Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Lake Erie

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs) at 03:18, 16 July 2017 (Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.4.2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What happend next?

What happend next?

Well, Britain lost control of the lake and found it much more difficult to supply their western garrisons, and they were defeated at the Battle of the Thames a month later. Is that what you mean? Adam Bishop 21:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Maybe he is asking what the next major naval battle of the war is? --Ignignot 20:59, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

The article says "successful invasion of Canada". I think this needs to be clarified. Canada as in British North America, or in reference to the Canadas - Quebec had been divided into Upper Canada (now Ontario) and Lower Canada (now Quebec)? They were successful on the western frontier of Upper Canada - where American successes on Lake Erie and victory at the Battle of the Thames gave them effective control of that part of Upper Canada. The British held onto Lake Ontario and the passage to the St. Lawrence, despite losses, and the Americans' progress was halted by British success at the Battle of Crysler's Farm.

SCrews 15:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"...sometimes referred to as the Battle of Put-in Bay." Who refers to the battle this way? I've never heard it called anything other than the Battle of Lake Erie.... Susan Davis 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is referred to that way in:
Barnes, Ian (2000). The Historical Atlas of the American revolution. New York: Rutledge. ISBN 0-415-92243-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
On pages 174 and 178. Dan D. Ric 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brigs Ain't Ships

I must leave it to someone with better formatting skills to remedy the silly tables listed under, now that I've fixed that much, "Vessels Involved". "USS" stands for "United States Ship", of which there were none on Lake Erie. The Niagara and Lawrence were brigs, so their designation, as indicated in Perry's dispatches, was "US Brig Niagara" etc. Ditto the schooners. This looks rather unimpressive. Czrisher 21:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "silly" tables were lifted almost directly from Roosevelt, "The Naval War of 1812". You are quite correct about the designations for naval vessels; similarly, it should be "HM Brig xxxx" etc. However, the "USS" designations are those used in the entries for the vessels elsewhere in wikipedia; I believe an earlier attempt to drop the prefixes resulted in a revert to avoid redirections. HLGallon 01:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be most surprised to learn that TR made such an error and, indeed, in my e-text of 'The Naval War of 1812' I find the tables identical except for the fact that none of the vessel names begins with US (or HM) anything, to wit, "Lawrence/Brig/480/etc." Further, since "US Brig Niagara" now links to the non-existant vessel "USS Niagara", I fail to see why the relationship cannot be easily reversed by whoever is possessed of the knowledge to form such a re-direction. Wikipedia's search capabilities are far too powerful to justify such an incorrect entry for ease of location. If, however, you would direct my attention to such a previous discussion as you mention which you feel might be convincing, I'd be happy to read it. Czrisher 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit was best built?

"[T]he Detroit...was the best built ship on the Lake." This is quite a claim. Do we have at least explication of it, if not citation?Czrisher 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vessels involved - classes

This seems to be the subject of a growing edit war. I believe that the classification of the British vessels involved should go by rig, as described by Perry, rather than any arbitrary classification system.

The Little Belt for example, was described as a sloop she was sloop-rigged i.e carried both fore-and-aft and square sails on a single mast, and not as a sloop-of-war, a much larger class of vessel. Detroit, which might have been classed as a sloop of war, was ship-rigged, i.e. a three-masted square-rigged vessel, and was described as such throughout by Barclay. The term "corvette" was not official in the Royal Navy, and not used by any contemporary source or subsequent history of the Battle.

Finally, it is inconsistent to describe the U.S. vessels using one classification system and the British by another. HLGallon (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason: Perry's message to General Harrison says "two ships, two brigs, one schooner, and one sloop", he doesn't use the term corvette. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 16:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perry's letter to Harrison was what I had in mind when I said "as described by Perry". Sorry, I should have been more precise. HLGallon (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed your message and saw that the "term 'corvette' was not official in the Royal Navy" and figured that was the cause of the reason. Normally, I'm good at reading. The IP doesn't appear to wish to discuss their actions. The request is in and now we wait for the wheels of bureaucracy to turn. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 16:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it wasn't a term yet used by the Royal Navy, the term Corvette was floating around during the Napoleonic Wars. Whether it wasn't yet officially used, the ship "was" a corvette. Also, the other ship was actually a sloop, a term which was used by the navy. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You may term the Detroit a corvette, but no contemporary source does; certainly not Barclay who referred to her as "the new ship" throughout her construction. (See C.P. Stacey, "Another look at the Battle of Lake Erie"). Again, you may decide that Queen Charlotte was a sloop; she was never rated as such by the Royal Navy (and in any case always belonged to the Provincial Marine, rather than the RN). To impose an artificial classification on a subject where there is ample first-hand evidence to the contrary violates both Verifiability and No original research. HLGallon (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no, the Queen Charlotte WAS a sloop, and the Detroit WAS a Corvette, though not termed by the Royal Navy. In my opinion, anything that floats is technically a ship or a boat, and also in my opinion, when someone sees the word "ship", they immediately relate to something like a frigate, or larger. Since "Wikipedia is not a propaganda site", I think it would be fair and justified to term them as a corvette and sloop, as the Queen Charlotte was a sloop, the term "sloop" was used, so there is no worming out of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.237.200 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this in anyway, I just wandered by. I would like to clarify the term 'sloop' and 'sloop of war' though as there seems to be some confusion over it. A Sloop-of-war is not a distinct class, it is a rating system, basically for anything under 18 guns, all the way down to the tiny commissioned cutters and so forth. Therefore Little Belt WAS termed a sloop of war by the Navy and not just a sloop. The rating system is not really to do with sail plans but with guns carried, so brigs, bomb vessels, etc could be lumped into this catch-all category. Little Belt's sail plan made her a 'sloop' along traditional mercantile lines, and her rating classification was as a 'sloop of war'. She was of a different type from the usual type of sloops that served with the Royal Navy as the classic 'sloops-of-war' but was nevertheless classified as such. Corvettes at this time referred to a class of ship in service at this time with the French Navy, and the term did not enter into the Royal Navy until the 1830s. In these circumstances, I'd suggest we use what the scholars use to describe these ships. This follows the guidelines laid down by WP:SHIPS, and avoids Original research. Benea (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what do the scholars use to describe these ships? The RN of the time used terms such as "HM Brig so-and-so" or "HM Schooner such-and-such" i.e. below sloops of war of 20 guns or so and rated for a master and commander, the RN went with the practice of classifying by rig. Where clarification was required in official reports and orders, they used the form "HM Brig whatever, of 14 guns". HLGallon (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, this specific area of history is not my speciality. You've possibly answered your own question I'm not sure. As you can see, they can be classed by rig, or rating system and indeed were sometimes classified by either one, and at different times both. But what do scholars call these ships specifically? Do they call Little Belt a sloop or a sloop of war? Detroit a brig or a corvette? If you're trying to work backwards and imposing criteria on them yourself then that is really original research. I would suggest using the academically accepted and reported terms and thoroughly citing them. Benea (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just been through every source I have immediately to hand. Roosevelt consistently refers to all vessels involved on both sides by rig, clarifying where necessary by referring to armament. Forester follows Roosevelt. C.P. Stacey refers to British vessels by rig, although to be fair he does refer to the two big American vessels (Lawrence and Niagara) as "brig corvettes". I will ignore the normally reliable J. Mackay Hitsman, who refers to Detroit as a brig (he may be confusing her with the vessel captured by Elliot late in 1812 and subsequently set on fire). The American John R. Elting is a bit vague; he states Detroit to be a sloop of war, but also states that only Queen Charlotte was armed sloop-of-war fashion. One important on-line source I have found is at an Ohio History site, containing the transcript of Barclay's court-martial, with most of the correspondence Barclay wrote while in command. Annoyingly for me, he states that at one point he commanded "Corvette No. 1, then called the Wolfe" on Lake Ontario. However, all his correspondence from Ontario was addressed from H. M. Ship Queen Charlotte or H. M. S(hip) Detroit. The only vessel which he describes as a sloop is the sloop-rigged Little Belt. If anyone can find an authentic *first hand* source describing either Detroit or Queen Charlotte as sloops of war, I will happily stand corrected, but I must take issue with Benea's assertion that sloop-of-war was a generic catch-all term for anything smaller than a frigate; it appears to have referred specifically to vessels requiring an officer of the rank of Commander in charge, during the early years of the Napoleonic Wars anyway. (Barclay's appointment was not to any specific vessel, but "His Majesty's Naval Establishment on Lake Erie".) I nevertheless maintain my objection, that neither Detroit nor Queen Charlotte were ever officially termed sloops of war, and certainly never corvettes; any description of them as such is WP:POV. Having at least stated my point, I shall request unprotection, and let others get on with it. HLGallon (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't particularly say they were. Sloop-of-war had multiple meanings that sometimes overlapped and sometimes meant different things, dependent on what the writer was basing his observations on, armament, rig, rating, etc.
  • In the early 18th century, first (100 plus guns on three gundecks), second (90-98 guns on three gundecks) or third (80, 74 or 64, or within that range on two gundecks) rates are 'ships of the line of battle'. Fourth rates (50 guns or more on one or two gundecks) were 'below the line', fifth (32 to 44 guns on one gundeck) and sixth (20 to 28 guns on one gundeck) were frigates. Command of all of these rates of ships were (except in unusual circumstances) held by an officer of the rank of Postcaptain.
  • Then comes the ship-sloops. These are unrated, carrying up to 22 guns on one gundeck, and are followed by the brig-sloops, carrying up to 28 guns on one gundeck. Both of these are commanded by an officer who held the rank of Commander.
  • Finally there are the even smaller ships, carrying up to 18 guns on one gundeck, and commanded by an officer of the rank of Lieutenant.
So what you term a ship can depend on all manner of criteria, particular to whatever the person who was doing the describing chose to apply. The rank of the officer commanding could play a role in determining what the ship was, but was often subordinate to guns carried, or the rig. If for some reason an officer ranking higher or lower than the usual rank assigned to the ship took charge, it did not suddenly change the rating of the ship! Little Belt could, at different times and to different people, be a sloop, or a sloop-of-war.
But this is really all bye the bye, though it does explain why an edit war has broken out. Our conventions (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) would indicate using the scholarly accepted works, even when this differs from what may have been used at the time - This is consistent with the ordinary Wikipedia naming practice of using modern names for articles even if different from the contemporary name. If the scholarly works describe the ships in a certain way, I encourage you to use that, no matter what you think they should be based on how contemporaries are describing them. Benea (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Finnis' grave is in a church in the town where I live (Hythe, Kent). The Queen Charlotte is described on the memorial plaque in the church thus ... on board his Majefty's Sloop of war Queen Charlotte .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.118.15 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder. She was a ship-rigged sloop and ship, as our American friends clearly intend, implies a much more powerful vessel. I don't know why we couldn't call her a ship sloop and the other vessel a corvette, given that that is what she was. Grace Note (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Discussions about The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay) are being held at the peer review page. Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Adams

In the paragraph for 1812, mention is made of the Brig USS Adams, which was pinned down at Sandwich, Ontario on the Detroit River and was not ready for action. Upon clicking on the ship's name you are re-directed to another USS Adams (a frigate) that was launched at New York City 8 June 1799, never sailed on Lake Erie because she saw duty on the eastern seaboard of the USA, also in the British Isles, and was scuttled and burned in 1814 on the Penobscot River at Hampden, Maine.

Clarification is needed to ascertain if the US had two naval vessels bearing the name Adams during the War of 1812. Musicwriter (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting rid of that link. I'm not willing to add an entry fot the correct Adams, but there is already an entry for the correct ship under HMS Detroit 1812. So I will get rid of the ling to Adams, and add one for the Detroit. This is not optimal, but is a minimum fix that might attract someone who knows what they are doing to handle this per Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrongAdams (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Order of Battle, revisited

Roosevelt, table "BARCLAY'S SQUADRON" page 261, classifies Lady Provost as a schooner. DANFS (follow the link) classifies her as a schooner, making Wikipedia call her a schooner. Brit naval historian William James, Vol VI, page 112, calls her a schooner. It would appear that Lady Provost was a schooner. The upshot is that Perry's missives are in error. Altoff (Oliver Hazard Perry and the Battle of Lake Erie (1999)) remarks on this in endnote 129: "Perry's message was inaccurate. The British squadron was actually composed of two ships, one brig, two schooners, and one sloop."

I propose we align the order of battle (2x) with the primary historians of each side, Roosevelt and James, and footnote Perry's reports, as Altoff did. JMOprof (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but let's not bloat the article with two orders of battle for the sake of a single word. Just change "brig" to "schooner" in the order of battle and add a cite to Roosevelt or whoever, with another cite to Altoff in Perry's note. HLGallon (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...by 2x I meant once in the infobox and once in the table. Otherwise, that's exactly what I had in mind. JMOprof (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American victory: Decisive or not?

Given the destruction of the British Lake Erie fleet and the subsequent US command of the Upper Great Lakes not to mention the effect that had on the ground war in southwestern Ontario, I don't see how it could be seen as anything other than a decisive US victory (this from a Canadian, BTW)  Natty10000 | Natter  04:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without a source it really doesn't matter per WP:NOR. Moagim (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Shall we amend the Wiki entry for the Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battle of New Orleans accordingly?  Natty10000 | Natter  12:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some simple research should be done before changing. I am concerned this kind of attention (research) is not being made before edits to others articles of this nature that change the tone of/ or POV of a battle. this many changes is such a short period lead me to believe no research was done - nor were the article read for there content on the topic at hand. I see the changes are being reverted by a few different editors now Moxy (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to change the outcome based on sources go ahead, but don't do that when you don't have one. Moagim (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is correct - do not change them unless you have a source for the change - I have reverted the additions.23:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You should be kidding. The person which made a claim needs to bring the source with, or will break every wiki police. No matter what is your personal opinion. Moagim (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any change to articles should be referenced - this is a basic practice here on English Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources for the changes pls present them or use them in the change.Moxy (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So try to understand that you're re-adding unreferenced material. Some ip just added it years ago and no one notice it. You need a source to everything in an article, not to something that isn't there.Moagim (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O I see what your saying - Should read the articles first then edit is best as the infobox is just regurgitating whats in the articles (that is sourced). I will move the refs to the box so we dont have this problem again.Moxy (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moagim says "You need a source to everything in an article" and takes that to mean every sentence has to have a footnote. That's not true-- only material likely to be challenged by a knowledgeable reader needs footnoting. In this case (Lake Erie) all the RS are in agreement regarding a decisive victory and no one reading a RS will be challenging the "decisive" statement. Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at many of his other edits and think I understand what he was doing. About a year ago the word "Decisive" was added to many articles randomly as they were now just removed. Both look like they were editing in good faith - found refs for 80 percent that back up the claim of "Decisive" in the articles (added them to the boxes as seen here). In a few case the word was used to stretch the truth a bit - so I reverted my reverts - like here. Believe its simply a language problem that got us here.Moxy (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected as much might be at play but Moagim seemed disinclined to discuss when invited and instead moved on to remove "Decisive" wherever found. Perhaps part of the problem is the use of the word "Decisive". Being a student of the War of 1812, I'm fairly well versed in its various battles and players (not anything like HLGallon but I can hold my own) and while there aren't that many battles that could be described as decisive victories for one side or the other (this battle was certainly one of them), perhaps the use of the word "pivotal" might invite less fractiousness? Certainly it isn't freighted with quite the same potential for nationalistic chest-thumping as "Decisive" is. However, does WP:NOR come into play in either case? Or was that particular instance a case of too-specific reading of a Wiki rule? TIA  Natty10000 | Natter  16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Lake Erie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Lake_Erie&oldid=790794034"