Jump to content

Talk:USS Constitution/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

I had made some additions, which I feel add to the richness of this article, which have been reverted because, for lack of a better place to include them, I inserted a popular culture section (see my revision and subsequent reversion on April 9, 2010). This information does not fit anywhere else in most pages and USS Constitution, as a US Icon and Historical Landmark, Constitution's status in Boston is similar to the Statue of Liberty in NYC (which has it's own page on popular culture references). I think the entire business of omitting popular culture sections from military history pages, omits an entire class of information. When a military figure is features in a movie, or an entire movie is based on a historical ship (Old Ironsides (film)), there needs to be a section in military pages to list these references. Without knowing that there was a movie based on a section of Constitution's history, or that the crew made a video during their training for the Sail 200 event, or that (to use another famous military example with a created statistic) there are 26 movies about George Armstrong Custer. There needs to be a valid section to list this sort of information, especially for culturally significant military history topics, such as Constitution and Custer. I fail to understand why military history pages fall into a different category than other pages. Yotsuya48 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to read over Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Popular_culture for the reasons why; especially being able to back additions up with good sources. Besides that, in my experience a pop culture section is a magnet for every trivial mention or appearance of the subject. Brad (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of the popular culture mentions are unsourced and non-notable. To be useful to the reader, both should be present. Tedickey (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate source for Coast Guard...

A 37-year-old source for a comment about current events isn't a good source for the promotional statement "only active commissioned sailing vessel". TEDickey (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you one more current that contradicts the statement about Constitution and Eagle? QueenofBattle (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's you who ought to be answering that, since you're pushing the statement into both topics using a stale source. TEDickey (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Wiki only requires that an editor wishing to insert a statement into an article affirmatively to support that addition, which I have clearly done. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Only by relying on a distorted sense of "current". It would be nice if you took the time to improve your edits, rather than arguing about it. TEDickey (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Give me a F-ing break. What is your point?! Are there other sailing vessels that have been commissioned into the maritime services of the US in the last 37 years? Are there other sailing vessels of the U.S. Air Force or Army that we should include? If not, pipe down and move on. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Mention of Eagle in the lead of this article is inappropriate. The note about Victory is there only because so many editors tried to insert something about Victory being the oldest commissioned ship and not understanding the word afloat. This article isn't here to make comparisons with other ships. It is what it is. Brad (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to have this article say that Constitution is one of only two active sailing vesels... We can make a smiliar adjustment to the Eagle article. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The point is still one of what information is relevant to Constitution. "Oldest commissioned warship afloat in the world" is undeniable and doesn't need explaining or watering down. Eagle has little in common with Constitution and does not warrant a mention. Furthermore, a lead section is to summarize the entire article and point out what makes the subject of the article notable. Items in the lead are mentioned in an expanded form where necessary in the body of the article. Eagle is mentioned in the body when crew members of Constitution practiced sailing techniques prior to the Sail 200 event in 1997. I still do not believe that Eagle is important or relevant enough to warrant mention in the lead of this article. Brad (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking the Coast Guard is not a military service. It belongs to DHS, not DoD. I'm inclined to delete it on that basis alone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's a 3 year old reference. It probably wouldn't be hard to find a more recent one. HausTalk 20:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there does not need to be a mention of Eagle in the lead and in this context, and that it should be removed. Benea (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the Eagle mentioned in the 3-year-old weblink. The point about DHS vs DoD seems relevant TEDickey (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, the Coast Guard most definitely is an armed service. The five uniformed services that make up the Armed Forces are defined in 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4):

The term "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard is further defined by 14 U.S.C. § 1:

The Coast Guard as established 28 January 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.

As to the rest, I think we are in violent agreement to remove the reference to Eagle from the LEDE for Constitution. Ah, I see that it has already been done, rendering the rest of this discussion needless. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange.. the lead is still as you left it. Anyway, I will restore the old version directly. Brad (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the reference to Eagle by naming Eagle in Constitution's lede, which I changed previously to simply refer to Constitution as "one of two active sailing vessels..." QueenofBattle (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

New Images

I just upgraded the image of the USS Philadelphia burning. -- In full view it's nearly three times as large as the image that has been there since 2005.

Also obtained from the Dept of the Navy is an image of the USS Constitution engaging HMS Guerriere. It was painted by Anton Otto Fischer. Quite large in full view. Excellent image. Think there's room on the page for it? -- GWillHickers (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've placed the Fischer pic in the article but it had to replace the one that was already there. It's a better choice anyway; thanks. Brad (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Armed?

The article makes clear that the cannons are still in working order in order to fire cermonial salutes but it's not clear whether they are still capable of firing in anger or whether actual shot and powder is carried so that in theory the ship could 'shoot to kill' or not. Anyone know? Exxolon (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I could not find any source that would say if they have shot and powder. My personal feeling is that they don't. What would be the point? Brad (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Coming in late to the conversation here. The only reason I can think of that Consitution would "shoot to kill" would be in response to an egregious incursion of the ship's security zone ("both the Navy and the Coast Guard are authorized to use deadly force to protect themselves"). This seems like it would be a highly unlikely scenario, especially if side arms were at hand. Nonetheless, it is an interesting question. —Diiscool (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The original question was about firing the ceremonial salutes and if they were done with shot and powder. The answer came a few months ago and is outlined in the armament section. Some of her forward long guns were fitted with 40mm saluting cannons but all of the cannons themselves are replicas. They weren't designed with the capability to fire shot and powder. This was an issue that Martin was vague about in his book. Brad (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox: "in active service"

The infobox declares Constitution to be "in active service". While it may be fully staffed and commissioned, I (a civillian layman) feel like this implies that she is deployed for combat near Iraq or Afganistan. Wouldn't "in service as museum" or something similar be more accurate? HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"in active service" is strictly a military thing. If she were simply just a museum ship there would be no active crew and active commission. Constitution is owned and operated by the US Navy whereas a ship like USS North Carolina (BB-55) is strictly a museum ship in the sense that she sits in one place and never goes anywhere. Brad (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The Constitution is on the active list of the United States Navy, the same as any other vessel. The list makes no distinction between ships currently used in combat zones and those used for other purposes. Jsc1973 (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Old Ironsides,

It was durning the first attack on Tripoli that Old Ironsides got its name, for it was hit many times from the firing from the forts at Tripoli, an it hold this nickname in to the War of 1812, even the English called this name before the war started, for Commodore Preble had many friends in the English navy. For the English were very happy to be rid of the Dey in Tripoli. So as in many things, poems an stories change over the years, an we are taught many things that are not true. I got this information from books written in the 1800's by the people who sever on the USS Contition an the early histroy of the ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroone1 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to supply a reference for this theory? I've read a multitude of books about Constitution and others dealing with the Barbary Pirates, the Quasi War and War of 1812 but have never seen anything like you describe. Brad (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Second Rate Ship"

In the last line of the first paragraph under the 'Civil War' section, the article states that reduced to 16 guns, the Constitution was now classed as a second rate ship. The British definition for second rate ship calls for 90 - 98 guns I believe, and the terms seems to apply only to ships of the line, which the Constitution was not. Is/was there an American version of rating, that applied to frigates (in absence of ships of the line of any kind) or is this an incorrect statement? 71.234.161.126 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the US Navy ever had any type of rating system comparable to the rating system of the Royal Navy. "Second Rate Ship" is in quotes because it is quoted directly from the Martin source. Brad (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Chase of the Constitution, July 1812.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chase of the Constitution, July 1812.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Image upgrade

Original image
File:Capture of the French Privateer Sandwich by armed Marines on the Sloop Sally, from the U.S. Frigate Constitution, Puerto.jpg
upgraded image

I just finished upgrading an image used on this page from the National Archives. As the original image has a tag requesting that it not be overwritten with a different version, I have created a separate file. The new file is somewhat brighter but its clarity and sharpness has dramatically been improved, which is readily apparent in full view. i.e.The rigging is no longer blurred and much more discernable. Also, because the original file is a 'TIF' file, it is not readily viewable in full view with some browsers without first assigning the software for which to view it. If the new version meets to everyone's approval I would recommend using it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is much better thanks. I've replaced the tiff file. Brad (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Aye Brad, never saw a ship of that sort with a canopy. Guess they were planning for a picnic that day. :-) The day before I also brightened and enhanced the color of the image of the Constitution you had uploaded. On retrospect I am hoping that I have not changed the way the original painting looks in that it's the oldest known illustration of the Constitution. (See image file history for comparison.) Perhaps it's best if it's left sort of dark and gloomy looking if that's the way this old illustration looks in real life at this point in time. If I have rendered it such that it's no longer historically representative of this old painting then perhaps we should put the original back. Then on the other hand, maybe this is the way it looked when it was first painted. Just a thought. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

see also

we should add a see also for hms vicotry and any other historic commissioned ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I love the use of the word "floating" at the top of this wiki page so that the Constitution can be called the world's oldest commissioned warship, along with the note added (probably by the same person) to the wiki page of the HMS Victory, which is still a commissioned warship, pointing out that the HMS Victory is in dry dock and therefore not floating. No doubt should the HMS Victory be restored to floating condition that person will be weeping and gnashing their teeth. Just the same, i know the majority of Americans and navalsexuals everywhere would love to see the day where HMS Victory and the USS Constitution sail side by side. Perhaps the 100th anniversary of the ending of WWII? Who knows. no doubt the French won't be too happy to see it take the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
actually victory lovers should be concerned that the swedes might just put vasa back in commission. this wouldn't make a difference to constitution as she'd still be the oldest commissioned warship afloat, but to another building like victory, it would be quite a blow. there is no doubt when visiting constitution that you are aboard a commissioned ship manned by naval personnel. visiting victory is, well like, visiting a museum building manned by a museum staff. victory is no more a commissioned ship than say a pressed flower is a living biological speciman. dream on about victory ever being put back in the water or being manned by the royal navy.

Minor overhaul in progress

It's been almost 3 years since this article passed FA. Since then the FA requirements have become stricter and some deterioration has set in from others' edits that I never bothered to fix. I've fixed up the media licensing and have begun to replace some less than reliable sources with stronger ones. While writing 3 other FAs about Constitution's sister ships I've learned a lot more and discovered more usable sources that are being brought here. Sources being replaced are Cooper, Abbot and Hill. Brad (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a post to prevent bot archiving. Brad (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of inflation template

The following was deleted following $11,000 in reparations: "($197,482 in 2023 dollars)(comment:in truth not quite accurate template - it covers only consumer prices, not strictly government. Better than nothing IMO)."

The reason given was "original research." This actually resulted from use of a template, using the figures supplied by the original editor. I cannot vouch for the $11,000. THAT may be original research, for all I know! But the template gives a figure in current (constant) consumer dollars, a bit more accurate than $11,000, which is chicken feed today. It simply cannot be appreciated by a modern audience without some projection into constant dollars. This was not taken out of "petty cash" but was a significant sum. There is no other way to appreciate this in modern terms without the inflation template. Student7 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That template should not be used for expenses such as the one being discussed here. Please read the warning at the top of the template's page: "This template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research. If you yourself do not possess it, please consult someone with economic training before making use of this." (emphasis added). Besides, the results are misleading. —Diiscool (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
That is correct and the reason I removed the information. Another habit is editors who go to a website and enter the numbers themselves; that is also original research. The figures mentioned in this article are backed up by sources. The only acceptable way to give modern day equivalents would be to use a "high-quality and reliable" source as per the 1c requirements for Featured articles. Brad (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
You've made your point. Allow me to make mine.
The figure "$11,000" is useless information in today's context. Student7 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It appears useless but a reader could always take the figure and convert it themselves. The edit you made here is also incorrect from the sources that back up this article. The Castle Island weaponry were described as cannon. Whatever they might have been called we have to stick with cannon. Brad (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

GI Joe

There was a GI Joe episode where Cobra had a weapon which could disable all electronic systems, so to save the world the Joes attacked Cobra with the USS Constitution (expressly mentioning its status as the oldest active warship. This was a triumphant moment which moved me to tears. I strongly feel it deserves to be mentioned in the article. I feel it also should be mentioned that this is highly unlikely to happen in real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.199.35 (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Here it is [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.199.35 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A four word answer: Over my dead body. Brad (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Brad, there is no reason to put that in this article, which is about an actual historical war ship. The usage by the ship in the GI Joe movie is completly irrelevant. And if that moved you to tears...P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cannon

An editor has declined my piping Culverin#Field_culverins to the word "cannons" for one of the lighter weapons. Today, anything clunky, big, iron-like, is called by the generic word "cannon." People of the time were more sophisticated, differentiating between the weapons. My original intent was to link the word to "18-pound cannon" if there were such an article, figuring that it might have different characteristics. I discovered there was no article by weight, per se, but rather articles about various smaller weapons that were not specifically called "cannon." An editor has twice removed these links for some reason. Student7 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually two editors have reverted this, one of whom is myself. If you want to have a more specific word than "cannon" then you need to provide a reliable source for the new word and reach consensus for the change here on the talk page. —Diiscool (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's the article itself, of course, Culverin#Field_culverins. Then there's Ships Arms, shows them aboard ship (don't know how accurate Wapedia is).
Look, I don't name these things. If you have a "Mark 7 cannon" or whatever to link them to, be my guest! I was trying to link them to 18-pounder. There is no such article because they weren't cannon at that size. I didn't make up the name! I think "culverin" is a stupid name! My suggestion is to delete the article on culverins. They probably just made up the article anyway!
Anyway, I didn't change the word. I piped the correct explanation under culverin to the word "cannon" just in case someone was interested in the details. Be it far from me to try to change modern expectations! Student7 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This still an issue about what sources call them. We cannot link to "Culverin" when the sources used in this article do not use that terminology. The sources used here are largely available online but this one in particular is from the US Navy itself and there is no mention of the word "Culverin". Therefore linking to culverin to explain "cannon" is not warranted. Brad (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Brain Lavery, in The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, 1600 - 1815 (Naval Institute Press, 1987), writes that "Until the early years of the eighteenth century, English guns were identified by their traditional names, rather than their weights or calibers." (page 97) On page 100 he identifies the culverin as being an 18-lber, but based on his earlier remark I interpret this as meaning that by the late 18th century, terms such as "culverin" were obsolete. Admittedly, Lavery is writing on the Royal Navy, rather than the U.S. one, but I would be surprised to learn that the U.S. Navy deviated from the Royal Navy here, especially as by the time the U.S. Navy came into existance, culverin was deprecated. I think that linking to culverin would be anachronistic at best. --Badger151 (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hartt's gravestone

The burial site of the builder, E. Hartt, is just across the Harbor in the Copp's Hill burial ground. I include it in tours of the area, and might be able to get a photo, if that's of interest. (dellaroux, not currently logged in...)198.176.188.201 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you should definitely add the photo to Hartt's category on Commons and then to his WP page: Edmund Hartt. It would be out of place in the USS Constitution article. —Diiscool (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that when the ship infobox was created for this ship, the ship flag parameter was filled with a non-descript "USN flag" without a year. This produces a ships ensign with 50 stars for the infobox. The Constitution has never flown a flag with so many stars, and the official USN website for the ship indicates an ensign with only 15 stars on it. I am going to change this parameter to one that will produce an ensign with 15 stars... though if anyone can give a reason why it should be otherwise, I should very much like to know. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 03:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

{{USN flag}} without a parameter denotes a ship in current service. Other than photos on the official website there is no reliable source that says Constitution flies the 15 star flag on a daily basis. You can't source an article by looking at a photo. Brad (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
She's flying the 50-star flag here: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=117476. As Brad says, we can't base this on photos. She is a currently serving U.S. Navy vessel and the article should have the {{USN flag}} template. I have changed it back. —Diiscool (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
She's not a museum ship. The Constitution files a 15-star, 15-stripe flag when some historical observance is held on her. But she's a commissioned warship of the United States Navy, and is entitled to, and often does, fly a modern 50-star U.S. flag. Constitution served on actual duty well beyond the War of 1812, and historically did fly flags that had well more than 15 stars on them. Jsc1973 (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: recent sailing of the ship Brad (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The last two links above were included in the External links section. The first link leads to a login page for the BG instead of directly to an article, so I felt it to be inappropriate. Please forgive. – Paine (Climax!)  07:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rank and file

The image file below the ibox was repositioned to rm all that whitespace below the toc. Also, George Claghorn's military rank was included in the first section. His name was redlinked because after reading about him at Wheeler's "Individual Summary for COL. GEORGE CLAGHORN", it was concluded that Col. Claghorn is notable enough to have his own article. I will write the article when I have the time, but any editor is welcome to begin the article sooner. – Paine (Climax!)  08:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Interior pix?

I happened across this entry because its German WP counterpart was an Artikel des Tages (Featured Article of the Day) on German Wiki on 7-22-13. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution

This is really a fascinating story, with many interesting episodes. My suggestion is, it would be improved by a couple photos of the interior of the ship, to show the reader what being on board was like. Sca (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Guerriere section has become a little disordered

The section on the battle with the Guerriere has some obvious problems with flow and order and dangling references. Probably this results from previous edits. Someone close to this page shold review and correct. The issues I see are purely editorial, not factual.

This is a current excerpt: 

 The battle left Guerriere so badly damaged that she was not worth
 towing to port. The next morning, after transferring the British
 prisoners onto the Constitution, Hull ordered Guerriere burned.[104]

 At 7:30am on August 20, Lt. Read hailed the Constitution and reported
 that there was 5 feet of water in the hold, and the water level was
 rising faster than it could be pumped out, after a failed attempt to
 put the Guerriere under tow, Capt. Hull admitted there was no hope in
 towing the sinking ship into port. Charges were set and slow fuses lit.
 The last crew came aboard the American ship at 3:00pm and the
 Constitution withdrew to a safe distance to watch the "incomparably
 grand and magnificent" explosions that marked her last moments.[105]

 The bodies of Lt. Bush and a British seaman were buried at sea in a
 joint ceremony.

The various glitches include:

- The names of Lt Read and Lt. Bush appear nowhere else in the whole article. The reader cannot know who they were.

- The first paragraph above explains that G was burned, but the second paragraph seems to back up chronologically. Apparently, prior to the decision to burn, a Constitution crew boarded and took command, and British prisoners were kept on the Guerriere. But none of this appears in the article.

75.18.175.13 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on it bit by bit. This is what happens when no one watches the article. Brad (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Y'know something ...

... isn't Constitution not merely the oldest commissioned warship afloat, but the oldest ship afloat of any kind? Does anyone know of a reliable source stating so? Ravenswing 05:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if my mother is to be believed, the oldest ship afloat is "the canoe". According to her, both her parents and her grandparents before her have paddle that thing over many, many generations :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean that particular ship. It's pretty much impossible for any canoe built in North America to be more than 200 years old. (grins) Ravenswing 22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Topeka High School receiving the ship spar

I found some information on a spar in my hometown school. Here is the news article: http://cjonline.com/stories/011404/loc_spar.shtml#.VtnhdPGr6OV I think we could add it to this page? Zamorakphat (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe it to be too trivial for a mention here but Topeka High School is more relevant; and is already mentioned there. Brad (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading

This article states: "Until entering dry dock in May 2015, Constitution was the oldest commissioned warship afloat in the world." As Constitution will be back out of dry dock after inspection and repair (just like any active ship), she will be afloat again - by comparison, HMS Victory is never getting back out of dry dock and in fact is a building at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.14 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Where was the consensus on this? Constitution remains the oldest commissioned warship afloat, even if for the moment she is in drydock for inspection and repair. It is especially amusing as the deletion was done by someone from the UK where they think a building (the victory) is still a ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.13 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
For now we will let the Victory fan boys have their little moment of triumph. It's easier than trying to educate the ignorant. This has been going on for years. Brad (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In commission

Despite claims that Constitution is commissioned and "in active service", she is actually out of commission, undergoing renovations, and has not been in "active service" for over 150 years.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

She actually is a currently commissioned vessel, and I think your confusing "active" with "deployed". She is not part of the deployed combat force, along with the rest of the current, modern ships, but she is "active". She has crew assigned to her and she taken out and sailed. If she is currently undergoing refit, then that is something to be noted in the body of the article, along with proper sourcing. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 06:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
To put Royalcourtier's comment in perspective, the British claim that HMS Victory - a "ship" that has been in drydock since the 20s - is a commissioned warship of the Royal Navy. Of course, given the state of the Royal Navy, this is no surprise perhaps. Constitution is, in fact, the oldest commissioned warship in reality (Victory is basically a building at this point) and is the old commissioned warship afloat (her current drydocking being temporary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.162 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I put the statement she's the oldest commisioned warship afloat higher up, as it's one of the most noteworthy, and simply stated pieces of info about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:79C5:6AB0:9DDA:2B23 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on USS Constitution. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Constitution: Oldest commissioned ship?

"HMS Victory is a 104-gun first-rate ship of the line of the Royal Navy, laid down in 1759 and launched in 1765. She is most famous as Lord Nelson's flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. She was also Keppel's flagship at Ushant, Howe's flagship at Cape Spartel and Jervis's flagship at Cape St Vincent. After 1824 she served as a harbour ship. In 1922 she was moved to a dry dock at Portsmouth, England, and preserved as a museum ship. She is the flagship of the First Sea Lord and is the oldest naval ship still in commission." --from the Wikipedia entry HMS_Victory. Scutigera (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The topic does not disagree with that. By selectively omitting the end of the sentence, your comment construes a disagreement. TEDickey (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Read the two articles closely. They do make the distinction. No one disputes that Victory is the oldest warship still commissioned. However, Victory is in permanent drydock and cannot sail under her own power, if at all. The USS Constitution is the oldest commissioned warship in the world that is still afloat, which is a major distinction in its own right. Jsc1973 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to change the current wording needs a serious course in reading comprehension. The US Navy constantly upholds this claim in just about every news release they make of the ship. It's not a creation that a bunch of fanboys decided to make. So we have reading comprehension, a note, talk pages full of this issue, and it's still not enough. Brad (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


She's not the oldest ship afloat anymore - http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/06/09/restoration-work-uss-constitution-begin-tuesday/FIgM2NLk7VlTEn63mnkDZJ/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Afacebook

Does anyone know what ship has that distinction now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.158.14 (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So... either the USS Constitution isn't the oldest ship afloat anymore, or she has never been the oldest ship afloat. She was, but isn't anymore, or if drydock doesn't count she has never been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.110.118 (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19) is the US Navy's oldest commissioned and deployable ship.[2] --Dual Freq (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Being in drydock obviously doesn't disqualify her from the title of oldest ship afloat. All warships spend some time in drydock for major repairs. Unless there's some sort of accident and she never returns to the water, leave the article the way it is.72.224.230.110 (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, why was this article changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.13 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Per overlinking policy I added the links that were reverted back into the lead section. As overlinking applies to the body of an article (and having repeated links from the lead in the body is normal and ok) I've added the relevant tag back in (Battle with Guerriere). Also notice other tags in the lead are repeated in the body of the article, such as "George Washington", "Six Original Frigates", "Naval Act of 1794", among others (most other links in the lead are repeated, in fact). Thanks, Garchy (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dates are in UK style

Is this intentional? I'm not going to switch all the dates to US-convention, but it seems odd that a page about a US commissioned warship is written partially in the British style. Garchy (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:DATETIES; third bullet point.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, there's my answer! Thanks :) Garchy (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Constitution. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You're the best annoying spam bot I've ever encountered on WP. Brad (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on USS Constitution. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Constitution. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Retaining featured article status

It's been about 9 years since I brought this article to featured status. Over time the article deteriorates as FA requirements are strengthened and typically well-meaning editors add more cruft to the contents; like ramming pics into the article until it looks like photo gallery, rather than an article. I have made several attempts in the past few years to clean up the article but most often run into problems as my edits are reverted by those who cannot take into consideration the overall picture of retaining FA status and that my edits are part of an long-term overhaul; not just a single edit. Here are some goals the article needs:

  • Update and refresh where possible sources and citations. I've found better and more reliable ones over the years. But the citation style must remain consistent; not a mix of whatever gets thrown in. Some of the content in the article no longer have citations in place only because sloppy editing has removed them.
  • Sources targeted for removal and replacement are: Abbott - MacClay&Smith to be replaced by Toll and or Martin. There are also several online references and sources that are no longer available and should be replaced. Brad (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Article size is an issue at 11k+ words. Part of the solution is to remove less important information that appears as 'name-dropping'. I lessened a list of people attending the 200 anniversary sail but was reverted claiming 'not an improvement'. This is counterproductive. In addition, there is a growing amount of coatracking going on. This is an article about Constitution and not Constellation for example. The article seems to be turning into a 'restoration blog' Certainly it's an important subject especially when the restorations have preserved the ship from ruin. Not sure just yet what can be done about that. We do not need mentions of every little thing that happens to the ship in the present day. I'll quit here although I've more to say on the matter. Brad (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Brad101: Thanks for the post. I was the one who reverted that list, as I couldn't see how it improved things. It helps to know what your goal was, and I certainly agree that there are many extraneous and trivial details included in the article that could be cut. I mentioned this is my most recent edit, but was hesitant to simply start slicing details such as "General So-n-so named his dog after the ship." In light of this, the entire passage concerning all the celebrities who sailed that day could be excised—including Walter Cronkite. I'll see if I can do some pruning. —Dilidor (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I meant to thank you for the professional copyedits you made to the article. They did more good than bad, so I didn't nitpick on the bads :) I thought I should make a post about my intentions. The problem with cutting information typically means that citations get messed around. For example, right now the information about serving as a 'brig' during WWII are not backed up by the current citation ie: the DANFS article does not mention that. Now I have to track down a reference and clean up the Constellation fanboy cruft. Slow and steady is how I prefer to go. Brad (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

And today there are several editors throwing more feces into the article. Fast as I can remove it. Brad (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

update

I've trimmed about 1000 words from the article and likely will find more during a second closer look. If not, the article is more in line with size guidelines now. Brad (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

History Detectives

A very interesting segment that covers some unanswered questions of the Andrew Jackson figurehead incident is on youtube. Brad (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It vs. She

I believe that it is okay to refer to a ship as "it" once the ship is no longer in commission. For example, it is okay to call Constitution it, starting from the present day and other periods when it was not actively sailing. I understand the tradition of referring to ships as "she" is very old and (very cherished still), but there are still sources saying that as early as 1753, sailors would refer to ships as "it" instead of "she" It is okay to refer to a ship in the neuter instead of the feminine.

So, to my friends on Wikipedia, please either leave me alone, or assist or support me as I make these reasonable, small edits. Please not attempt to block me, or I may just report you.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.2.49 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:SHE4SHIPS, a Wi[k]ipedia guideline, once a pronoun is used to refer to the ship, the article should remain "internally consistent". "She" is used 177 times to refer to the ship and "her" is used 148 times. "It" is used 0 times. Once your edits were reverted, you need to stop re-adding them and discuss the issue on talk page. While you have started this discussion, you are also continuing to make the same edits, now for the third time, despite the clear, multiple warnings posted to your IP user talk page. Your edits are disruptive and if you continue, you are the one who will be reported and very likely blocked from editing. Please find another article to make your "small helpful edits to", but just make sure your aren't violating project guidelines (or edit warring). Thank you - wolf 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Added note - I see you had to be reverted three more times by two more editors. You are now edit-warring as well as disrupting that article. I added a welcome notice to your IP user talk page, please read it. You need to have some understanding of the policies here. Also; Constitution is still in commission, and as for "I believe that it is okay to refer to a ship as "it" once the ship is no longer in commission.", that has no bearing here (along with the fact that it sounds like a bunch of nonsense). Stop disrupting the page. Thank you - wolf 19:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright, Wolfchild (cool name, btw).
My apologies. Still, I think other people would agree with me (except for my "vandalous" efforts.)
I will stop editing this page without warning. But I am not dropping this argument any time soon.
Also, with all due respect, I have a decent understanding of the rules here, but that doesn't mean I may forget some small policies here and there. I should remember to be more considerate.
To finish, thank you for reminding me to include a link to this issue: http://www.traveller.com.au/everyone-asks-why-are-ships-called-she-gyr2t0, Please see LLOYD'S LIST. Trust me, it is NOT nonsense.
Thanks again, and let's create no more trouble for each other.
Your friend in editing (if you'll consider me your friend that is),
Wiscipidier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.2.49 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Tangier

Hartley (2007), p. 346 (see Tangier), includes the section:

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, autonomous corsairs out of Tangier were attacking American shipping and holding the sailors of many nations for ransom. In response, US commodore Preble sailed into Tangier harbor in 1803 and pulled off a daring rescue of American prisoners.

Was that source mistaken and this was only a squadron of gunboats enforcing a ship exchange, as this article currently suggests? or are both accounts just focusing on different parts of the same event? It'd be nice to hear about the "daring rescue" of enslaved Americans here, if there was more to it than "I'll give you your floating toys back if you give us our floating toys back".—Mr Spear (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Per the Nautilus page, the squadron's gunboat diplomacy at Tangier also led to the reaffirmation/renewal of the Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship.—Mr Spear (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ribs and riders

During her era, and for wooden ships since, the transverse members weren’t called ribs. They are frames, almost always made up of multiple pieces called futtocks. So, not only are the riders not “ribs”, a ship like Constitution does not have any ribs. That was then a term reserved for boats and canoes, whose ribs are almost always single pieces. In fact, many wooden boats used both frames and ribs, with the strakes fitted to the frames and floors, and then the lighter ribs fitted to the strakes.

A rider was much like a frame in appearance, except put on the diagonal. Like frames, riders were made up of pieces, also called futtocks, “rider futtocks” in full. Qwirkle (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Jack?

What jack does Constitution fly? After some Googling, I've gotten conflicting information saying that she both does and doesn't fly the First Navy Jack, even after the USN's switch-over back to the Union Jack this month. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

There is this: https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2019/NAV19039.txt
That suggests, I think, that all US Navy ships will wear the Union Jack except Blue Ridge. Constitution is mentioned in a way that seems to mean that she is not eligible to wear the First Navy Jack else no other ship could have that honor. Unless there is some exception in some other NAVADMIN directive...
Editors in Boston? Go look. Report back.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Visits to other cities

I recall in the 70s, perhaps 1976, visiting this ship, in a different city, it was on tour. Was hoping to find information about that. -- GreenC 23:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I stronly suspect you saw a different ship. The last time she sailed extensively was in the ‘30s, IMS. Qwirkle (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Yup. Different ship. -- GreenC 03:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Redlinked commanders

Almost all of the ship's commanders from the modern era seem to be redlinks. Per MOS:REDLINK, we shouldn't have redlinks unless they're for notable people who could have articles. Are the modern commanders notable? If not, they should be black non-links instead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Black if at all I think per WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS Lyndaship (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree, this list should be blanked per wp:shipsnotcrews, with only notable commanders being added to chronologically appropriate sections of the prose if such sections exist, or other commanders, whether noteworthy on their or not, being added to the prose as well if they played a significant role in a noteworthy event in the ships history. - wolf 01:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Prefix U.S.S in the Ship Constitution

How does the USS Constitution have the prefix abbreviation "U.S.S" (United States Ship) if that prefix abbreviation was only applied or imposed to ships in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt? MaharlikanBoi (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave arguing the historical aspect of using the "USS" prefix to others. However, the USS Constitution was in commission in 1907, and still is, so the order does fully apply to her since that date. BilCat (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@MaharlikanBoi: USS was already in use by some ships, long before it was standardized for all ships in 1907. Even the Confederacy used CSS during the Civil War. HMS was in use by the British as far back as the 17th century and we know the American military copied a great deal from the British. (fyi) - wolf 07:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

date of commissioning / maiden voyage

Many sources I've yet seen indicate Constitution's commissioning date as July 22, 1792, which this article lists as her maiden voyage. But the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships - at https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/c/constitution.html - indicates she first put to sea the following day, July 23. The Wiki source is apparently a 1966 book by John Jennings. But the DANFS is published by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Naval History Division. Shouldn't the DANFS date be accepted as the correct one? Elsquared (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for writing the wrong year (should be 1798). I contacted the Constitution directly - not the museum, the ship itself. They confirmed the July 22 - not 23 - date, in 1798, as commissioning and first sailing. Elsquared (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"in commission"

This really should be changed. The Constitution is the world's oldest ship in commission. She has a Navy crew and officers. If a Soviet submarine attacked Boston she could hoist sail and give battle. No doubt she would lose but she could do that because she is still truly in commission.

The Victory is on the books but parked on dry land (not in a drydock as claimed), is not manned by officers and crew, and could not possibly engage in any sort of naval warfare. One could claim with some justification that she is no longer even a ship.

We do not need the "still afloat" qualifier, a naval ship that's parked on the lawn is not "in commission" by any stretch of the English language. 203.160.80.174 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We say what the reliable sources (and the Royal Navy) say, and you need a reliable source to support your opinion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)“In commission” vs. “decommissioned”, “in ordinary”, &cet. is more a legal, administrative, and funding question than a question of practical fighting ability. I am sure there are several museum pieces which could give as good an account for themselves as some commissioned warships, and some ships have remained in commission while acting as floating barracks or training facilities. That said, Victory’s situation seems a great deal more like a ship in ordinary than the usual sense of “commissioned”, but I think that is a matter for the Royal Navy, just as Constitution’s is for the USN. Let it be here. Qwirkle (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Victory is in a drydock; the fact that the dock is now permanently closed is but a (significant) detail. Davidships (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
″If a Soviet submarine attacked Boston she could hoist sail and give battle″ there would be more to talk about than an old wooden ship trying to fight it off. 69.128.140.82 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

How many people are actually running this ship?

60 enlisted--or 6 + 46? This article conflicts with itself in the Intro and the "Present Day" sections.

"As she is a fully commissioned Navy ship, her crew of 60 officers and sailors participate in ceremonies, educational programs, and special events while keeping her open to visitors year round and providing free tours."

versus

"The mission of Constitution is to promote understanding of the Navy's role in war and peace through active participation in public events and education through outreach programs, public access, and historic demonstration.[218] Her crew of 6 officers and 46 enlisted participate in ceremonies..."

I don't know if I need to cite a source for the math here... but 60 <> 46 + 6

--Cal1gula (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The part of the lead that stated "60 officers and enlisted" was not sourced, but was likely dependent on the the "1925 restoration and tour" section, that stated the ship had a crew of 60 in 1931.
The "Present day" section that stated a crew "6+46", had two refs attached, but one ref actually stated a crew of "75" while the other ref didn't mention any crew numbers at all. I corrected that to say "75" and changed the lead to state "75" as well, as it's referring to the present day and is dependent on that section. The article should be ok now, wrt to current day crew numbers. - wolf 09:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The chase needs clarification

how is it that the British ships were able to chase constitution since they were sharing the same winds? Also, my past reading said that the British were unable to kedge, presumably because their boats would have been under fire from constitution. some support is given by the Fischer painting, which shows no British boats out. The situation leads to the same question, how could they close with Constitution in the first place? I think this needs an explicit reference. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Constitution/Archive_2&oldid=1251447736"