Jump to content

Talk:USS G. W. Blunt (1856)

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

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge, although the target is unclear; it is accepted that there were two boats (1856 and 1861) sharing the same name, but that the histories are sufficiently confused that it they are best covered on one page. Klbrain (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod, Netherzone, The ed17, Greghenderson2006, and Newyorkbrad: Discussion about merging George W. Blunt, No. 11 with USS G. W. Blunt (1861) . Graywalls (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is older, does not make it a better article. The article, George W. Blunt, No. 11 contains the complete history as a 19th Century pilot-boat. --Greg Henderson (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the page statistics for both articles for the period between Nov. 2019 and today. (I skipped Oct, 2019 since that is when the other article was created and there were many viewers, reviewers etc. that month, and it should not be counted as an accurate average.) This article: USS GW Blunt has 36 average page views per day for that period, whereas the other George W. Blunt (No. 11) has only 18 average page views per day; half as many. As I got to thinking why, my thought is that this USS article must get readers interested in US military history as well as boats. Whereas the GWB (No. 11) article probably gets readers who are just interested in pilot boats, but we should also keep in mind that several of those recent viewers are probably editors checking out the AfD who might not normally research a typical pilot boat. Before seeing these stats, I had no preference which article should be merged into which, however now I'm clear that the newer article should be merged into this one, since this one has more historical value on multiple levels and is therefore more relevant to more of our readers. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging into George W. Blunt, No. 11. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with suggestions: First, an uncomfortable question. How solid is the evidence the Lloyd's "Geo. W. Blunt, 140 tons (registry?) even the same vessel as the Navy's G. W. Blunt 121 tons (displacement as usual?)? DANFS makes me raise that question with "G. W. Blunt, formerly Blunt" — not George W. — following a short bio of George William Blunt connected with publication of nautical books, U.S. Coast Survey and U.S. Lighthouse Service. Did the pilots name their vessel for this person? Another of the same name? Did the Navy give his full name to a vessel named simply Blunt? I'd prefer to see that nailed down if possible as it is possible there is a confusion of hulls there. Then merge to George W. Blunt (1856), drop the No. 11 in the title (cover/explain in text) as it is not part of the name — as reference #3, American Lloyd’s Register of American and Foreign Shipping 1859, confrims. Cover the pilot boat era and then the acquisition by the Navy as is typical for so many WW I and WW II civilian vessels taken into Navy service, whether commissioned or in service. The current title of the ship as Navy is bad as it has a year DAB that is not launch year and identical to an actual year DAB for the second pilot vessel; possibly very confusing. Cover the second pilot vessel as in "Second George W. Blunt pilot boat" in the first pilot vessel article. Palmeira (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only if a definite and hard link can be found between the 1856 pilot vessel and Navy vessel. At this point I would call into question statements in both articles connecting the two as lacking references. Nothing in DANFS positively connects the two so it is not a valid reference for that linkage. Palmeira (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then here, the #11 is referenced as 200 tons. https://archive.org/details/monthlynautical01unkngoog/page/n397/mode/2up (middle left of page). Part of the problem, I think is that a considerable amount of contents at George W. Blunt, No. 11 (as you can see from seeing that article's talk page) was copy and paste from some self-published book/PDF called "Henderson Family & California Perfume Company" which may contain original research, and sources used within may not necessarily be reliable. Graywalls (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have changed the DANFS references from a target somewhere in the print volume to the specific pages in the current on line DANFS. Yes, an illustration of why "tons" or "tonnage" without specification of what measurement can be highly confusing. Same with "length" where first the basis, overall, between perpendiculars, registry, and others, must be specified and then there can be variances within the actual measurements. When there are questions about vessel identity those are supporting indicators rather than proof. The real question is whether a vessel the Navy says was originally Blunt renamed G. W. Blunt was the George W. Blunt of the pilots. Perhaps I have not had enough coffee but I see no "nail" for that question in either article's references. There appears to be a bit of an identity leap between the other references and DANFS. Palmeira (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Palmeira, Perhaps this registry is a better one to support that the US Navy's G.W. Blunt was the same pilot-boat as the George W. Blunt, No. 11: shows that she was owned by US Gov, with the same "built year" and "tonage" as the earlier registries for the Pilot-boat owned by the NY Pilots. Your vote for "support" is confusing. When you said "Cover the second pilot vessel as in "Second George W. Blunt pilot boat" in the first pilot vessel article." I think you mean to keep or Against the merge; but rather, keep the George W. Blunt, No 11 article and not do the merge. Is that correct? --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My support was for merging assumed that the pilot vessel was the Navy vessel. I still support merging if solid evidence can be found that the pilot vessel became the Navy vessel. The register you link is a helpful clue with a "Geo. W. Blunt built '56 and "Pilot boat No. 11" owned by the government in the 1869. That is definitely a thread, but not a solid ID as USS C. W. Blunt as the government took vessels for other uses. One thing it does establish, not really needed, is that the "No. 11" is a pilot boat number and not part of the vessel's name. Palmeira (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Palmeira:, well this is much more complex than I expected. The more I dig around, the more discrepancy I find. So, the ship was 85' long in the Pilot Boat article; but it's 76' in the Navy article.Graywalls (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand now we are somewhat in the position of a person building a genealogy file dealing with 3d greatgrandfather George W. Blunt born in New York 1856, sometimes known to be confused with a younger man of the same name, of average height with brown hair and eyes working for Sandy Hook Company and trying to link him with a G. W. Blunt born in New York mentioned in Navy dispatches. Possible, even likely given some leaps, but far from definite. Age, height, complexion and such is of no use. We need a record of enlistment or other such confirmation the person was in the Navy and mentioned in that dispatch. Palmeira (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, in the USS G. W. Blunt (1861) article, the citation for article, says it is 85 feet. --Greg Henderson (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source I cited, which you also just mentioned now does not. It says 76'6". This source talks about the USS one. The one that says 85 ft is the New York Daily Times, which specifically says "No. 11". What seems to be lacking (that is accessible to me w/o being behind the paywall) is a secondary source directly supporting that No. 11 became the USS G.W Blunt. The book source I just added also says the USS G.W. Blunt was made in E. Boston, and this book was published by Taylor & Francis; so it'd considered as more reliable source here than Wiki editors reading through primary sources, like that table on mysticseareport website. We still haven't resolved the 140 vs 121 ton mystery either. Graywalls (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding length and tonnages for identification: Unless there is a clear statement of what measurement type and method is behind the numbers they are nearly useless for identification. Navy almost always (I know of a few exceptions) uses length overall in DANFS. Most people think of LOA for ship length. Builders and shippers use other measures, length between perpendiculars (the illustration is informative!) being very common. Then there is that very similar register length. In the days of long bowsprits and sail the LOA figure can be very much larger number than LBP or registry. Likewise any statement of tonnage without specification of what kind and how measured is worthless. Navy tends to use displacement, tons of water displaced at full load based on hull form. Commercial is almost always volumetric based on measurement of space with only DWT being on a footing with displacement. Gross and Net have nothing to do with displacement. To complicate matters slightly different techniques were sometimes used to actually make the measurement so that I have seen even LBP with slight differences. Unfortunately the ship in question does not even have a good set of dimensions in the linked register to even begin resolving register v. DANFS numbers. Palmeira (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your suggestion got a reference I consider good enough to link the first pilot vessel to the Navy vessel so I think the merger should be done. Whether the replacement pilot vessel with its rescue meets notability to stand alone in something I am not that interested in now. I see no reason the brief mention cannot be made of it in a merged article to ensure readers get the distinction. Palmeira (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mjroots: This thing has been really confusing with the two pilot boats having the exact name (and possibly the same pilot vessel number of "11"), all the trying to match measurements and tonnages when the measurement is unknown, and then DANFS not specifically stating the "chain of custody" from pilots to Navy for the vessel. Long, too long ago, I learned the mess that can be had with ship names. The crew of one of the ships I spent much time in were absolutely convinced they had the ship's history right in connection with an event of some note. It was years later when I had a bit more experience looking into ship history that I found it was not our ship but an event associated with another vessel named for the same thing. The ship I knew so well had nothing at all to do with the "famous" event and ours even had another name at the time. Nevertheless the legend persisted because years later I ran into some of that crew on other ships and they were still convinced their old ship had "been there." Palmeira (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment So it appears there's a consensus in favor of merging pilot boats into this article, so long as the identity issues are properly resolved. Graywalls (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I stand by that vote as well. It's a bit unorthodox, but it seems like the ship's histories are confused enough that they should be covered in a single article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also stand by my !vote to merge the GWB (No. 11) article into this one, as USS GWB was the most historically significant in its career for the Navy. Care needs to be taken to clearly resolve any further confusion within the newly merged article regarding it's several career paths as a pilot boat, then Naval vessel, then salvage boat. I think the second boat should be mentioned but it is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, I support a merger, but into George W. Blunt, No. 11.Davidships (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Connection made that is good enough

[edit]

A single hit of an advanced search at Library of Congress (as suggested by Mjroots) for 1861—1862 using phrase and words go a new reference that seems to be what is needed. The New York Herald, December 02, 1861, Page 8, Image 8. It is about the second pilot boat but has "take the place of a yacht of the same name recently sold to the US government to go to Port Royal as a pilot boat." That is more than a slim thread connecting the vessels. I am adding it as a reference so that a link is made that is good enough. The new reference states the new pilot boat replacing the first was 120 tons (unspecified basis) built in July 1861, by Messrs Brown & Lovell (found elsewhere as East Boston builders) who sold the vessel to Messrs Henderson & Callahan of New York for $8,000 cash. In checking I found the pilots were competing individuals at that time so perhaps the buyers were the actual pilots. Something someone might develop. The brief note is in the second from right column, just above mid page of the link. Palmeira (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up needed — merged (I support) or stand alone articles

[edit]

(Duplicated in both Talk pages)

Now that we have a cite for the 1856 pilot boat being the USS G. W. Blunt there are a few clean up things that need doing regardless of the merge outcome. I now support the merge as a single article gives continuity and avoids confusion. Here are what I see as continuing problems:

  • USS G. W. Blunt (1861) as a title: 1861 is the Navy "induction" not the launch date, thus confusing with the second, replacement pilot vessel George W. Blunt built in 1861.
  • Title if merged: USS era has a bit more "career" information and perhaps subject of more searches. Does that outweigh the pilot boat's importance enough to over ride first name and title of George W. Blunt (1856) or some other DAB?
    • I strongly disapprove of George W. Blunt, No. 11 if not merged. The No. 11 was its pilot boat number, like a pennant number and its replacement might even have taken that number. In any case it is not even part of the vessels name. I lean to George W. Blunt (1856) even it it is now completion rather than launch.
  • Coverage of the second, 1861 built George W. Blunt pilot boat: So far there may be nothing but the rescue and its loss for notability and a spearate article (George W. Blunt (1861)?) but it should definitely be mentioned and clearly distinguished from the first vessel. Otherwise the confusion we've sometimes gotten in between the first and second pilot vessels would be compounded among readers and editors conflating the two.

In researching this I ran across several discussions of the history of the Sandy Hook pilots. They were keen competitors owning fast vessels. One noted they sailed as far as New England and the Virginia Capes seeking business. They were eventually brought under tighter state control, but some of that needs to go into the pilot boat (merged or separate) as it explains some of the ownership and activities. Palmeira (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I gave a perfectly good title for the 1861 pilot boat in the merge discussion. If anyone wants to try an write an article on that vessel I would suggest that they work it up in a sandbox as there is always the possibility that WP:GNG might not be met. The Library of Congress has copies of newspapers from the period in question online (link available from WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it made?

[edit]

I'm hearing Boston as well as New York. Do we know definitively, should we say sources disagree, or just omit it? https://books.google.com/books?id=x-XcAgWYTMMC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104 reliable secondary source says E.Boston, although I'm hearing New York too. Should we just disregard everything from primary source documents from mysticseaport.org website? Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Messrs Brown & Lovell of East Boston built the second pilot vessel. It appears Civil War Navies, 1855-1883 got confused just as others — making my point too above about the (1861) title for the Navy ship. That box has "Launched" 1861. Nope, not the Navy one. It was acquired by the government in 1861. That tends to discount accuracy of that particular source. Palmeira (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two pre-CW citations in the articles are clear that this vessel was built in 1856 in New York, and the fuller New-York Daily Times piece also identifies the shipbuilder as Daniel Westervelt. I agree that the modern book, clearly drawing on DANFS, seems to draw an erroneous inference out of the latter's silence on where and when the schooner was built.
The American Lloyd's Register 1859 cite does also provide sparse but credible information, including the slightly larger 140t (as noted elsewhere, different types of measurement are probably in play but the lack of clarity in any of these sources hinders interpretation, so I think an appropriate separate footnote should cover this). However ALR goes on to make a dog's breakfast of the subsequent changes and the second pilot boat - they keep New York/1856/140t until the 1871 edition, when they strangely introduce "1866" as the year-of build; only in the 1874 edition do they change the tonnage to the well-supported 51t, but leaving New York/1866 unchanged; then adding the correct dimensons (75 x 20 x 8ft) in 1878. Having only started in 1867, the Record of American & Foreign Shipping is more credible on the 2nd schooner, listing the boat from 1876; each register, though, keeps its entry way beyond the reported loss in 1875 (ALR 1880, RAFS 1882).Davidships (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal at pilot schooner article.

[edit]

I have cleaned up the original vessel's infobox and intro to avoid confusion. On Talk:George W. Blunt, No. 11 I have summerized that and made a proposal this article be merged into the pilot vessel article to maintain chronological integrity that will also help avoid the mass confusion of same/variant names, two pilot boats of the same name and the impossible apple/orange/grapefruit sorting of unspecified dimensions and tonnage from various old sources in attempts to sort vessels of same or almost same characteristics. In any case the title here is inappropriate. The DAB of date is Navy acquisition year, not launch year, and thus adds to confusion with the second pilot boat launched in 1861. As far as I can tell no other Navy vessel was named G. W. Blunt so no DAB is needed. Palmeira (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this article has been moved to "(1856)" when just above it is noted that a year dab is not needed at all; the point was also made in the Project Ships discussion - I've made the same point elsewhere - and nobody has argued a contrary view. Davidships (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reference with many "hits"

[edit]

Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion would be useful. Wait for the search on "Blunt" to complete after going to the link. Palmeira (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to correct title before merge

[edit]

(Duplicated in both article Talk pages) No matter whether merge is George W. Blunt built 1856 <-> USS G. W. Blunt built 1856 and acquired by Navy in 1861 the names required correction. That may cut down on confusion as well. The whole USS G. W. Blunt (1861) was a blunder using acquisition year instead of built year encouraging conflation with the second pilot schooner, built as a replacement for the first, in 1861. Clean up at linking pages after move with direct links except on various user and talk pages. Palmeira (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_G._W._Blunt_(1856)&oldid=1213175551"