Talk:USS President (1800)

message: DANFS says broken up 1817, Colledge says June 1818, Colledge may be more authoritative, but a third voice would be better. Stan 17:52, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break up date 

message: In reality the ship doesn't have a gender. Shouldn't we just say "it"? --Bentendo24 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many "She"s 

message: A constant problem with introducing strength of armament and numbers of crewman killed or wounded inevitably brings different totals from different sources. Currently in the article and cited from James is this passage: 
President had lost 35 men killed and 70 wounded, including Decatur. Endymion had 11 killed and 14 wounded. President had had a crew of 447 and a broadside of 828 pounds against Endymion's crew of 346 and broadside of 664 pounds.[101]
As expected other sources give different figures. Maclay Smith says:
The President carried thirty long 24 pounders and twenty-two short 42-pounders—in all, fifty-two guns, with seven hundred and sixty-five actual pounds of metal to the broadside. The Endymion mounted thirty long 24-pounders and twenty short 32 pounders—in all, fifty guns, aggregating six hundred and eighty pounds of metal to the broadside. In this chase the President sustained a loss of twenty-four killed and fifty-six wounded.  The loss in the Endymion was eleven killed and fourteen wounded.
Roosevelt says:
The President lost 24 killed and 55 wounded'; the Endymion, 11 killed and 14 wounded.
Cooper says:
In this long and close cannonade, agreeably to the official reports, the President lost 24 men killed, and 56 wounded. The Endymion had 11 killed, and 14 wounded, according to the published reports.
Toll says: President 25 killed and 60 wounded.
The point of all this being that to begin introducing strengths and kill ratios into the article will require explaining all of the discrepancies between the sources. Picking one source and calling their counts as definite is misleading to the reader and additionally makes for a poorly researched article. The comparisons should go to the main article on the battle Capture of USS President as that is where arguments over strengths belong and prevents this article from going into unnecessary detail. 
One last point. The passage about Endymion:
In 1847 the Admiralty authorized the issue to any still surviving crew from Endymion of the Naval General Service Medal with clasp "ENDYMION WH. PRESIDENT".
This belongs in the article for  as it has nothing to do with President. --Brad (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact and figure discrepancies 

message: *"consequently, all construction came to a halt" is referenced to a treaty, which I don't think would cover it.
*Are refs 55, 78 and 79 reliable?
*Copyedit: "The Royal Navy investigation revealed Captain Bingham insisting that President had fired the first shot and continued firing for forty-five minutes, rather than the five minutes Rodgers claimed."
*The article asserts that Little Belt fired the first shot, yet it appears there is some controversy regarding the matter?
*A lot of the sources are rather old... I don't have a problem with it, but someone might at FAC. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some more changes. Is a note really necessary in a section that only has four paragraphs? There is a separate article Little Belt Affair on the engagement but it's so completely biased and without any references I decided that steering the reader there wouldn't do any good. --Brad (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: I'm placing the tag here rather than on the article page. This article was promoted to Featured in April. It went through what I refer to as "panic editing" in order to get it past FAC. What I believe the article needs is a basic run through for prose and flow and maybe some grammar. Everything in the article is cited and being careful not to change the meaning of what has been cited can be difficult. Brad (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that back. If you can't spell then don't copyedit articles. Brad (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit request

message: Since there was no conversation about changing the 2c criteria of the citations, I've reverted today's edits. Brad (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference and bibliography layout. 

message: I'm considering reverting to the version that passed FAC several years ago. The front page appearances have led to a ton of edit creep. I've looked at the current version, and while there have been constructive edits, the bad outweighs the good. The best thing to do is revert and improve all over. AcadRonin, I know you mean well, but the majority of your edits are not helpful. Brad (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, I disagree. Many of my edits are simply corrections of fact, or of formatting. A couple that you reverted were fully sourced (in particular one set that you reverted as not NPOV, when the comment was not mine but that of a major author re frigates). The article still has numerous small errors, and the style is still frequently clumsy with its dependence on the passive voice. My most recent changes converted the general "two merchant ships" to named vessels, detailing what actually transpired, again, fully sourced. I fail to see how this represents a "travesty". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a travesty 

message: While it is true that the capture of the President occurred before news of the treaty reached America, the fact that the war was still on until after full ratification is the more relevant fact. For example. USS Constitution fought and captured HMS Cyane and HMS Levant in full knowledge of the treaty, but without knowing it had been ratified, so they would have fought even if they had known of the treaty. And, if the war really was over, then why did the British not return the ship after learning of their "mistake"? Before disagreeing with me, why not read the treaty?
Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The war was not yet over