezy  - 18:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Those have been altered enough to avoid copyright infringement. If you disagree then feel free to start deletion discussions. Charles Essie (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


text:
USS Benham

USS Benham has been the name of three ships in the United States Navy, all of them named in honor of Andrew Ellicot Kennedy Benham.

 * USS Benham (DD-49), was an Aylwin-class destroyer.
 * USS Benham (DD-397), was the lead destroyer of the Benham-class destroyer, which sank in battle during 1942.
 * USS Benham (DD-796), was a Fletcher-class destroyer during World War II.

title: USS Benham


text:
USS Benham (DD-397)

USS Benham (DD-397) was the lead ship of her class of destroyers and the second ship of the United States Navy to be named for Andrew Ellicot Kennedy Benham. She missed the Attack on Pearl Harbor, being an escort for the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CV-6) on her way to Midway Atoll at the time. She also served off Hawaii during the Doolittle raid, rescued survivors from several ships, and operated during the Battle of Midway and the landings on Guadalcanal, among other missions. She was torpedoed by the Japanese destroyer Uranami and rendered unusable, for which she was sunk at the end of 1942.

Construction
Benham was laid down on 1 September 1936 by Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company at their yard in Kearny, New Jersey. The destroyer was launched on 16 April 1938 and sponsored by Mrs. A. I. Dorr, grandniece of Rear Admiral Benham. Benham was commissioned on 2 February 1939 with Lieutenant Commander T. F. Darden in command.

Service history
Assigned to the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Benham patrolled off Newfoundland during most of 1939 and then shifted to the Gulf of Mexico. Ordered to the Pacific, she arrived at Pearl Harbor 14 April 1940. After alternating between Californian and Hawaiian waters, the destroyer served as an escort for USS Enterprise (CV-6) during the delivery of Marine planes to Midway Atoll on 28 November to 8 December 1941, thus missing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Benham served with Enterprise and USS Saratoga (CV-3) task forces off Hawaii and with Task Force 16 during the Doolittle raid on Tokyo, 8 to 25 April 1942. She continued operating with TF 16 through the Battle of Midway, 3 to 6 June, during which she rescued 720 survivors from the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown (CV-5) and 188 from the destroyer USS Hammann (DD-412); landings on Guadalcanal and Tulagi, 7 to 9 August, and the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, 23 to 25 August.

Battle of Guadalcanal
Benham joined Task Force 64 on 15 October as a part of the naval covering force off Guadalcanal. On 15 November, she took part in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and alongside the US destroyers Preston, Walke, and Gwim were attacked by the Japanese light cruiser Nagara and the destroyers Ayanami and Uranami. Instantly, Walke was hit by once by a six torpedo spread fired from Ayanami, blowing off Walke's bow as she sank stern last. Preston then exploded following gunfire damage from Nagara, before gunfire damage from both Ayanami and Uranami disabled Gwim (though she survived the battle and was later sunk by a mass torpedo spread at the battle of Kolombangara, July 1943).

Benham was then hit by a single torpedo, probably from Uranami, to her bow which severed everything forward of her bridge. Benham stayed afloat, making slow headway towards Guadalcanal during the 15th but, by 16:37, further progress was impossible and her crew abandoned ship. USS Gwin (DD-433) picked up the survivors, and scuttled the hulk at 19:38 by shell-fire.

Honors
Benham received five battle stars for her service in World War II.

title: USS Benham (DD-397)