Talk:Chesapeake–Leopard affair

message: There was already an article about this at Chesapeake affair...I think this one should be merged with it, as "Chesapeake affair" is the more usual term (to me, anyway!). Adam Bishop 16:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The tagging seems to be... off, with, for me at least, the "edit" button is in the middle of a line. My other complaint is that there seems to be a lot of missing links in the article... perhaps they should be removed or stubbed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.79.5 (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird edit tags and something else

message: Both the HMS Leopard and fourth-rate pages list leopard as a ship of the line rather than a frigate. Any sources either way? Captain Crush (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would contest the assertation that any 50-gun ship in that period was a true ship-of-the-line beyond the name.  (Note that the 4th Rate article stipulates any ship of 46 or more guns is a ship-of-the-line)  The Leopard would not have likely been in the main combat line of a battle fleet in that age.  By the Napoleonic Wars, 64-gun ships-of-the-line were on their way out and were not typically used in fleet actions with other line ships because the 64-gunners were too small and weak.  (The Africa at Trafalgar was a late arrival) I think it more accurate to classify the Leopard as a two-decked frigate or a heavy frigate rather than a ship-of-the-line.  I understand the technicalities for calling her a ship-of-the-line, however.  Auror (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Leopard could not possibly be called a frigate, or even a heavy frigate.  A "two decked frigate" is a contradiction in terms.  She was merely a very aged 4th Rate ship of the line, not fit very well to actually stand in a line of battle, but even less suited for the duties of the average frigate of the period.  FellGleaming (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Correct, and fixed.  Auror (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Frigate / ship of the line

message: The article says that the Leopard is a French Naval ship and that the Chesapeake affair was about retreiving French Navy deserters.
But HMS Leopard was a British Naval ship and the Chesapeake affair was about Britian's illegal impressement of naturalized American citizens.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narenra (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  French or British? 

message: Presumably the Halifax to which the prisoners where taken is Halifax, Nova Scotia. The article then refers to the execution taking place "on the Halifax", ie a ship. However the HMS Halifax of that era was a mere sloop, which seems an unlikely venue for an execution of a man captured by a larger ship and taken to a major naval base. It seems to be that an error has been made here, so I will remove the venue of the execution for now. Choalbaton (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my mistake, he was executed there because it was his own ship. Choalbaton (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Identifying Halifax

message: I am intrigued. What was it that made them "demonstrably non-British"? I am irresistibly reminded of Airplane. Wally Wiglet (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fascinated to learn this as well, given the number of Royal Navy crewmen from the West Indies. Robcraufurd (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

text: It's a very odd contention. There was a significant black population in Britain by this time, partly as a result of the fashion for eighteenth century aristocrats to employ black servants. --Ef80 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Two of them demonstrably non-British because they were African-Americans" 

message: I don't know much markup. I'm a total noob. But there's something wrong with the first citation on this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on McKenzie, it will navigate down to the full citation for that source. This method can be handy with a long article that often cites pages in the same major sources. In this article, reference styles are mixed, so it is a bit confusing and inconsistent. As noted above, I think all the footnotes should be changed to references, full format, and any source not cited by page number should be dropped, or listed as See Also.  --Prairieplant (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly cited source 

message: Text in this section is being challenged for lack of sources on some of the seamen being dark-skinned, and clearly of the US and not of the UK. The use of the now current term African American is challenged, though that is the current term to describe people of African descent in the US. This paragraph specifically gets flagged at the remark that black seamen were not likely to be from the UK and thus subject to impressment that applied to all men in the UK back then – 
:"The others were American residents Free and enslaved people of African descent were not citizens in 1807. —two of them demonstrably non-British because they were African Americans, but they had been serving on British warships. Daniel Martin for instance claimed he was born in West Port, Massachusetts; he is described as age 24,  high with "woolly hair", black eyes and dark yellow complexion and a small scar over his right eyebrow. Martin prior to Chesapeake, had served on the merchant vessel Caledonia and is described as "a colored man." Newspaper accounts of the time state Martin was not born in the United States but brought to Massachusetts, (possibly enslaved) when he was six years old by mariner William Howland, from Buenos Aires."
:This section relies on 4 citations, including a note saying that black people, even if free, were not citizens of the US in 1807. The men's appearance was given in contemporary news articles, Hampshire Federalist October 1807, archives of John Sharpe regarding Seamen's protection certificates issued by the US government. The challenged sentence is referenced to Perkins page 316. That reference has not been blue linked yet, and I do not have a copy of the book, to see if the whole sentence, including the phrase "demonstrably non-British because they were African Americans" is correctly cited to Perkins page 316. The sentence seems true to me given the other sources in the paragraph as to place of birth and current nation of residence for those seamen; if I am wrong, I hope it would be edited by someone with Perkins book at hand, rather than flag a sentence with an inline citation at the end of it.  --Prairieplant (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that they were dark-skinned that is being challenged, it is that they were "demonstrably non-British because they were African Americans". They could have come from just about anywhere at that time - Africa, America, Britain, the Caribbean...; the paragraph even goes on to say that Martin may have originally been brought to the US from Argentina. There is no way to "demonstrate" that they were African Americans (certainly not by their skin colour), and the fact that they were, or at least believed to be, from the US is adequately covered by the rest of the paragraph. If Perkins uses that exact wording (and if he does then reproducing it verbatim is copyvio/plagiarism) then he is wrong and there is no need to reproduce the mistake just because it exists. This isn't the first time this statement has been questioned (see sections above). Yomanganitalk 23:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text in Attack and search section 

message: Text under 'Attack and search' says 18 wounded, info/stats box says 17. Which is right?
Re citation, under Aftermath (last sentence), it says citation needed for the ships beams being used in the mill. But the mill page has citations for that! Why not use the same link?
Markpd (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That link is now copied into this article from Chesapeake Mill article, . It is an archived page. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: 17 or 18 wounded? And Chesapeake Mill citation

message: I formatted the ref added by another editor, to include the online link, which is to a journal that shows only the start of the article unless one has a subscription. My edit description got cut off before I finished it, hit the enter key too soon, I think.  If there is any other url with a full copy of the article to see, that could be used. I found only the copy in the History archives.  --Prairieplant (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading, Dudley article