Talk:Iowa-class battleship

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.

General statistics posted by myself come from the book ONI 222-US, United States Naval Vessels, published by The Floating Drydock, Kresgeville, PA 18333. Joshua 02:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Engineering plant information that I've provided comes from my own experience as a current volunteer crewmember aboard USS Missouri and a variety of the engineering sources made available to us on board.

I'm afraid I don't really see that the South Dakota class is considered a serious competitor to the Iowa-class as best battleship ever. The South Dakota doesn't have any capability that the Iowa's don't and the Iowa-class are faster and have better guns. ---B- 21:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The British battleship Vanguard although a one off was said to be a master of sea handling at the time. Shame we scrapped it. GDL 3 Feb 2005

I'm going to have to check on the Armor info posted -- the deck figures seem too thick. The turrets are (off the top of my head) 16" of class A on the front over 2.5" of STS. On the sides they're 9.5" and on the rear around 11". ---B- 5 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Engineering Plant

Can someone please confirm the ordering of the turbines to be correct? High pressure then low pressure may seem sensible enough but throw in a bit of fluid or gas dynamic physics and it looks rather shakey. Bernoulli's principle would suggest the first of 2 turbines would be a high speed / low pressure device followed by the low speed / high pressure turbine. As far as I know, and I don't claim to be an engineer, turbines are named high or low pressure relative to the gas / liquid pressure passing through them, not the pressure of the gas or liquid driving them. In effect high pressure gas drives low pressure turbines and vice versa. --LiamE 13:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the high pressure turbine is first in order and it is so-named according to input pressure. The input pressure on the HP turbine is around 600psi if I recall correctly. It's less than 50psi for the LP turbine after passing thru the crossover. Again I'm working from memory there but I'm in the #4 engine room on USS Missouri at least once a week most weeks so I'm fairly confident that's correct. --72.129.68.251 04:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I do have a suspicion that you are right there. --Apyule 13:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This naval engineering training document suggests the naming of the turbines in the article is correct and that the first turbine is known as the high pressure turbine despite the gas passing through it being low pressure as per the article's velocity/pressure diagrams. If naval egineers use this nomenclature the article is correct to follow. They are named after input pressure not flow pressure. Anyway I'm sure my old physics teacher would be proud of me. --LiamE 14:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting that out. --Apyule 04:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old Peer Review

Iowa-class battleship received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

"Iowa class" or "Iowa-class"?

I know I'm being nit-picky, but shouldn't the phrase "Iowa class" in this article's title be hyphenated? —Saric (Talk) 00:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

recommisioning?

Though it is a long shot, is it possible if needed for all the Iowas to be recommisioned

Under the most extreme of circumstances I would imagine that all four would be recomissioned; however, it doesn't look like that will be the case. A more likely senario would be using the two mueseum ships as spare parts caches for Iowa and Wisconsin. According to a General Accounting Office report I obtained from the UTEP Library, the USN has absolutely no intersest in (or plans to) recomissioning either of the two battleships. TomStar81 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Yamamato commented over 60 years ago that in modern war, the battleship will be like unto a sammurai sword - a weapon of the past that has become useless. Raul654 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible? Yes. But extremely unlikely. It's prohibitively expensive and there really is very little to gain from it. --72.129.68.251 04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical beam

The stated beam is 108 ft 2 in (32.98 m). From the point of view of the Panama Canal transits, I was wondering whether this takes into account thermal expansion due to being in the tropics — ie. is this the shipyard's documented beam, or the figure from the canal admeasurer? I assume that there would have been some expansion. — Johantheghost 16:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

108'3" is what we've been told aboard USS Missouri and I'd be surprised if there is any significant expansion in the ship's beam due to temperature. You're talking about a 887' ship with a substantial hull thickness. I doubt any beam expansion would be measurable. I'm travelling at the moment but when I get back to the ship I can probably look over the engineering documents which should list the official, shipyard-measured, beam.

--72.129.68.251 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

The 16 inch guns are also described as 50 caliber, which is half an inch. 50 caliber is typically portable or used against small targets like rafts, jeeps, persons, floating barrels, etc.. at a mile or less. 16" can fire from many miles offshore and might have been used to damage enemy shore defenses prior to a landing in WWII.

With battleship guns caliber is used as an indication of length, not the diameter of the barrel. As regards the 16 inch guns the caliber is an expression of the ratio of the length of the gun to the diameter of the bore of the weapon. The gun is 66 feet long or 800 inches long and the bore is 16 inches in diameter. 800 divided by 16 is 50 -- hence 50 caliber. ---B- 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Lastly, all four of the ships are still in existence, which is unusual because the Navy typically scraps older, derelict ships or scuttles such ships in weapons tests."

In the first place, none of the Iowa Class ships are derelict. In American English, Derelict would indicate that the ships have been abandoned at sea, and that is not so. All four are tied up, three of them at their permanent homes. Those homes are:

It is the USS Iowa herself that is not yet preserved, and - even then - she is currently at the US Naval War College in Rhode Island

I've recently been all over the USS New Jersey, and she is in great shape, but is in no condition to return to active service. I doubt that any of the others will ever return to active service either, because the goal now is to convert them to Museum Pieces, and that process will make them unable to serve as war ships. For example, much of the control room wall over the Ammunition Loading Equipment has been replaced with Plexiglas so that visitors can see the works, and yet remain separated from them. Likewise, the large caliber guns have been spiked, and the barrels filled. The small caliber guns were retained by the Navy for use elsewhere. I've seen that New Jersey gets all of her utilities from the shore. Her plant no longer operates.

Secondly, the Navy has had a long standing tradition of preserving as many of its historical ships as possible, which is why the USS Constitution is still in commission; the USS Constellation is a museum ship; the USS Olympia is at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

BB35 - USS Texas The USS Texas is preserved as a museum ship at 'San Jacinto, Texas. Large areas are open to the public. She is the only first-generation dreadnaught (WWI era) battleship to survive to this day.

BB55 - USS North Carolina The USS North Carolina is preserved as a museum ship at Wilmington, North Carolina. Large areas are open to the public.

BB59 - USS Massachusetts The USS Massachusetts is preserved as a museum ship at Fall River, Massachusetts. Large areas are open to the public.

BB60 - USS Alabama The USS Alabama is preserved as a museum ship at Mobile, Alabama. Large areas are open to the public.

Many other ships are so preserved.

The use of ships as targets is also a legitimate use of old ships, but the ships that were expended in the Nuclear tests produced a lot of controversy in the Navy.

On another note, I think that the American spelling - armor- is better than the British spelling for a class of American battleships. This is especially true since the British spelling is currently an American Registered Trademark for a company that produces canned meat.

CORNELIUSSEON 01:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that derelict is a misleading and inaccurate word. I'm going to replace it with the much more appropriate "decommisioned" Gulfstorm75 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USS Iowa is not in Rhode Island. She's currently moored in Suisan Bay, San Francisco, California. Last I heard she is expected to be moved to a new home in Stockton, CA where she will be placed on display, shortly. ---B- 04:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft section seems to have a wrong date. I don't feel like they would have used helicoptors in 1949. I'll leave it to someone with background in this subject to fix this.--Butters 06:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact they did use helicopters in '49. The Bell 47 was licensed for civilian use as early as 1946. The catapults for the floatplanes were removed around May of '49. ---B- 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of the word Caliber:

a : the bore diameter of the barrel of a weapon (as a firearm) measured in rifled arms from land to land -- compare LAND DIAMETER

b : the diameter of the projectile fired from such a weapon

c : the land-to-land diameter of the bore of a piece of ordnance used as a unit of measurement for stating the length of the tube of the piece -- now used only of naval and coastal defense guns <a 3"/50 cal. gun is 3" in bore and 50 calibers or 150" long>

In other words, to arrive at the caliber number for a naval or coast gun, you must know the actual length, and divide that by the bore diameter. From then on, you know that a naval gun that is 50 calibers, and is 3", is 150" long.

CORNELIUSSEON 17:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably

'arguably the finest battleships '

If its arguably the finest then its also arguably not and thus this rather meaningless sentence has no place in an encyclopedic entry --Narson 10:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"arguably" is one of those words like "factoid" - two meanings, each the opposite of the other. In this context, "arguably" means "defensible by argument" not "something we'd argue over". -vmy

Endnote 4, UAV Surrender: minor discrepancy

The paper cited in the endnote for the surrender of Iraqi troops to a UAV (endnote 4) states that it was Missouri's UAV that spotted the surrendering troops, as opposed to Wisconsin's as stated in the Wiki article.

Thats my fault. I came across that and thought that it was Missouris UAV, when in fact several other sources cite the UAV as Wisconsins. I thought I fixed this one, but no matter. I get it corrected asap. For the record, a more detailed account could be found on the USS Wisconsin (BB-64) page. TomStar81 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what on earth does this sentence mean?

"While excellent sea boats, the ships are quite wet forward, due to the selfsame long bow, and the narrowness forward made armoring in the way of No. 1 turret difficult."

Actually, this is a compound sentence that should have been divided into two seperate sentences.

"While excellent sea boats, the ships are quite wet forward, due to the selfsame long bow..." This means that the shape of the bow is such that it will dive into high waves (porpoising), and thus there will be significant spray left on the deck. These ships have a high speed bow, but it is not wide enough to be self-supporting, and thus the porpoising.

"The narrowness forward made armoring in the way of No. 1 turret difficult."

This one deals with the fact that since the ship has a narrow, high speed, bow, there is not much room inside the bow section. Indeed, I've been in the bow of the USS New Jersey, and the only equipment space found there is the Anchor Room. The armor starts behind that room. I had the impression that they took that into account when they planned the armor. It seemed to me that - with the door to the Anchor Room fully dogged, a hit to the bow tip would not do much damage to the rest of the ship. The bow tip might be lost, but not much more.

CORNELIUSSEON 18:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, so does wet forward just mean, that the front of the deck gets wet in heavy ocean waves? the iceman 22:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically that's what it means. In the case of the Iowa class the lenght of the ship is a factor as well -- especially in the Pacific the distance between the swells in medium seas are such that as the ship crests one swell, the bow tends to plunge into the next swell. ---B- 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please write short article about "wet forward". That term unclear for me (and, english is a second language for me, as it is for many wikiusers) TestPilot 03:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. Article written. Please check "wet forward" hyperlink in the Iowa class battleship article . TestPilot 04:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

point of view

I took this out of the opening paragraph, someone reinserted it...

(their only serious competition was the British HMS Vanguard and the Japanese Yamato class)

If that's not point of view, nothing is. It shouldn't be there. The whole sentence is a little suspect, but it's not TOO bad. Unless you can come up with some battleship expert and quote him saying this, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. --MateoP 05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With such logic you can remove whole article, it also could be considered as point of view. You need to come up with the reason, if you wish to delete someone work. TestPilot 06:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you have not read the Yamato article, niether have you read the Vanguard article. Both of these battleships posses large enough guns (Vanguard 15.0 in; Yamato 18.1 in) to pose a threat to the Iowa’s, hence both of these ships could have challenged any of the Iowa’s on near equal terms. As far as other nations battleships go the four Iowa class battleship’s "...only serious competition was the British HMS Vanguard and the Japanese Yamato class" TomStar81 06:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did come up with a reason. It's not NPOV to say that. If you hadn't put "arguably" in the first part of the sentence, that would be POV also (it still sort of is, but made to sound more vague so it's NPOV enough for me). But that line in the parathesis is clearly POV, no matter how much you believe it to be correct. --MateoP 07:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship experts would look at several thing to make these statements. Let me make the case for reinserting this line:

The "All big gun" armorment concept: "Partially as a consequence of this new philosophy, and partially as a consequence of its powerful new turbine engine, Dreadnought dispensed completely with the smaller calibre secondary armament carried by her immediate predecessors, allowing her to carry more heavy calibre guns than any other battleship built up to that time. She carried ten 12-inch guns mounted in five turrets; three along the centreline and two on the wings, giving her twice the broadside of anything else afloat. The first large warship equipped with steam turbines, she could make 21 knots in a calm sea, allowing her to outrun existing battleships (with a typical speed of 18 kts). Her armour was strong enough that she could conceivably go head-to-head with any other ship afloat in a gun battle and win."
The Super Dreadnoughts: "The design weakness of super dreadnoughts, which distinguished them from post-Great War designs, was armour disposition. Their design placed emphasis on vertical protection which was needed in short range battles. These ships were capable of engaging the enemy at 20,000 metres, but were vulnerable to the angle of fire that came at such ranges. Post-war designs typically had 5 to 6 inches of deck armour to defend against this dangerous, plunging fire. Lack of underwater protection was also a weakness of these pre-World War I designs."
The "all or nothing" armor concept: "Even more significantly, they (the Nevada class battleships) introduced the so-called "all or nothing" armor scheme, in which protection of vital areas was optimized against heavy caliber guns, leaving other parts of the ship essentially unprotected. This reflected a growing awareness that improved gunfire controls would drive battleship engagements out to long ranges, where smaller guns would only serve to defend against torpedo and air attack. Thus, armor intended to counter those guns would be, at best, a waste of valuable weight. The basic concept of the Nevadas' armor system was ultimately adopted by all naval powers. The ships marked the end (in the USN) of the midships turret, which had traditionally proven to be problematic because of the necessity of having the midships magazine surrounded by extremely hot boilers and pressurized steam lines. Instead, Turrets I and IV had an additional weapon added, becoming triples instead of doubles and allowing the same amount of firepower with one fewer turret."
The Post Jutland hull design: "Tennessee and her sister ship California were the first American battleships built to a "post-Jutland" hull design. As a result of extensive experimentation and testing, her underwater hull protection was much greater than that of previous battleships; and both her main and secondary batteries had fire-control systems."
The "Fast Battleship" Concept: "Before this class, the United States Navy favored staying power and fire power over speed. The North Carolina class had a speed of 27 knots versus the 21 knots of the pre-treaty Colorado Class. The class was completely different from all previous US battleships, and set the pattern for all subsequent vessels (as well as the reconstructions of vessels wrecked at Pearl Harbor), with a massive columnar mast replacing the familiar "cage" mast, main armament in two triple turrets forward, one aft, and dual-purpose secondaries along the sides of the superstructure. The most important advance of the class was one that could not be seen from outside: The integration of the first computer at sea, the Mark I fire control computer. The analog fire control system allowed the ship to maintain a constant fire control solution even when steaming at full speed and performing drastic evasive turns."
The Japanese Super Dreadnought Yamato: "Yamato, named after the ancient Japanese Yamato Province, was a battleship of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and was the lead ship of her class. She and her sister ship Musashi were the largest, heaviest battleships ever constructed, weighing 65,027 tons and armed with nine 46 cm (18.1 inch) main guns. The class was designed to be superior to any ship that the United States was likely to produce. The 46 cm (18.2 inch) main guns were selected over 40.6cm (16 inch) because the width of the Panama Canal would make it impracticable for the U.S. Navy to construct a battleship with the same caliber guns without severe design restrictions or an inadequate defensive arrangement."
The American Montana class battleships: "With an intended standard displacement of 60,500 tons, the proposed Montana class ships were nearly a third larger than the preceding Iowa class. The Montanas were intended to carry twelve 16-inch (406 mm) guns of 50 calibers in length, three more guns than the earlier class. Protection against underwater weapons and shellfire was also greatly enhanced; they would have been the only new World War II-era U.S. battleships to be adequately armored against guns of the same power as their own. To achieve these advances, the Montana class was designed for a slower maximum speed than the very fast Iowas. The Montanas also would have been the only American ships to come close to equalling Japan's massive Yamato."
The Brittish HMS Vanguard: "...the Admiralty decided to build a new battleship that would use four spare twin 15-inch mountings... A design for a 40,000-ton battleship was produced, intended to be the core of a Far East Fleet, where her high speed and armament would be a match for Japanese warships. Vanguard was unique among British battleships in having remote control for both main and secondary guns."
Now Consider the following: Built with cost as no object, the Iowas have enough armor to protect them from 16-in shells and nine of their own 16-in guns to bring against other battleships. There fore does it not stand to reason that, in the absence of the never completed American Montana class battleships and on the basis of armor, guns, and speed, the only serious competition the Iowa-class would have had were the British battleship HMS Vanguard, the Japanese Yamato class, and the US Montana class. TomStar81 08:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, you don't have to convince me. I believe you. That doesn't stop it from being POV. You just made your own argument there. You can't do your first-hand research on wikipedia. Wikipedia is about information, not about making arguments. If you can find a battleship expert and then quote or cite them, it stops being POV. You can't just make judgment calls on what are the "best" of something, that's completely subjective, unless you are an expert at the field. In that case, quote yourself. --MateoP 16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why that is not an NPOV? That sentence you have removed do not state that Yamato or Vanguard any better or any worth than Iowa. It just pointing out the fact that Yamato and Vanguard was a serious competitors to Iowa. And reader of Iowa article could research topic further by reading Yamato and Vanguard articles, so did I. I believe a lot of ppl who read that sentence, did the same. Sure, the sentence state that those was “the only” competitors. You know another battleship that also was serious competitor to Iowa? No problem. It could be added to the list. But I’m not aware of any. So I see no point of removing that. TestPilot 17:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a neutral point of view. It's saying that all battleships that aren't either the Iowa or Yamato or Vanguard are not "serious competitors" for being the best battleship.

It doesn't get any more point of view than that. This is an encyclopedia, not your blog. It doesn't matter if people can add their own point of views to the article. Wikipedia is not a collection of points of view. It's Wikipedia:NPOV period. Stop vandalizing. Either find a quote from a battleship expert or let it go. It's one, clearly POV, segment of a sentence. --MateoP 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight then: TestPilot and I believe that Yamato-class battleships, Iowa-class battleships, and the battleships HMS Vanguard would be able to compete on a relativly fair field and thus should be mentioned on Iowa-class page, while MateoP maintains that any nation who operated battleships comaparble in any way to the Iowa-class should not be mentioned or credited on the page Iowa-class battleship due to a percieved point of view conflict, unless such a view can be substatiated by a "battleship expert". Is this correct? TomStar81 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo, I think that you are misunderstanding NPOV. NPOV requires that we not take sides in a dispute. I see no evidence here that there is a dispute about the correctness of this statement. If everyone agrees that the Yamato, Iowa and Vanguard were in a class of their own, then there's nothing wrong with us saying so. (For more on this, see Wikipedia:NPOV#How_can_I_tell_if_my_article_has_a_POV.3F). Mark ¹ 21:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking sides. That's but 3 of many battleships. For example, for the sake of argument, I say that the HMS Victory is clearly better than the Iowa, Yamato, and Vanguard and would defeat them handedly on the battlefield. Excluding the HMS Victory and every other battleship ever created is pushing a POV. Unless you get an expert quote, it will continue to be a POV. --MateoP 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a wiki-policy on removing patent nonsense though? And that would be. No-one could possibly make the argument that the HMS Victory (love her as I do) could stand up to 'modern' battleships. What other battleships should be mentioned? Bismark class? King George V? Even with my POV (as a Brit) I think including Vanguard is a stretch (15 inchers versus 16 inchers is not a great start) and shows the lack of POV of the editors, as they go that extra bit to include more ships that could compare. Maybe just say that the Iowa was the second largest class of warship ever constructed, behind the Yamato class? Or some other wording if Vanguard should say. Like it has one of the largest displacements of any Battleship constructed, along with the Yamato and Vanguard. If we go on size rather than any combat ability then the need for an expert is removed, hrm?Vanguard would need to be removed in favour of something else, mind, as I doubt at 48,000 it has a large enough displacement to be in the top 3 there --Narson 22:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Tomstar81, you can say that the battleship Yamato and Vanguard would be able to compete. That's fine. You can't say that no other battleship is a "serious competitors", that's a POV. Reword it if you like to not make sound like the Iowa or Yamato or Vanguard are the best battleships of all time. That's a POV. Unless you find an expert. --MateoP 21:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo, your opinion is completely irrelevant. The article is not here to describe the views of Wikipedia contributors, it's here to describe the views of people who know about the Iowa class battleship. You haven't produced any evidence that the statement is contested among such people. Mark ¹ 21:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was might point, it's POV. The burden of proof is on the people who want to include the POV statement. You must cite sources. Show proof that battleship experts believe that statement is correct.--MateoP 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then your complaint isn't an NPOV problem at all- it's a complaint about the sourcing of the statement. For that you should ask politely on the talk page for a source, and give the writers a reasonable time to respond. Since there's no NPOV dispute, I'm removing the tag. Mark ¹ 22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a NPOV dispute. It is not a NPOV for a non-expert to make unsourced assertions. By removing the tags you are giving the impression that the article is not under NPOV dispute, it is.

Do not decide for other users if they believe there is a NPOV dispute. I clearly stated time and time that if that segment of that sentence is not POV, nothing is. --MateoP 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a quote on page 11 in the book The Battleships by Ian Johnston and Rob McAuley that reads as follows: "The Iowa class fast-battleships were arguably the ultimate capital ship in the evolution of the battleship." Does this work, or should I try harder? TomStar81 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good quote. Remove the disputed sentence and replace with that quote (in quotes, attributing the author). If fixed, the dispute is dropped. --MateoP 22:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my last revert is not a violation of 3RR as it was vandalism. You can not remove NPOV tags while actual discussion is taking place. --MateoP 22:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section break:My take on this

FWIW, I agree with MateoP. "The only serious competition" is a POV, and not very necessary anyway because it is a parenthetical statement in an introduction. Take a look at what information is gained or lost in both versions:

Built with cost as no object, the Iowas are among the finest battleships ever built (their only serious competition was the British HMS Vanguard and the Japanese Yamato class), but were rapidly superseded by the aircraft carrier as the most important naval vessels during World War II naval battles.
Built with cost as no object, the Iowas are among the finest battleships ever built, but were rapidly superseded by the aircraft carrier as the most important naval vessels during World War II naval battles.

I don't think much information is lost in the second version, so I think it should be removed. --D e ath phoenix 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...yes, because having 'The finest battleships ever built' without providing examples of alternatives isn't NPOV? I'm sorry, but the removal makes the sentence most definatly POV. Anyway, a quote was found and so it looks like this is solved without the need for deletion of sections --Narson 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that they are the "only serious competitors" is a POV. I agree though, and think the option of removing the entire sentence and replacing it with the quote proposed by a user above would fix the problem. --MateoP 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you word it then? TomStar81 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]