Talk:Ann Alexander (ship)

message: The USS Nantucket (1862) is the only ship by that name that I can find. That's not to say that there was not another Nantucket 10 years earlier, but it does draw this article into doubt. That said, there's some general editing that this page could use. Could someone with the appropriate research materials look up the appropriate info? -Harmil 14:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nantucket question

message: I didn't see any reason the article needed a review of Moby Dick, so I removed it.  The text is here:
:Despite the almost serendipitous timing of the sinking of the Ann Alexander and the publication of Moby-Dick, the incident did nothing to promote the novel, nor did it offset the scathing reviews it received, first from London critics and then echoed by their easily influenced American counterparts.  A critic for the highly regarded London Athenaeum, described it as: 
in case someone wishes to find a new home for itTjoeC (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced book review 

message: Please sort out this confusing apparent conflict.
The article currently tells us: 
While an accidental collision with a sperm whale at night accounted for sinking of the Union in 1807,[6] the Essex incident some 30 years prior was the only other documented case of a ship being deliberately attacked, holed and sunk by a whale.
But this immediately follows a citation of a book about another sinking by a whale, that of Bark Kathleen:
^ Jenkins, Thomas H (1902). Bark Kathleen sunk by a whale, to which is added an account of two like occurrences, the loss of ships Ann Alexander and Essex. New Bedford, MA: Hutchinson. pp. 31–34. 
It may well be that the wording is technically correct (for instance, maybe a 'Bark' is not a 'ship'?), but even if that is so, the article still needs amending to avoid confusing uninformed readers such as me. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please sort out this confusing apparent conflict 

message: Is the Early History section a case for WP:EXTRAORDINARY, requiring either 'according to', or at least two reliable sources whereas here we have at most one reliable source, and possibly none? According to a 1912 book, seemingly consisting of 'oral history', a boat made famous in 1851 suddenly is found at Trafalgar in 1805, and with the same alleged commander in 1807 survives unscathed three seizures by privateers in a single journey, and we are reporting all this as 'fact', when common sense would lead one to suspect the presence of tall stories. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the above, I've now added 'According to a 1912 account' at the start of both paragraphs. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This claimed 1805 encounter is now assessed in a new paper and I have edited accordingly, with a few other tidbits from other sources. Davidships (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early History as [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]]? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ann Alexander (ship). 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/20070610021813/http://www.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/starbuck.htm to http://www.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/starbuck.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified