![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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...)
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)
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: 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)
I'm not editin ship articles right now, but does anyone care to knead this into the dough? http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/constitution/sail200b.html
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?
3mta3 11:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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-
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Is there a single piece of original wood in this ship today or 100% has been replaced gradually?
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Comments and suggestions are welcome at the review page. -- Brad ( talk) 23:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Information on Victory is in the intro and need not be repeated later in the text. Jinian 14:01, 8 Jun 2005 (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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This paragraph was removed today:
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)
There was a controversial addition to this article regarding the ship described as a United States-class frigate. 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)
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)
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.
I put in for a copyedit here. Hopefully some items can be resolved in this manner. -- Brad ( talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Dismalscholar ( talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Not Again. Sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.46.215 ( talk) 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the Boston Freedom trail has the USS Constellation as one stop, but not the Constitution as stated in the article. John D. Goulden ( talk) 18:00, 18 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)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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...)
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)
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: 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)
I'm not editin ship articles right now, but does anyone care to knead this into the dough? http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/constitution/sail200b.html
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?
3mta3 11:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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-
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Is there a single piece of original wood in this ship today or 100% has been replaced gradually?
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Comments and suggestions are welcome at the review page. -- Brad ( talk) 23:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Information on Victory is in the intro and need not be repeated later in the text. Jinian 14:01, 8 Jun 2005 (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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This paragraph was removed today:
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)
There was a controversial addition to this article regarding the ship described as a United States-class frigate. 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)
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)
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.
I put in for a copyedit here. Hopefully some items can be resolved in this manner. -- Brad ( talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Dismalscholar ( talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Not Again. Sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.46.215 ( talk) 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the Boston Freedom trail has the USS Constellation as one stop, but not the Constitution as stated in the article. John D. Goulden ( talk) 18:00, 18 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)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)