This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As I understand it, the wooden keel of the ship is the only piece of the original Constitution remaining; all the rest of the ship has been replaced. Supposedly, when the keel is replaced, the ship will be considered to be a replica and not the actual Constitution. (I remember being told this when I took a tour of the ship some 15-20 years ago...)
That's crap. Consider: most of the molecules in your body are replaced over the years. Are you still the same person as the day you were born? Yes, of course. Identity comes not from actual skin or blood, not from replaceable planks and nails, but from the continuity of history. The Constitution has survived more than two centuries just because no single part is irreplaceable.
What?! My mother works on the Constitution. Having just mentioned this to her, she says that it's untrue. The Constitution has been repaired, yes, but most of the original ship is still there.Klassykittychick 00:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Somewhere I read that the Argo was preserved by the ancient Greeks for many centuries and continuously repaired, and that the philosophers argued about whether it was still the same ship or not. So maybe it's not a new discussion. :-) Stan 13:41, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, it was the ship of Theseus, as reported by Plutarch: "The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same." Google "Argo puzzler" to see an amusing mail thread among classical scholars on all this... Stan 13:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
...and once again our restaurant's cuisine is good enough for us to eat here instead of going out for lunch; see Ship of Theseus. Stan 14:16, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Some estimates of how much is original from around the 1997 restoration are in this document. They estimate that that only the parts that remain in contact with the sea and therefore soaked, would resist rot. And of that part of the hull, perhaps 10% is original, including, but not limited to, the keel.--J Clear 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's an intresting point philosophically, but I think it's pedantic. After any significant fight, I'd guess that a wooden warship required the replacement of several parts - as I recall, Constitution swiped Java's wheel after their fight, for instance. Storms also did their share of damage. I don't think anyone ever seriously considered the ships that emerged from repairs to be anything else than the ships that went in for repairs, now repaired. I think that the key point is that the ship has existed continuously since uh - 1797?; though parts have been replaced, they have always been removed and replaced on Constituion, rather than starting a new ship from scratch. Finally, these ships were designed and built to sail out, blast each other to splinters, be repaired and sail again. Replacement of parts is part of the natural and expected life of a wooden warship. --Badger151 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I visited the Constitution at Baltimore in 2005, and the universal opinion of the books being sold in the bookshop - and the line that was in both the brochures and told by the crew - was that the present ship was new built in 1835, using some timber from the original vessel. Even the proportion of older timber was thought to be relatively small. The view given was clearly that this was a new vessel which was different in many respects from the original and that beyond the inclusion of some timber from the earlier vessel, she was at that time a new (not rebuilt) vessel. The re-use of timber from an older ship was commonplace at the time. I suspect that the confusion arises simply because for sentimental reasons, the name Constitution was kept in continuous use for two consecutive vessels. BTW, a member of the crew with whom I had a long conversation was unaware that HMS Victory had been in continuous commission for much longer than the Constitution! Whatever, she is a lovely old lady, if perhaps not quite as old as some people would have her.--APRCooper 09:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, the Constitution is currently berthed in Boston Harbor, and has been for a while now.--Raguleader 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
UK != UKGBI
To: N328KF. You mention that United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not the same article as United Kingdom. Yes, that is true. The two articles duplicate the relevant facts. Linking the phrase United Kingdom to either will tell the reader what they need to know. The only difference is that one article is more universal. Bobblewik 16:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
it's about the USS Constitution's birthday party... and if you really love her, try the lottery and win a chance to be aboard next July 4 for her turnaround cruise: http://ussconstitutionlottery.com/
every person in your household can enter once.Pedant 01:56, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
I don't mean to troll, but I find I think it may be a bit of a leap to claim the victory over the Java gave the US the "rank of a world-class naval power". It still only had a few frigates (admittedly very good ones), and no ships of the line. Perhaps "established the US Navy as a force to be reckoned with" or words to that effect?
It's not so much the victory over the Java as it is victory over Great Brittain; remeber that the United Kingdom had been in the buisness of naval combat a lot longer than the United States had; additionally, they were still the world's largest superpower, so the fact that our ship won (and won dramatically) made us able to compete with Great Brittian for control of the seas, thus establishing America with the "rank of a world class naval power". TomStar81 05:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's often pointed out by my friends across the pond that the Americans won their actions by heavier weight of broadside--but that begs the point. (The RN was huge in numbers and not to be beaten as a body by any Navy in the world) The USN won seven of eight sloop actions against the greatest navy in the world in one-to-one combat in addition to the 50-50 results in frigate actions. Those victories engenedered prestige on the world stage and induced Congress to expand the size of the USN. IMHO it is not a stretch to state the USN advanced to a world power--its ships roamed the world executing American foreign policy. Buckboard 09:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As you point out "IMHO", in other words it is POV! The US Navy never attempted to take on the Royal Navy in the same way that the French and Spanish did. They would have been mad to try. Despite the strength of the Constitution and other large frigates, in a pitched battle with a first, second or even third rate ship of the line, they would not have lasted long. But that is not what frigates are for. They are for attacking commerce, and destroying smaller and equal ships.
In modern terms, the US Navy is a world super power, its ships can defeat any other navy. The Royal Navy is a world class navy and could probably defeat any other navy except the USN. However, there are a lot of other navies out there which while not being able to challenge the more powerful ones directly, can project naval power worldwide provided the more powerful ones do not interfere. This was the situation for the USN in 1815. They could not take on the Royal Navy directly, but they could act worldwide provided the RN did not actively oppose them with maximum force. Does this make them a world power? Depends on your definitions. Dabbler 13:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What does the flag belong to?
Hi,
I was looking at this article, and the information listed on the right has a "Don't Tread on Me" flag. Is this the flag of the USS Constitution, or of some larger political body? The image page itself didn't mention. (Image:Dtomjack large.png) Could that be added to a caption, or to a text description on the image page? -- Creidieki 03:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I see that the image page has been edited to include a link to the article, which I appreciate. -- Creidieki 14:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Replica made in 1926 information plea
Can anyone add any information about a replica of Constitution? All I know is that a sea-going replica of USS Constitution was built for the filming of James Cruze's film Old Ironsides (1926) with assistance from the US Navy Department. Any further knowledge? --mervyn 12:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tiny tidbit here about the ship being used in later films.--J Clear 16:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Stats:
Crew:
-back then-
540 men:
53 marines
30 young boys
20-30 officers
-Now-
50-80 dedicated men
Speed:13+ knots
boats onboard
1 long boat 36 ft.
2 cutters 30 ft.
2 whaleboats 28 ft.
1 Gig 28 ft.
1 Jolly 22 ft.
1 punt 14 ft.
-Fan of constitution-
Regarding Patrick O'Brian's depiction of Constitution v. Java
Admittedly, O'Brian's novel is a work of fiction, but I think that he's always very carful about research and historical accuracy - in the author's note he states that the only liberty he has taken with regards to the action is to place his characters aboard. Comparing O'Brian's account with the report of Java's senior Lieutenant and Master, as reprinted in Dean King's A Sea of Words shows this clearly. To call the account fictionalised therefor seems to describe it as less than it is: a carefully researched depiction of the actual action. This is why I have rephrased the entery regarding O'Brian's Fortune of War. --Badger151 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Lucy Brewer and the Constitution
Does anyone have any information on Lucy Brewer's three-year-stint on the Constituion back in 1812 to add to this? All I have is a one-sentence entry in my computer's encyclopedia which states that this woman disguised herself as a man named Nicolas Baker and served as a crew member of the Constitution. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the USS NEVERSINK:
The mention of the NEVERSINK was referenced to the frigate USS UNITED STATES and not the frigate CONSTITUTION. Melville served on board the frigate USS UNITED STATES 1842-1844. The American frigate he refers to is the USS UNITED STATES. Melville served as an Ordinary Seaman and his station was in the foretop. I am: Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr.; Founder & President; USS UNITED STATES Foundation: USSUNITEDSTATES@Yahoo.com
Models
I'm about to take out a poorly formatted link to a model maker that was added recently. If a decently formatted link is to go back in, I'd like some discussion here first. Thanks.--J Clear 00:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Link wasn't even to an Old Ironsides model, but to home page of model supply vendor.--J Clear 00:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Materials
The article presently states she is made of "2000 live oak trees". I think I read that it was about 2000 trees total, but it was far from 100% live oak. For instance "the original materials for deck, ceiling, and deck beams were specified to be "best heart pitch pine", today Douglas Fir is used" (from "Materials on USS Constitution".). I'll do some more digging, but am going to slightly edit that portion of the article to split up the 2000 from live oak. Some reading for those interested in the restoration.--J Clear 01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Navy's historical timeline on official web site lists it as 2000 trees. Also makes a point of the fact that materials came from all over the fledgling US. If I add the other states, the overly detailed Georgia info is going to stand out. Can the Georgia sentence be shortened? Something like the equivalent paragraph in the Navy's tour handout. I'll let the idea soak a bit in discussion. I'm from PA, which isn't mentioned, so I don't think I have POV here.--J Clear 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a single piece of original wood in this ship today or 100% has been replaced gradually?
See the section at the top labeled Original, and please try to remember to sign your comments.--J Clear 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What is a turnaround cruise?
Maybe this is an obvious question — but what is a turnaround cruise? Based on the name I assume it is a cruise where the ship leaves port and then turns around and comes back, but is there more to it than that? —ptk✰fgs 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Almost literally what it sounds like. To make sure the ship weathers evenly, they periodically tow it out into Boston Harbor, parade her around for a few hours then redock her with the other side toward the pier. They always do it every 4th of July. And it seems like they do it more often. For the 4th, there is a lottery for the limited number of passager slots on board for the cruise (see the Navy's web site to apply), not sure about the other cruises. The local tug boat company actually has a special short tug boat that you can't see over the Constitution so those on shore get nice photos. Once every few hundred years they put up the sails, drop the tow ropes, and let her sail a bit.--J Clear 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I can aid this one. I'm the Public Affairs Officer aboard CONSTITUTION. A turnaround cruise is generally regarded as the time in which the ship makes her annual turnaround cruise -- as stated previously, to "weather her evenly" against the sun and other elements and aid in accessibility for maintenance projects. The traditional ocurrence of this is on July 4 each year. However, CONSTITUTION gets underway in Boston Harbor several times each year, for different occasions; the actual switch of her berth orientation usually happens on the first underway period of the year (typically in June). The term "turnaround cruise," however, is used to refer to almost underway period the ship conducts. The ship is always technically under power of tug boat, even during the end of the season when the crew sets the sails aboard the ship while underway.
In 1997, CONSTITUTION set sail for the first time under her own sail power (no tug boats) in 116 years.
Categories
Since Constitution has been in commission for so long, I briefly considered adding additional "<WAR X> naval ships" categories. But while it may be technically correct, I figured it didn't really add much value before doing so. Although the Civil War might be worth it.--J Clear 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't there a category for warships or military ships? --Sugarcaddy 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't put it in, but for what it's worth, I was there when admiral Grace Hopper, the mother of Cobol and inventor of the first compiler visited the ship. Probably worth a mention somewhere in a trivia section, certainly as notable as a GI Joe episode. --Sugarcaddy 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to dispute the relative notability of Grace Hopper and GI Joe, but how many other notable people visited Constitution? I think I recall Queen Elizabeth II (perhaps from the article). And was Grace making an official visit as an Admiral, or just showed up like any of the rest of us? The GI Joe bit reminds me of a editorial cartoon back in the 80's, when news of the stealth fighter leaked out. Navy claims to already have a stealthy ship with excellent fuel economy, second panel shows USS Constitution.--J Clear 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
See Also
Can someone explain the relevance of the Space Shuttle Enterprise to this article?!? Pjbflynn 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
the original craft (the Enterprise) used for flight tests, was originally going to be called the Constitution. until a bunch of star trek fans did a letter campaign to get it named Enterprise.
Star of India?
I'm not sure what the recent addition of the Star of India comparison adds to this article. Nobody is claiming Constitution is very active in the setting sail sense. One could argue that since Constitution leaves the dock more often than once a year, perhaps she is more active than Star. There is also the fact that some of the other west coast sailing ships contest Star's claim to be active. I believe the mention of HMS Victory is appropriate as Constitution is more of a contemporary of Victory, both being wooden hulled 18th century naval vessels.
I think we probably need a page like First flying machine to consolidate such items. Anyway I thought I'd put my reasons for commenting it out here. --J Clear 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Status
It says "Status: Active, in commission, as of March 2007". I'm changing that to: "Status: Active, in commission" There is no need to have an "as of" date since all information indicates that the Constitution will remain "active, in commission" as long as the ship and the United States Navy exist. Fanra 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Quaker Designers
A very interesting connection to the development of pacifism in America might be added to this article. My understanding is that 2 of the 3 designers, including Josiah Fox, were Quakers. The design of a warship did not sit well with their fellow congregants in their local meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. I understand that at least one was asked to leave the congregation (likely went before a discernment committee. Would someone like to take up the relatively simple task of getting these details? Aaron B. Daniels 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Copper Sheathing, Spikes & Bolts
The Wikipedia article for USS Constitution states: "Paul Revere forged the copper spikes and bolts that held the planks in place and the copper sheathing that protected the hull." Wikipedia article for Paul Revere says Paul Revere pioneered production of copper plating in 1801. The USS Constitution was launched and commissioned in October of 1797. Something needs to be researched here. Driftwood87 (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
he Revere copper was installed during a refit after the ship was already in commission. I'd have to dig up my copy of Six Frigates to get exact dates and places, though. -MBK004 04:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the entry to reflect that copper sheathing was not original equipment. The reference was here: [1] Though I cannot determine whether it was installed before or after the command of Edward Preble. --Brad (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll dig out my copy of Six Frigates tonight and see what I can find. I distinctly remember that there is at least a few pages on this refit and the timeline. -MBK004 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Peer Review
I requested a Peer Review on this article with the goal of bringing the article to Good Article status or higher. Suggestions are being made on the review page. --Brad (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
USS Constitution and USS Simpson sunk enemy ships?
I believe if you look at the Various Nimitz class and USS Enterprise (CVN 65) carriers you will see that they also sank enemy gunboats, missile boats and other surface ships with their aircraft. Aircraft are one of the many weapons a Carrier has on board. Now with direct missile or gunfire, I would say the statement is correct which is that the USS Constitution and USS Simpson are the only two ships to had sank enemy ships with Direct Gunfire or Direct Missile Fire.Magnum Serpentine 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well after making sure I was logged in before writting the above, I totally forgot to sign my post. I totally apologizeMagnum Serpentine 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
All I know is that USS Constitution is one of four ships that have sunk enemy ships. The other three ships are USS Simpson (FFG-56), USS Porter (DDG-78) and USS Carter Hall (LSD-50). I think they sunk enemy ships from direct gunfire or missile fire but there might be other ships in US navy that have sunk ships through the use of aircrafts. Hope this help.
I put citations in where the three other ships besides Constitution have "sunk enemy ships" though I believe we're stretching it a bit. Some pirate skiffs were sunk by gunfire but a skiff could likely be sunk with a shotgun and not need a Navy destroyer to do the job. This is also a hair splitting claim since we have to use the disclaimer regarding sinking by aircraft or sinking by weapons fired from a ship. That along with the hair splitting over "oldest commissioned warship afloat" is beginning to make this article a bit silly. --Brad (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Article needs rewrite.
Sorry to say, I was collecting references for what I thought was an originally written article but then I found this! Apparently it was copied word for word and then incorrectly attributed to DANFS which explains why I saw little if any DANFS text in the article and believed it to be substantially reworked. --Brad (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
A class review now open for this article
Comments and suggestions are welcome at the review page. --Brad (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Type of wood used for ship
I remember hearing from a teacher (many moons ago) that the hull was made with ironwood, alleged to be a very hard wood, and one reason enemy cannon balls seemed to bounce off. Brian Pearson (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That could be true but according to Carpinus caroliniana the tree is not very tall growing. I've only found one reference to that type of wood being used and its vague about where it was used. I don't think this wood was part of the hull but could have been used elsewhere. --Brad (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
All my sources say oak and more oak. Anyway, the bouncing off is easily explained if you compare Constitutions framing - just a few inches between frames, where contemporary British ships had more widedly-spaced frames, and planks hardly thick enough to slow down a ball. :-) Stan (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Opponent to ships of the line
The Constitution herself is a ship of the line in the sense that she is a...4th Rate Ship Of The Line, IIRC. Not sure what this sentence adds (Though I wouldn't add in mention of 4th Rate as its a British measuring system, and I am sure carries negative connotation...just feel that this line is misleading). Would first rates be appropiate in this sentence, such as 'She was considered by many to be a capable opponent, even for First Rate Ships of the Line'? If so...how can we prove this? Britain deployed no first rate ships AFAIK to the Americas during the war of 1812, so isn't this just opinion, similar to someone putting 'Beckham beats the pants off Brazilian footballers' in a football article? --Narson 00:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
From my extensive research in the works of Forester, O'Brian, Kent, et. al., a frigate is not a "ship of the line". I believe over on HMS Victory, Nelson or the Battle of Trafalgar article, they mention "ship of the line" is only used with 1st through 3rd rates. Admitedly IX-21 was a "heavy" frigate, but had the US ever assembled a real sailing line of battle, she would have likely been out on the flanks like RN frigates of the era.
Frigates did not generally go one on one with better gunned "ships of the line", they were fast enough to escape them, so did. Had the Constitution been forced to slug it out with even a 3rd rate, we probably wouldn't have had her around to brag about. Think of Old Ironsides in boxing terms as the lightweight champion of the world for her day. You would not put her in the ring against a decent heavyweight boxer.
Was Old Ironsides the fastest and best gunned 4th rate of her day? Reminds me a bit of the Iowa's--J Clear 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I do recall reading that she (and the other 5 American frigates built in that run) was faster and more heavily armed than her British opponents, and that this was a combination of engineering (she had a new style of structural support which made her sturdier than other ships of her size) and maintinance (most of the battles happened far from England and the British ships were suffering the various effects of long times at sea without refitting, while the American ships needed only to slip past a British blockade around their base to get into the theatre of battle)--Raguleader 22:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Constitution and her sisters were heavier than the typical frigate of the day, and carried heavier weapons, too, which may be more to the point. I understand that the typical frigate of the time might have had 30 or 36 guns, which might have thrown 12 or 18lb balls. Constitution mounted 44 guns throwing 24lb shot. I think that the Americans also had much more timber and other raw materials available to them, enabling them to invest more of those materials into each individual ship. --Badger151 05:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Constitution was rated a 44, but frequently that meant more than 44 guns were installed (present web site shows 54). Also all her guns are not 24 pounders. Most of the spar deck guns are 32 lb. carronades. ISTR reading the use of Live Oak in her construction was unusual, and contributed to her great strength ("iron sides"). I always wondered if Live Oak was simply not available to European boat builders.--J Clear 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
While Constitution was rated a 44 and nominally carried primarily 24 pound cannons and 32 pound carronades, I understand that during the War of 1812, she typically carried around 60 guns of various types and calibres, rating from 12 pounds up to 32, and they also briefly experimented with mounting a howitzer on the quarterdeck, but found it to be impractical. Also, I'm not sure what was typical for a British frigate, but most of the ones I've read about being involved in engagements with American frigates tended to carry 28 guns at most.--Raguleader 22:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Constitution would carr up to 60 guns into battle. Basically, she was armed to the teeth, and if properly handled, was almost unbeatable by any contemporary frigate. We know that when Constitution fought Guerriere, she carried 30 24-pounders, 24 32-pounders and one 18-pound gun. (http://aviationartstore.com/uss_constitution.htm) The Royal Navy regarded the Constitution and its sister ships as fourth-rates because of their armament and even went so far as to order their frigates not to engage in single-ship combat with them. 74.251.200.217 (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I did some looking around (admittedly, not an exhaustive search, nor anything like it,) but this site states that Royal Navy frigates during the Napoleanic war carried between 20 and 44 guns, throwing balls weighing up to 18 lbs each (I'm looking at the cannon, not the carronades). Unfortunately, it doesn't list its sources. I do remember Patrick O'Brian mentioning that Jack Aubrey's 28 gun Surprise, carrying either 9 or 12 lb cannon, was heavily outclassed by modern frigates. I forget exactly when Aubrey makes the remark, but it would have had to have been before 1820. Also, the in-house articles on the Guerriere and Java state that each carried 38 guns. HMS Shannon, who took the Chesapeake, also carried 38 guns.
The smallest line-of-battle ships in the Royal Navy were rated at 50 guns. Due to the poor quality of British ships of the era, [I]Constitution[/i] would have been more than a match for a 50-gunner in ship to ship duels, and equally effective in the battle line. The next step up were 64-gun ships, which would have a firepower advantage, but would lack maneuverability. Ironically, this lack would have been more fatal in the Nelsonian era than any other, because until Lord Rodney, maneuvering was sharply limited in fleet actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.5.169 (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
HMS Victory
Information on Victory is in the intro and need not be repeated later in the text. Jinian 14:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I keep thinking the information on Victory needs to be further down.--J Clear 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the Victory, I'm re-arranging that part of the intro for better flow.--Raguleader 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking more in terms of moving any mention of Victory out of the intro. Put the Victory exlaination down in the history section. I don't mean to ignore it, just having parenthetical info in the intro dilutes the intro. Look where the Victory article mentions the Constitution--J Clear 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and made my change. We have sufficient qualifiers in the intro, and Victory is not ignored. I added emphasis on afloat in the intro. Does anyone know if we need to change ship to warship in the oldest commissioned afloat claim? Are there older non-naval ships in commission?--J Clear 00:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A quick google reveals nothing that beats Constitution's record, so we might as well leave it as it is for now unless someone comes up with something to contradict it.--Raguleader 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone added a few paragraphs about the HMS Victory towards the bottom of the page. While informative, it wasn't relevant to the article about USS Constitution, so I removed it. --Unsigned
I just reverted a change that put HMS Victory back in the intro. The relation to Victory is adequately explained in the body of the article and there is no such mention of the Constitution in the Victory intro. Both articles make the correct claim and explain it in their body. I'm for keeping that symmetric arrangement unless someone has a persuasive reason to do otherwise.--J Clear 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
How can a ship still be "in service" when it's sitting in dry dock in a museum? That's rubbish. Ninquerinquar 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a commissioned warship of her Brittanic Majesty, is on the 'rolls' and is infact the flagship of the second sea lord. As such she is, despite her current permanent state of drydock, very much in service. Narson 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, this is rather a disingenuous response, isn't it? It's a bit like saying "Even though my car is in a breaker's yard with no wheels, it is still in service because I have taxed and insured it." Want to see if Victory really IS in service? Hey! Open the flood-gates! Fill the dry dock! Make sail! (NB I'm a Brit)
I suggest that this phrase about Victory being in service is pompous nit-picking and should be struck from this entry. RicardoJuanCarlos 18 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 08:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh. I think you will find any ship on the rolls is still in service. She is not sea worthy and totally obsolete, she is however still a comissioned warship and as I said before, she is the flagship of the second sea lord, last I checked. It is not a 'disingenuous' response, it is simply answering the facts. The definition of a ship being in service is not whether it can float but whether the navy states it as such. Or would you say the USS Cole stopped being in service the second it got a hole in its side (because it couldn't float/put to sea after that)? Narson 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Though I'm sure that it's strictly true that "...any ship on the rolls is still in service..." this is a distinction that's really only of academic interest. To the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus it is simply silly to suggest that a ship could be in service when it hasn't seen water in 85 years, and action in nearly TWO CENTURIES.RicardoJuanCarlos 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Then arn't we lucky we are an encyclopedia and can enlighten people? (I also seriously doubt if the Constitution has seen combat in the same two centuries). Narson 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
<deindent>If we are going to forgo mention of Victory in the lead, then without the explanation I think we should go for clarity and state constitution is the second oldest comissioned ship, then go into detail as to why she is the oldest in one regard (in that she is afloat) while not being the absolute oldest when other editors feel mention of other articles is permissable. Narson 05:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I find this perfectly clear:
lead: "she is the oldest commissioned ship afloat in the world"
body: "While Constitution is the oldest fully commissioned vessel afloat, she is not the oldest commissioned. HMS Victory holds the honor of being the oldest commissioned warship by three decades, however Victory is permanently drydocked."
What exactly is lacking? Maralia 05:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was perfectly clear as it was with both in the lead. It provided context, without context we should go for the simpler (and equally true) statement and leave the more confusing one for when we can provide context. Narson 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've struck that. Realised I was just making a WP:POINT. I still think the lead was better with Victory mention in, mind. Narson 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Concur. I didn't realize until after I wrote my summary that the Victory was mentioned in the text. In the Victory article, it also mentions the Constitution in the main text, but not in the lead. - BillCJ 06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Constitution is more noted for being the oldest commissioned ship afloat, not as the second-oldest commissioned ship. Remeber, this article in not about the 'HMS Victory. The Lead ought to focus on the topic of the page, not introduce other tangents, unless they are absolutely necessary. - BillCJ 06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Currently, that the Constitution is the oldest commissioned vessel afloat is mentioned three times. I think that's overkill. Jhobson1 (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say Victory is more important to Constitution than Constitution is to Victory, in that the Victory forces qualification of Constitution's 'record', where as Constitution forces no such qualification on Victory. I think a clearer lead is important, however removing this info, in my opinion, reduces the clarity. However, as you will note, I reverted the anon's second removal of the information (annother editor had reverted his deletion earlier) but when the revert was reverted I ceased, I will not force the issue and leave it up to other editors. Narson 06:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Constitution is just as important to Victory as vice versa, given the nature of what constitutes a ship. If you want a qualification about Victory in the intro to an article about Constitution, then there's just as much reason to put a qualification about Constitution in the intro about Victory. Yes, I put a corresponding footnote in Victory's intro and it got pulled almost instantaneously as irrelevent - therefore such a footnote in Constitution's intro is just as irrelevent. Mentioning Cole in this context is a bit odd as she is currently alive and well serving at sea having been repaired and put back into service - when Victory is back in the water and able to set sail, I'd be more than happy to see the qualifications removed in both articles and Constitution can then just be the second-oldest commissioned warship. Until then, Constitution is the oldest commissioned warship afloat and Victory is the oldest commissioned warship, er, not. 08:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.25.86 (talk)
First of all, its important to know that while comparing wikipedia articles can be useful, they do not provide precedents for one annother. My mentioning of the USS Cole was in reference to the claim that HMS Victory is not in service due to it being unseaworthy and that such a measure would be awkward as it would mean ships would constantly be jumping from service to not in service in any kind of combat, so being in service should be defined simply by being on the respective rolls of the country in which is serves. I don't see how Constitution in any way impacts Victory however, to back up your assertion that it should be a both or neither. If Constitution was blown up tommorow, what would change for Victory? Sweet F A. She would still be the oldest comissioned ship. On the contrast, if Victory was blown up, Constitution would get the asterisk removed from its record. Narson 09:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not asserting anything. It's pretty clear that Constitution is the oldest commissioned warship afloat (which doesn't need any clarification relative to Victory) and that Victory, while the oldest commissioned warship, is in permanent drydock (which again doesn't require any clarification relative to Constitution). If Victory were to be decommissioned, Constitution would still be the oldest commissioned warship afloat. If Constitution were decommissioned (I'd avoid talking about things blowing up, etc.), then Victory would still be the oldest commissioned warship, but permanently drydocked. Both ships have asterisks by their names. 15:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.25.86 (talk)
Reverted the footnote about HMS Victory in the intro since there is no similar footnote in the HMS Victory article pointing out that USS Constitution is still afloat and Victory is on dry land - both articles point out their relative status later on. jmdeur 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've inserted a note in the lead paragraph which will hopefully put an end to the frequent need for some editors to insert comments about Victory. --Brad (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Armament question ... armament article missing
From what I understand, the armament of the USS Constitution varied greatly depending on which period of her service she was in (something that was particularly easy to change based on needs and resources back when all the cannons were tied to the deck, rather than being part of the ship). Is there any particular point in history when her armament is known to be what it is listed in the article? If so, it might be worth it to put a mention of that somewhere.--Raguleader 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
When I visited this fine ship last year she was sporting British cannons. They were clearly marked with the British crown and ordinance mark (arrow). This was especially strange as the guided tour made much of the USS Constitution's victory agaisnt the Royal Navy. When asked, the crew did not want to discuss.86.136.23.210 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the guns on the Constitution today, but it is not unusual at all for US ships of her day to bear guns made elsewhere. The weapons might come through trade or through spoils. I expect they did not want to talk about it because they did not know... and "I don't know." is one of those things they are taught not to say. ;) I am curious. Anyone have any facts for this?
On a related subject... there is no main article for the armament of the Constitution that I can find, nor do I see it listed in AFD. I am going to search a bit more and if there is none, kill the link. It seems odd.sinneed (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Old Ironsides: styling
I am trying to help with a copyedit review, and I just made some minor fixes to apostrophes and quotes where they were too close to the preceding italicized text. I noticed then that there is an inconsistency regarding use of the term Old Ironsides. The lead has it italicized in bold, "Old Ironsides", but it is styled normally later in the article. While the bold for the first instance is correct, I think it should always be normal type, see [McGraw-Hill's site] for example(bad example). The Navy site uses USS CONSTITUTION for the ship and "Old Ironsides" for the nickname, and other examples did not italicize the nickname. If an editor confirms my thinking and changes the bolded second paragraph example, the {{"pad}} template can be removed and replaced with a normal close quote mark. Sswonk (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would go with "Old Ironsides" in that second paragraph, bolding the quote marks as well. Sswonk (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The italics may have been left over from the old version of the article. Only the proper name Constitution should be in italics. --Brad (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to "Old Ironsides". Good work on the article, by the way. I'll keep checking for typos, etc. Sswonk (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the wikilinked dates as I find them so if you see any please remove. --Brad (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I also was planning to mention that but there is another issue as well. The dates are inconsistent. The infobox shows the style: September 17, 2008, yet in the article there are various styles including: 17 September 2008 and 2008-9-17, as well as instances of "on 17 September" later followed by "on September 17" style. My preference is for 17 September 2008 which is formal military style (see [2]) or it could be September 17, 2008 which is more familiar to readers. WP:DATE discourages any other styles. Which one do you think should be used throughout the article? Sswonk (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we should go with the day month year format. Thanks for your help. --Brad (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Paul Revere's copper
According to a school textbook of mine, the copper sheathing was supplied by Paul Revere. However, the article states that the copper was brought from England. So, which is which? Montgomery' 39 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Note 4 explains the differences found in various statements about the copper sheathing. It was clear to me that Toll's argument would have meant that Revere could not have supplied copper sheathing until the 1803 refitting, which all sources agreed was installed at that time. --Brad (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting fact. Thanks for replying. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Has the Constitution ever visited Portsmouth?
Hi.
I was wondering if the Constitution had ever sailed to Portsmouth, during the time that HMS Victory has been moored there?
It would be fascinating to imagine one being able to see both ships in such proximity... --Nerroth (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Constitution put into that port for repairs in 1879 but I don't think Victory was docked there until the 1920s or 30s. And I doubt very much there would ever be a modern day voyage to visit. --Brad (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Removed
Older discussion
The following was removed from the article and may be eligable for reinsertion if a source is provided. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
In the video game, Crysis, a fictional Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier is named The Constitution
Eventually I'm going to eliminate the Faux trivia section by working in a couple of mentions to the main article and the rest will be dumped. Seems all we do is revert silly trivia and of course the frequent mention of Victory in the lead section. --Brad (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the above paragraph as it appears at this point that its nothing but original research as I've not been able to find any independent sources to cite this theory. Going around and counting how many ships have sunk something and comparing them to Constitution's record is unfortunately OR. --Brad (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the three points above from "Pop Culture". I'm not familiar enough with Hornblower and the Hotspur to know if the depiction of Constitution is entirely fictional or not. If entirely fictional then not worth a mention. The other two points are barely worth mentioning either. The Space Shuttle was supposed to have been named Constitution but it wasn't. I see no use for the mention of Star Trek in tis article. Entire Pop section is now gone. --Brad (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In August, 1986 the Constitution was the site of a celebration held to honor the retirement of Rear AdmiralGrace Hopper, who received the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the nations highest non-combat award. At the time of the award, Admiral Hopper was the oldest officer in the United States Navy (age 80), and aboard the oldest ship in the United States Navy (age 189).[9]
Removed this mention. While Admiral Hopper is certainly notable, her retirement is not notable in the context of this article. Many, many retirements and reenlistments have taken place on board and I've tried to limit mentions of people visiting to only leaders of a particular country. --Brad (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
In 2007 Constitution was armed below decks with cannons marked with the British crown and ordinance mark (arrow).[citation needed]
Please site a source. --Brad (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a real cite, but a tour guide on board the ship said this was not true, even though the current cannons have the crown on them. He said the cannons that are currently on board the ship are replicas and at the time they were cast it was assumed that they had the crown on them because they were purchased from Britain. Later research showed this be inaccurate, but error wasn't fixed for the cannons that are on board. --sethaw —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My relevant refs are in storage, but I would be astonished if the cannon were replicas - even if this day and age, massive iron castings are not something you can run down and buy at Cannon Barn. :-) Very few countries had the technology to make such massive castings successfully; it would have been easier to buy large naval cannons "under the table" from Britain, and those would have had the monogram on them because it was a state-regulated business, much like high-tech weaponry today. I have pictures of the monograms on the cannons, is it OR to say "see, look at the photo"? Stan (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been a while since I was in Boston, but HMS Victory in Portsmouth has mostly plastic replicas, to decrease the strain on the decks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If you could release the cannon photos to PD I may be able to use them in a spin off article that needs to be done on the armaments she carried. Regardless, Martin in A Most Fortunate Ship relates that there were cannon on board with the mark of George III but that was in the mid-70s. I'm still going through every book I can find about the ship so maybe something will show up later. --Brad (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed the above. There isn't much value in mentioning treenails unless the number of nails used could be found. The referenced article just says locust so assuming black locust becomes original research. --Brad (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hurricane damage
This paragraph was removed today:
During a hurricane in 1938, Constitution parted her moorings and was blown across Boston Harbor. She rammed into a steel destroyer and punched a hole through the ship's metal side, while Constitution herself sustained but a few scratches.
I recall this incident as taking place but did not include it in the article. I will restore it as soon as I can acquire the needed reference and work it into the body of the article properly. --Brad (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This has been completed. --Brad (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Constitution defined as United States class frigate
There was a controversial addition to this article regarding the ship described as a United States-classfrigate. The references were:
The conversation about this addition took place on Archimedean (talk·contribs) talk page here. The consensus gathered there between myself and Bellhalla seems to point towards the naming as a modern day interpretation of 44-gun and 38-gun frigates. Archimedean has not responded to the conversation for 17 days therefore I am removing the info pertaining to United States class frigate until further conversation is completed. --Brad (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
An observation re: Present Day section
Regarding this diff, while I agree with the revert and was about to do it myself when Tedickey undid the change, I find there is some merit to the IP's thinking. I see the current paragraph as having two separate thoughts, with the ending sentences about HMS Victory appearing somewhat out of place, as in a non sequitur, compared to the opening statement of the section. This is purely my opinion and I am interested in reading comments about that if there are any to be offered. Sswonk (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
For those who weren't aware of the intent behind the way I wrote the article I'll go over it here again. Since Constitution is the only remaining frigate of the original six I thought it important to provide a time line of minor mentions as to the fates of the other five and why she was the last one left. There has already been another instance of someone removing information that appears irrelevant in its own section but is important to following the time line of the article. In regards to this oldest ship afloat vs oldest in commission etc, I'm starting to wonder if making that claim for this article is worth the amount of time involved in explaining it, since a good 60% of reverts have been related to edits on this subject. Your point is valid too, however. The bit on Victory seems out of place but it's there to back up the statement of age that is mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. --Brad (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone should have to explain the afloat claim, as it is correct and well referenced. Members of the Massachusetts, Boston, and Ships projects as well as other well-informed editors have done a good job and assumed good faith in policing incorrect changes to the article on that point. I urge you not to spend time wondering because you don't have to worry about doing all the explaining. I can see how it would become tiresome however. It's like the good UK editors who work on rock music articles that are constantly having to revert and explain changes in verb person ("Led Zeppelin were" vs. "Led Zeppelin was") due to the use of British English in articles about British bands. Well meaning new readers in America who have been taught their entire lives that the group's name is a singular noun if the words that make it up form a singular make the change the first time they read the articles, unaware of the differences between the two versions of English. There is room for debate among grammarians even then. But here, any time a new reader in Britain who has been told since childhood that Victory is the oldest commissioned ship in the world makes a similar mistake, there can be no debate because afloat means afloat and that's the fact. You and others have painstakingly taken care to make the distinction clear, and it isn't a style or usage question it's a totally verifiable fact as well as a claim that the Navy and the ship's crew proudly make.
Still, I am thinking about the latest edit, which I believe had nothing to do with the afloat claim. The IP was questioning the statement's logical position among the surrounding text. I can't argue with that, I agree with IP's edit summary: it seems awkward as it stands. But, that is also exactly how it was when the article won FA status after all of your tremendous work to get it there, so I decided to go with revert and discuss and would have if not for Tedickey's speedier response. As something to think about, I think this is one minor improvement, that being finding a more appropriate spot or logical lead-in to those few words.
As an example of how well this article is maintained, I decided to run a link check and found only one dead link. You and everyone else involved here do an excellent job. I don't want to pile on any more work than is necessary, but I can see another reader stopping by and making the same edit based on the same reasoning as the one today which is why I think we should think about reworking that one paragraph. Sswonk (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that the afloat/drydock mention should stay in. After placing Note 1 in the lead, the number of incidences for change have dropped off somewhat. The IP that recently made changes also made this change prior to the most recent. I've never been exactly pleased with a few areas of the article where the text seems awkward but the same text is needed to keep the time line in place. I will go through the article again and find the awkward points that need work in addition to the one about Victory. --Brad (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
My latest thoughts are to remove the Victory paragraph entirely and allow only the note to explain the differences. Other than that, Victory and Constitution never had anything else in common. --Brad (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If I am reading you correctly, your intention is to change the lead paragraph of the "Present day" section to:
Constitution's mission 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. Her crew of 60 officers and sailors participate in ceremonies, educational programs, and special events while keeping the ship open to visitors year-round and providing free tours. The crew are all active-duty US Navy personnel and the assignment is considered special duty in the Navy. While Constitution is the oldest fully commissioned vessel afloat, she is not the oldest vessel still in commission. HMS Victory holds the honor of being the oldest commissioned warship by three decades; however, Victory is permanently in dry dock.
June 16, 2009That would make sense to me. It may interest you that I took the photograph I am linking here on June 16. I was in Charlestown taking pictures of the Charlestown Bridge to help out a couple of editors who are working to expand that article. See the article talk page for a sampling of those shots. I know the photo here isn't good enough for the article, let me know if you want me to go back over there and take a picture for this section with better framing and less distractions. I'm thinking standing on top of one of those Jersey barriers might do the trick, or possibly a three-quarters view from beside the starboard bow. While I was there I spoke to a seaman who was responsible for holding the gate for people exiting the chain link fenced dock area and he stressed to me strongly (twice!) that there is no admission charge to the ship because even though it is within the Boston National Historical Park, it is totally independent of the NPS and admission is never charged by the Navy. Of course the Freedom Trail is free also but this seaman wanted me to go away knowing in no uncertain terms that Constitution is separate from the park. If you want me to take another picture, I will make sure it is a beautiful day like June 16 was and not one of the dreary days we've had lately ([3]) Sswonk (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the pic in the present day section to the one above. I don't see any problem with occasionally changing pics in the article as long as the MoS is still followed. There are so many pics available on commons we certainly can't include them all at the same time. Thanks very much for getting the pic but I don't see any reason why you should make a special trip to try and get another one. --Brad (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyedit requested
I put in for a copyedit here. Hopefully some items can be resolved in this manner. --Brad (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent
A beautifully written article; definitely one of the best produced by the Wikipedia community. Painstakingly researched, wonderfully compiled and exquisitely structured. My compliments to the contributors :) --Srikeit 18:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's what the article looked like on 27 April 2008 and since I have almost 600 edits on this article your comments are nice to read :) Interestingly, if this article were at FAC today it wouldn't pass because of the lack of alt text in the photos but I'm working on that currently. --Brad (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is an excellent article. I've read every word of it and I am impressed. However, I have one small suggestion. In the Bicentennial section, de-commissioned Britannia is not referred to as the "Royal Yacht Britannia". It goes by HMY Britannia. The Royal Navy's prefix "HMY" stands for "Her Majesty's Yacht". --Kildruf (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Would "Her Majesty's Yacht" have been the correct way to refer to the ship in 1976? If so I will change it. I want accuracy for the time period this took place in. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well for comparison, the President of the United States used to have a presidential yacht. The last one in fact was called the U.S.S. Sequoia which is now decomissioned. There is no difference with what the British Royal Navy does. Britannia is now decomissioned, but she is still refered to as H.M.Y. Britannia. Have a look here at these articles. USS Sequoia (presidential yacht) and HMY Britannia. --Kildruf (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a proper way to refer to things "Royal". I had to also change the way that the article referred to the Queen etc. But it should be corrected now. --Brad (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Spacing of vertical members
From the article: "Her vertical hull ribbing was placed 2 in (51 mm) apart instead of the standard 24 in (610 mm)." Is this statement correct? It seems unreasonable that they would be so close. Is it possible that "2 in" is a typo? I can't find any such information in the reference, and according to the article history it may have come from Wachtel's Old Ironsides (which I do not have). Even if the statement copies Wachtel (or whoever) accurately, I would still wonder if it were a typo in the original. Perhaps one of our editors from the Boston area can go aboard and measure the separation. PKKloeppel (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct. The hull thickness is mentioned here but not the vertical ribbing placement. I removed some paragraphs from the construction section a few months ago and the particular reference may have been carried away with the move. Problem is that I cannot remember what the source was. I will work on correcting this. --Brad (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have commented out the sentence about the vertical hull ribbing. It's likely that Wachtel was the source for that figure but I was chastised for using a "childrens book" for referencing the article. In the meantime I will have to locate something more solid before returning the sentence to the article. --Brad (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Constitution by George Washington???
now i don't know much, but wasn't the constitution written secretly by 12 representatives from the states under the articles of confederation and perpetual union?
from the article "uss constitution" as of 10/31/09: "Named after the Constitution of the United States of America by President George Washington, she is the oldest commissioned naval vessel afloat in the world"
if i'm wrong, please correct me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.11.9 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
"Named by President George Washington after the Constitution of the United States of America, she is the oldest commissioned naval vessel afloat in the world." Sswonk (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
this is a grammatical and punctuation issue. English can be sloppy this way at times, and I don't see a quick way to fix the trouble. You're reading as though "by President George Washington" is assigning attribution of the authorship of "the Constitution of the United States of America"; the intent is that the latter is a qualifying clause, with the main reading "Named by President George Washington".
One way to fix the sentence would be to set the clause apart with commas, thus:
"Named, after the Constitution of the United States of America, by President George Washington, she is the oldest commissioned naval vessel afloat in the world."
Another would be to rearrange the clauses:
"Named by President George Washington after the Constitution of the United States of America, she is the oldest commissioned naval vessel afloat in the world."
I think the latter would be the best way to resolve the ambiguity.
Dismalscholar (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
crew complement breakdown
For a bit of research I'm engaged in I've been trying to find the actual breakdown of the crew, i.e. captain, first lieutenant/executive, and other officers specified by rank and function, including midshipmen of course, and even a breakdown of the tasks of the crew: gunners, cook, purser, boatswain, etc. The best information I've found is here on Wiki, but it hardly seems satisfactory.
Does anyone out there have a source for this information? I think it should be in the article, perhaps as a sidebar chart if not a separate section.
In regards to crew complement, armament and sails and rigging, these were fairly standard on any sailing warship of the age. Having a breakdown and explanation of each wouldn't be describing anything that was unique to Constitution itself. Naval artillery in the Age of Sail explains armament for example. I agree there is a lack of supplemental articles for these subjects but each one is not exclusive to any individual ship. --Brad (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
second oldest?
i read in several books that Constitution is the seocond oldest commisioned warship, after the HMS Victory. and the Victory's page says the Victory is the oldest. shouldnt it be fixed to say that Constitution is second oldest commisione, oldest american? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The article is correct as written: it states that the Constitution is the oldest commissioned warship afloat. At the first mention, Note 1 explains further: Victory is older, but is in permenant dry dock (and thus, isn't afloat). The explanation isn't as clear the second time the article touched on the issue; I'll fix that now. --Badger151 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Not Again. Sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.46.215 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
A request for copyediting on this article is outstanding and I'll be tackling this over the next couple of days. Doug (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I know that beggars shouldn't be choosy but wikilinking things like United States isn't providing a link to anything helpful to the reader. Nor do "provisions" mean hardtack. Please stop wikilinking. --Brad (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I linked United States because I linked Algiers and wanted to avoid cultural bias. Doug (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
On a second look I had to revert your changes. Descriptions and word meanings in the article have specific purposes backed up by the references. --Brad (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I take citations to support concepts, not words. In my opinion, the article is about as well written as it's going to get for a set of clearly defined facts, each rigidly backed up by a citation, so there is no work for me here. Doug (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I did a round of basic copy edits yesterday and am now trying to improve the flow, as noted in your copy edit request to WP:GOCE. Here is one problem that interferes with the flow: changing from present tense, to past tense, and back again. Here are two sentences with four different tenses: "Departing Boston on 29 December (present tense), Nicholson was to report (future) to Commodore John Barry near the island of Dominica for patrols in the West Indies. On 15 January 1799 Constitution intercepted the English merchantman Spencer (past), which had been taken prize by the French frigate L'Insurgente a few days prior (past perfect)." A few of these are ok for emphasis but some passages are switching back and forth constantly and it makes the material difficult to read. I will work on improving a few examples today so you can see what I have in mind. --DiannaaTALK 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! This is exactly what the article needed. I've been watching your edits and have no problems with what you've done so far. Paying attention to changes is part of keeping this article at featured status. --Brad (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Brad! I am glad you were available on the weekend to review my work. I'll keep at it over the next couple of days. Regards, --DiannaaTALK 21:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
All done. See you 'round the project :)) --DiannaaTALK 23:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
