![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is late, I plan on finishing this page tomorrow.-- Az81964444 ( talk) 05:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The different section are there because I plan on making the sections sometime togay, maybe I will start now. I began this page last night and as it states above, planned on finishing it today. Therefore it will cease having too many sections for such a small article in its current state.-- Az81964444 ( talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that a more recognizable title be found for this article. I doubt that even serious Civil War buffs would know what is meant by the present title. A couple of alternatives come to mind:
PKKloeppel ( talk) 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to Sinking of USS Housatonic, I think we've finally reached a decision! Fences& Windows 20:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Action of 17 February 1864 → Sinking of USS Housatonic by CSS H. L. Hunley —
As more than the mandatory week has been allowed for comments since I made the request, I am going to close the issue right now. We seem to have a strong consensus in favor of a change, but just what change to make is not so clear. I am going with my original, on the ground that most readers will be looking for information about CSS Hunley, so its name must appear; that does make the title long, as Freeloader has pointed out, but Housatonic was mostly passive in the incident, and could have been replaced by any other ship in the blockade.
PKKloeppel ( talk) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying. My computer has been in the shop for a few days. I am not wedded to the title that I have proposed, but I am not willing to accept the present one. "Action of 17 February 1864" is not consistent with the naming of any Civil War incidents, nor is it typical of any used by the US Navy. Battles are usually named for a nearby geographic feature or for the vessels involved. Also consider that the title is not only vague, it is ambiguous. There is no indication that it even involves the Civil War. Once you get past that, you find that there was another "action of 17 February 1864," a minor skirmish in Mississippi. Probably no one would care to write an article about that, but it is there and should be considered. Arguing from the general principles that the title should (a) reflect the content of the article and (b) be the words that a casual interested reader would be likely to use to search for information about that content, the title of this article should certainly contain the name of the submarine H. L. Hunley. To distinguish it from a general history of the boat, it should also state what it did. With these constraints, the beginning title should be something like "Sinking of a Union warship by the Confederate submarine H. L. Hunley," which gives the content of the article and also is about the way a beginner would seek it. The most concise title I have been able to come up with consistent with this argument is the one I have proposed. If anyone has an alternative, I can listen to reason. PKKloeppel ( talk) 14:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
In an unsourced paragraph, the article states the crew was 400 men. DANFS, however, lists her complement as only 160 men. 67.187.136.140 ( talk) 22:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
As a follow-up, I noted the article also includes this unsourced passgae: "Some accounts say Housatonic was able to fire a broadside at Hunley, but failed to hit the target. Others say the Hunley destroyed Housatonic before any defense was attempted." I suggest it would be better scholarship to include the findings on the Board of Inquiry, which stated that several shots from small arms (only) were taken while the Hunley was alongside, but with no apparent effect. 67.187.136.140 ( talk) 22:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Captain Green, U.S. Navy, commanding USS Canandaigua, stated in his official report that he rescued 21 officers and 129 men of the Housatonic, with 5 missing and presumed dead. Unless someone can provide a source stating the Housatonic's crew really was 400 strong, I'll change this article in the next couple days. 67.187.136.140 ( talk) 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Article had Confederate-apologist term "War Between the States," replaced with NPOV "Civil War." UberMitch ( talk) 03:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
How precisely does one count a naval sortie in which you lose MORE men and MORE money than your opponent (despite already having a numerical inferiority in both) to be a victory?
Yes, Hunley sunk the Housatonic via the first manned subsurface attack, so I guess if the Wright Flyer had flown only once and ended in the utter destruction of the plane and the death of both Wright Brothers, somebody would have called it a "victory"; but a victory for who? Humanity? Postbellum historians? Surely not the Confederacy.
The Housatonic was a generic war sloop, a light timberclad patrol vessel of which the US Navy had nearly 50 in service. There was only one combat submarine in the world, against which no counter-strategy had yet been created, and that was the advantage the CSA Navy had. Yet rather than safeguard this unusual asset, they squandered it by throwing it into service long before it was sound, killing its inventor and three full crews (save 2 men) by demanding more from the new technology than it was capable of. The expense to the Confederacy (in desperately needed hard currency, metal and man-hours) in designing it, building it, outfitting it, training the crews and (most of all) dredging it off the bottom of the ocean and completely restoring it the first two times it failed surely amounted to a sum well beyond the cost of the 11-gun timberclad Housatonic, especially when you consider the gross inequity in naval power between the Union and the CSA. Perhaps worst of all, the loss of the Hunley meant the concept was abandoned as unworkable for half a century, when another year's worth of design might have resulted in a proven and standardized design, potentially enough to really put some fear into the Union's vast blockade of the South and eventually put the restored USA at the forefront of submarine research.
Instead, it sat at the bottom of the ocean while the Union blockade choked the Confederacy to its knees, then stayed there for another century while Lost Causers posthumously extolled her technological brilliance, the crew's bravery and her resounding success against a "bigger" ship. Doesn't seem much like a "victory" to me; more like a Pyrrhic victory. Vintovka Dragunova ( talk) 00:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"all eight" is a misprint of "all nine"? pietro 2A00:1620:C0:64:21C:61FF:FE03:A4C ( talk) 09:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC) in view of the confuse statements for the hunley, it is perhaps interesting to say if/when the housatonic was scrapped. I have third-hand references that the vessel masts were out-of-water and thus the starting point for the hunley search had to be well known. pietro 2A00:1620:C0:64:21C:61FF:FE03:A4C ( talk) 10:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is late, I plan on finishing this page tomorrow.-- Az81964444 ( talk) 05:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The different section are there because I plan on making the sections sometime togay, maybe I will start now. I began this page last night and as it states above, planned on finishing it today. Therefore it will cease having too many sections for such a small article in its current state.-- Az81964444 ( talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that a more recognizable title be found for this article. I doubt that even serious Civil War buffs would know what is meant by the present title. A couple of alternatives come to mind:
PKKloeppel ( talk) 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to Sinking of USS Housatonic, I think we've finally reached a decision! Fences& Windows 20:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Action of 17 February 1864 → Sinking of USS Housatonic by CSS H. L. Hunley —
As more than the mandatory week has been allowed for comments since I made the request, I am going to close the issue right now. We seem to have a strong consensus in favor of a change, but just what change to make is not so clear. I am going with my original, on the ground that most readers will be looking for information about CSS Hunley, so its name must appear; that does make the title long, as Freeloader has pointed out, but Housatonic was mostly passive in the incident, and could have been replaced by any other ship in the blockade.
PKKloeppel ( talk) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying. My computer has been in the shop for a few days. I am not wedded to the title that I have proposed, but I am not willing to accept the present one. "Action of 17 February 1864" is not consistent with the naming of any Civil War incidents, nor is it typical of any used by the US Navy. Battles are usually named for a nearby geographic feature or for the vessels involved. Also consider that the title is not only vague, it is ambiguous. There is no indication that it even involves the Civil War. Once you get past that, you find that there was another "action of 17 February 1864," a minor skirmish in Mississippi. Probably no one would care to write an article about that, but it is there and should be considered. Arguing from the general principles that the title should (a) reflect the content of the article and (b) be the words that a casual interested reader would be likely to use to search for information about that content, the title of this article should certainly contain the name of the submarine H. L. Hunley. To distinguish it from a general history of the boat, it should also state what it did. With these constraints, the beginning title should be something like "Sinking of a Union warship by the Confederate submarine H. L. Hunley," which gives the content of the article and also is about the way a beginner would seek it. The most concise title I have been able to come up with consistent with this argument is the one I have proposed. If anyone has an alternative, I can listen to reason. PKKloeppel ( talk) 14:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
In an unsourced paragraph, the article states the crew was 400 men. DANFS, however, lists her complement as only 160 men. 67.187.136.140 ( talk) 22:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
As a follow-up, I noted the article also includes this unsourced passgae: "Some accounts say Housatonic was able to fire a broadside at Hunley, but failed to hit the target. Others say the Hunley destroyed Housatonic before any defense was attempted." I suggest it would be better scholarship to include the findings on the Board of Inquiry, which stated that several shots from small arms (only) were taken while the Hunley was alongside, but with no apparent effect. 67.187.136.140 ( talk) 22:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Captain Green, U.S. Navy, commanding USS Canandaigua, stated in his official report that he rescued 21 officers and 129 men of the Housatonic, with 5 missing and presumed dead. Unless someone can provide a source stating the Housatonic's crew really was 400 strong, I'll change this article in the next couple days. 67.187.136.140 ( talk) 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Article had Confederate-apologist term "War Between the States," replaced with NPOV "Civil War." UberMitch ( talk) 03:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
How precisely does one count a naval sortie in which you lose MORE men and MORE money than your opponent (despite already having a numerical inferiority in both) to be a victory?
Yes, Hunley sunk the Housatonic via the first manned subsurface attack, so I guess if the Wright Flyer had flown only once and ended in the utter destruction of the plane and the death of both Wright Brothers, somebody would have called it a "victory"; but a victory for who? Humanity? Postbellum historians? Surely not the Confederacy.
The Housatonic was a generic war sloop, a light timberclad patrol vessel of which the US Navy had nearly 50 in service. There was only one combat submarine in the world, against which no counter-strategy had yet been created, and that was the advantage the CSA Navy had. Yet rather than safeguard this unusual asset, they squandered it by throwing it into service long before it was sound, killing its inventor and three full crews (save 2 men) by demanding more from the new technology than it was capable of. The expense to the Confederacy (in desperately needed hard currency, metal and man-hours) in designing it, building it, outfitting it, training the crews and (most of all) dredging it off the bottom of the ocean and completely restoring it the first two times it failed surely amounted to a sum well beyond the cost of the 11-gun timberclad Housatonic, especially when you consider the gross inequity in naval power between the Union and the CSA. Perhaps worst of all, the loss of the Hunley meant the concept was abandoned as unworkable for half a century, when another year's worth of design might have resulted in a proven and standardized design, potentially enough to really put some fear into the Union's vast blockade of the South and eventually put the restored USA at the forefront of submarine research.
Instead, it sat at the bottom of the ocean while the Union blockade choked the Confederacy to its knees, then stayed there for another century while Lost Causers posthumously extolled her technological brilliance, the crew's bravery and her resounding success against a "bigger" ship. Doesn't seem much like a "victory" to me; more like a Pyrrhic victory. Vintovka Dragunova ( talk) 00:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"all eight" is a misprint of "all nine"? pietro 2A00:1620:C0:64:21C:61FF:FE03:A4C ( talk) 09:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC) in view of the confuse statements for the hunley, it is perhaps interesting to say if/when the housatonic was scrapped. I have third-hand references that the vessel masts were out-of-water and thus the starting point for the hunley search had to be well known. pietro 2A00:1620:C0:64:21C:61FF:FE03:A4C ( talk) 10:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)