Talk:Glorious First of June

Thankyou

A huge thanks to both of you for all your hard work. I have fully copyedited the article myself and addressed all the points raised here as best I can (see comments above). I hope the article is now in a good enough state for it to pass once I've addressed the issues at FAC. Thankyou once more, the prose is hugely improved.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome Jacky - and thanks to Carre and Karanacs for sweeping for those spaces and endashes. I fixed some as I went along, intended to go through afterwards and do the rest... and forgot :P Much obliged! EyeSerene^TALK 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Most welcome from me too; looks like a new FA star will be winging its way to you soon, too. Nicely done everyone. Carré (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

This article seems to rely heavily on English secondary sources, particularly James. (He is a great source, but he did not have access to French records.)One example is the statement about "the paucity of French sources" They are there, the problem is that most British naval historians are too lazy to learn French. I have seen the French records of casualties, they exist. Of the ships that made it back to Brest, their losses were recorded as 576 killed, 347 seriously wounded, and 360 lightly wounded. In a letter of 2 June, Howe estimated for the six captured around 690 killed and 580 wounded. As for the loss aboard the Vengeur, numbers run anywhere from 320 to 350 men lost, of which an estimated 250 were killed or wounded before the ship went down. Which gives a total of around 1500 killed and around 1200 wounded (although it is unsure if the British "lightly wounded" were equally counted.) When I have time, I'll come back and help improve this article from the French perspective.--Ken Johnson (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspected this might be the case, despite William James's assertions to contrary. (James by the way could speak perfect French, lengthy paragraphs of his work are in the language untranslated). Please do insert this information into the article (and the Order of Battle article, which I see you have commented on) but please try to do it in a sympathetic manner. I suggest editing the footnote which contains the discussion on casualties and changing a few figures in the text to incorporate this new information. In addition, all the statistics added to the article must be sourced clearly and to the page, otherwise they are useless. Thanks for your interest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment about British historians not looking at French sources is aimed at modern historians, particularly Oliver Warner. James did fairly well but he was primarily limited to French secondary sources, which were written by naval officers, not historians, who had strong biases. In my own work on Villaret-Joyeuse, I chose to avoid getting into the mess of details about the battle, particularly since William Cormack's Revolution and Political Conflict in the French Navy, 1789-1794 has a great chapter that covers the battle from a French perspective in detail. A briefer account from a French perspective is available in Michael Duffy's The Glorious First of June, 1794 which I am surprised to see missing from the list of sources. Meanwhile, Digby Smith's book is generally worthless as there are so many factual errors that it is hard to take anything there as anything more than a guideline.--Ken Johnson (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are able to offer any further information on the battle from either Cormack or Duffy, then it would no doubt improve the article. Apart from the French casualties and frigates is their any other information which you consider to be missing or inaccurate? Regarding Smith, why do you consider him so inaccurate? He clearly indicates where his information comes from and in any case he has not been used as an extensive source here, mainly appearing for the purposes of comparison.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

French secondary sources were written by French naval officers who were highly critical of reforms made by Saint-Andre, completely overlooking some of the major benefits that they brought. This interpretation has been picked up by James and others British naval historians. As for Digby Smith, I've seen on just too many occasions that his numbers can be widely inaccurate. (As well as lists of ships/regiments and other important battles are missing) He relied alot on secondary sources, which are often inaccurate. He is a great reference, but should always be taken with a grain of salt. --Ken Johnson (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Great

Just wanted to say it looks good. 130.88.106.71 (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Layout weirdness?

Does anyone else see the top of the article looking sort of odd in their web browser? Looking at it in Internet Explorer, 6, I get the opening paragraph and the infobox looking fine, but then there is a big gap until the Table of Contents shows up in line with the bottom of the infobox. Is it just me? -- Natalya 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems here (FF 3) Martocticvs (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Using FF3 and there is no problems. I even checked it in IE 6 it seems good. Can you shows us a picture?. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... now on a different computer in IE 6, it looks fine. It's also normal in Opera. Who knows!?  :) -- Natalya 00:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is your browser fault?. Don't you have another browser on your comp?. If no i recommended Firefox 3.--SkyWalker (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Battleships

The article refers in several places to battleships; this now generally means those ships used around the start of the 20th century and seems very anachronistic in this article (although it was a term in use at this time, I was interested to read here). It isn't clear to me whether it means 'ships of the line' or some other specific type of ship here, so I propose to change it to the generic 'warships' unless someone can be more precise? Lessthanideal (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The word battleship comes from an alternative name for a ship-of-the-line: a line-of-battle-ship - so wherever one encounters the term in a subject dealing with this period, it should be referring to a ship of the line (though of course it would be prudent to check before altering). I believe we at WP:SHIPS agreed some time ago that the term battleship should not be used to refer to a ship of the line for sake of reducing any ambiguity (mainly in later, transitional times though). Martocticvs (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected some uses of the word where it was clear from elsewhere in the article that ship of the line was meant. There was nowhere it definitely didn't mean that. Remaining places where there is some doubt are as follows.

[Montagu's] force of ten battleships was intended to both cover Howe's withdrawal from Biscay, and find and attack the French grain convoy. Can't see anything else describing these ships more precisely.

However, on 9 June, Montagu sighted 19 French battleships appearing from the west—the remnants of Villaret's fleet. It seems likely to me these were ships of the line, made up of these previously mentioned: Villaret ... managed to gather 11 ships of the line around him and Villaret was also hoping for reinforcements; eight ships of the line, commanded by Admiral Pierre-François Cornic... . But is also mentions he collected the battered Terrible ... and he also recovered the dismasted Scipion, Mucius, Jemmappes and Républicain, so it isn't clear.

Rear-Admiral Pierre Vanstabel had been dispatched, with five ships including two of the line, to meet the much-needed French grain convoy off the American eastern seaboard. Rear-Admiral Joseph-Marie Nielly had sailed from Rochefort with five battleships and assorted cruising warships to rendezvous with the convoy in the mid-Atlantic. This left Villaret with 25 ships of the line at Brest, to meet the threat posed by the British fleet under Lord Howe.. Sounds likely to be ships of the line, espeically since they are contrasted with other "warships", but the surrounding sentences are explicit about ships of the line so maybe these ones weren't. Not sure what "cruising warships" means, is that a technical term for ships not of the line?

I'm not sure what's the best approach. Reducing to "ships" would make it definitely correct but maybe discards accurate information, especially in the third example. I'm going to leave it at this, and add clarify tags to the article, so someone with access to the references can do so. Lessthanideal (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote most of this article, and whereever "battleship" is written, "ship of the line" is meant. I used the synonym because frankly I was fed up of writing ship of the line over and over again and wanted to vary it. In wider naval historical writing battleship is a perfectly acceptable synonym for ship of the line, and there really are no grounds for confusion because the first modern battleships were not invented until some years after the last ships of the line were removed from military service, and thus the periods did not overlap. That said, if you really want to remove the word please be my guest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Collingwood's medal?!

I'm not sure how Collingwood could have been issued a medal because the originals were minted according to the list, and the names are on the medal, namely

A gold badge in the form of a flat gold ring with a foul anchor suspended within it. Obverse inscription, on anchor stock: ‘EARL HOWE’. On arms of anchor: ‘QUEEN CHARLOTTE’. On ring: ‘GRAVES HOOD BOWYER GARDNER PASLEY SEYMOUR PAKENHAM BERKELEY GAMBIER’. Reverse, on anchor stock: ‘1ST . OF JUNE.’ On the crown of the anchor: ‘1794.’ On ring: ‘I .HARVEY PAYNE PARKER H . HARVEY PRINGLE DUCKWORTH ELPHINSTONE NICHOLS HOPE’.http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/nelson/viewObject.cfm?ID=MEC1143--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Only just saw this now, but Collingwood was awarded a medal in 1797, after refusing a Cape St Vincent medal in protest at being excluded from this award.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Map

I believe i am correct in stating that the map on the main page of this article does not accurately portray the position of the fleets on June 1, 1794.

216.246.249.35 (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you believe is wrong with it?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Order of battle

Is there any reason the order of battle found in the other similar articles is not given here? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory Introduction and summary of victory conditions.

/Quote Nevertheless, his ships inflicted a severe tactical defeat on the French fleet. In the aftermath of the battle, both fleets were left shattered and in no condition for further combat, Howe and Villaret returning to their home ports. Despite losing seven of his ships of the line, Villaret had bought enough time for the French grain convoy to reach safety unimpeded by Howe's fleet, securing a strategic success. However, he was also forced to withdraw his battle-fleet to port, leaving the British free to conduct a campaign of blockade for the remainder of the war. /Unquote

The introduction is self-contradictory. It contradicts directly the stated outcome of the batte; a British tactical victory and a French strategic victory. It is not as simplististic as that.

For example, consider the following:

\quote However, he was also forced to withdraw his battle-fleet to port, leaving the British free to conduct a campaign of blockade for the remainder of the war. \unquote

Clearly, the British won a strategic naval victory. The French lost control of the seas for the duration of the war and were blockaded.

A correct summary of the situation is as follows:

The British clearly won the tactical naval battle in terms of ship losses/statistics. They also won strategic control of the seas for the duration of the war.

The French won a tactical victory because their convoy largely arrived intact before they lost strategic control of the seas.

I strongly suggest a suitable rewite of the article to improve quality based on facts, as indicated.

Perhaps the bar at the right could be changed to:

British tactical victory: the naval battle was clearly won. French tactical victory: the convoy evaded British interdiction. British strategic victory: the British Fleet was free to conduct an effective blockade of France for the remainder of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.103.218.3 (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Title?

Isn't the article title a little bit too much POV? Mimimito (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is the "Third Battle of Ushant"?

A question has arisen regarding two different battles being called the "Third Battle of Ushant". Please refer to the discussion on the disambiguation page Battle of Ushant. Fred Johansen (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not heard of this battle being known as 3rd Battle of Ushant in sources. So will leave it to Glorious First of June and Bataille du 13 prairial an 2/Combat de Prairial. Shire Lord 14:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing consistency: The two Gardiner books of 2001

I just tried to start mopping up the article's parenthetical references and encountered another problem: There is one reference, in the long 'casualties' note (after "Gardiner 3,500 casualties and the same number captured.") that only cited "Gardiner, 2001". All other Gardiner references thankfully reference by book title, too, but this one ref is probematic: I cannot know which of the two books the editor referred to.
I searched several catalogue databases and found no 2001 edition of "Fleet Battle and Blockade". The ISBN given points to the first edition of 1996, the OCLC number to the Hathi Digital edition of 2010. To solve my technical linking problem, I corrected the book's publication year to 1996 (and posted an inline HTML comment about my unsuccessful source research). But I'm going to revert that, shortly. We should first try to resolve the question of which book the problematic reference in the note means. Please help me with this, if you can.
Also, would someone with access to the cited 2001 edition of "Fleet Battle and Blockade" please confirm that it exists and the metadata is correct? Thank you. For the time being, I will restore the reference to its previous, ambiguous form (refering to "Gardiner, 2001" only) until the issue can be resolved. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Just spotted that I was wrong, the original (parenthetical) ref only had "Gardiner", no year and a page number (38).
Also you can see on the preview of the table of contents that Amazon allows that page 38 of their edition of "Fleet Battle and Blockade" is the beginning page of the sub-chapter "Glorious First of June - Aftermath", just where I would assume to find the casualty numbers, logically. The page itself is not included in the preview, but this makes me certain enough to assume our editor meant this book, whatever edition of it he used. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Linking references more directly to their sources / Switching citation style

While weeding out and replacing parenthetical references, I caught myself using template {{sfn}} instead of the more traditional <ref></ref> markup. This is discouraged by the rules, and I will not protest removal of the templates or even remove them myself, if challenged.
However I got the idea to let it stand for a short time, while I try to establish consensus here to switching all references in the article. Ths way, those of you who don't know what I'm talking about can go and have a look at the long Vengeur and casualties notes, whose references are already linked to the sources in the way I mean. Just mouse-over the notes' references and you will see there is a second level display of the source offered by mousing over the displayed reference.
In my opinion this little bit of extra connectedness does not hurt and adds quite some of ease of use and understanding by reducing the effort (and mouse-scrolling work) of looking up references. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

'Order of battle' graphic

Seven British ships are marked with a white dot, as are three French ships - but I couldn't find what the white dot conveys. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The white dots signify flagships. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)