Talk:Blockade of Africa

message: This page needs massive help. [[PaulinSaudi 16:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The formal name of U.S. warships always leads off with the letters USS, which stands for United States Ship.  Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, formal names ought to be used throughout it.  The oldest ship in the United States Navy is the USS Constitution, which is also called "Old Ironsides." January 4th, 2005. 9:07 P.M., GMT. 
It is fitting to rewrite the text of a page to avoid the repeating of the letters USS, but it is always wrong to refer to a U.S. warship without including the letters USS.  
The word "she" is the standard word that is absolutely proper as a substitute for the complete name.  For example, instead of repeating the formal name, USS Constitution, insert the word "she" if it fits.  January 4th, 2005, 9:38 P.M., GMT.
:Actually, no. It is entirely appropriate to refer to a U.S. Navy ship without the letters USS. In fact, prior to 1907/9, USS was not part of the official name of such ships. (Although we do use the prefix in articles about ships, which is a different discussion.)  Thousands of articles in Wikipedia follow this convention.
:See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28ships%29#Referring_to_ships; "You need not give the prefix at all if it is obvious from the context". See also 1 for the official U.S. Navy publication that rarely uses "USS" when refering to ships in the narrative of their histories.
:Please either revert the changes or, if you disagree, let's move the discussion to the ship naming conventions page.  Thanks. Jinian 21:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: USS is proper

message: I have here a number of references that seem to paint a rather different picture thatn "the US blockaded africa and then the British joined them". It seems that Britian was taking the lead from 1807 onwards, and maintained a much larger naval presence off Africa. Meanwhile the US refused to allow the British Navy to search its ships for slaves. Here are some of the references:         DJ Clayworth 17:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The page does need help

message: <Blockquote>When I started this article, I put out a plea for help from anyone who knew of the role played by the British Navy.  I am interested in those activities.  I am on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean from England.  Generally speaking, from what I have seen, American history books ignore the subject, almost entirely.  Americans were very pro-slavery at that time.  U. S. Presidents Pierce (1853-57) and ("Buck") Buchanan (1857-61) were Pro-slavery Democrats because the majority of the voters were pro-slavery people. </Blockquote>  
141.151.178.248 12:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I asked for help

message: I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on the Suppression of the Slave Trade,
 ukcmilhist.freeforums.org/dissertation-navy-suppression-slave-trade-1808-50-t2647.html
it will be able to provide narrative background, unfortunately this link has not been referenced properly yet (however I have the original word doc, so will be able to help with any referencing enquiries) 
(Fdsdh1 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: References can be aded per WP:GENREF and WP:INLINECITE. Whizz40 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: British Involvement

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Blockade of Africa. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091210021701/http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm to http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Blockade of Africa. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608085027/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s15/somers-ii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s15/somers-ii.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think we will need a conclusions section. The blockade of Africa was the first step in increased European attention concerning the African continent, and for the first time its interior. The Suppression of the Slave Trade is linked to the colonisation of the continent, and was often used as a vehicle to usurp the local authorities and replace it with European influence (particularly in the case of Britain). However I am not really an expert so I am not sure I would be able to do it justice.
(Fdsdh1 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We could add a heading for conclusions with a link to Scramble for Africa as a start? Whizz40 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: These two matters were not very closely and directly related. During the decades of blockade the European powers paid little attention to colonization. Exceptions include the far north, the far south, and the settlement of freed slaves "back to Africa". Suppression became pretty much complete in the early 1860s when the importing countries banned the trade (the USA ban was incompletely effective until the Civil War). Twenty years later there was indeed a scramble for Africa, and yes that was the next stage of exploiting the continent. Drat; in writing this I'm coming to think more deeply and see your side of it, so yes, there should be a mention and a link or two. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusions