Talk:HMS Falcon (1801)

Untitled

From Viking1808 to Wikipedia Editors: this page is the result of two years research and cooperation between a Dane and a Scot. as shown in our referenced website research notes. It is our first attempt at Wikipedia, so all comments gratefully received.

We need to link it to Danish events 1808. Possibly also to make this a subpage [??]or main page titled "HMS FALCON in Danish Waters 1808"

Are the references OK to put the longish explanation of the Tunø diary origins? Viking1808

Viking1808 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose move to HMS Falcon (1802)

We have lots of articles about commissioned naval ships of war. See HMS Falcon (1854), for an example of what this article should look like. Per HMS Falcon, the subject of this article appears to be the HMS Falcon which was launched as the HMS Diadem in 1801, renamed HMS Falcon in 1802, then sold in 1816. The history of the ship is of encyclopedic interest, but an article exclusively about one brief part of its history is not so encyclopedic, especially when it consists of original research comparing Danish and English sources. Language such as "No Danish sources to which the authors have had access can confirm the action of 29 April 1808" is inappropriate in the body of an article. Do not talk about yourselves in the body of the article, only about the subject. Such original research belongs in some historical journal, not in a general encyclopedia. Unless it has been widely covered by secondary sources, or played a major role in some notable battle, why should there be such detailed coverage of every entry from the log book? It is really too much detail. Should the article for every ship of war tell what routine activities the crew engaged in every day, like in this article we learn that on March 28 the crew went in a boat to gather firewood? Or all the unidentified sails they investigated without learning anything? The article needs a summary in the lede or first section telling what kind of ship this Falcon was, when and where it was built and launched, its renaming, and something about the rest of its career, as well as its 1816 sale. You say it is a 16 gun sloop, but HMS Falcon, listing all such ships, says it was a 14 gun sloop. That detail should be clarified. Edison (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Many thanks for your comments. This is my first try on Wikipedia and it is a steep learning curve. Yes, this ship is the Falcon 1802 renamed from Diadem. The question on the number of guns was one which exercised me greatly, but I do have the answer deep in my notes from published English sources. Too much detail – OK. I will reduce what I thought Wiki would need. "No Danish sources to which the authors have had access can confirm the action of 29 April 1808” will be deleted at this visit

May I please have a little time to consider all your comments in order to give a measured response to them all? Viking1808 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply 2

Launched at Whitby as Diadem in 1801, and renamed Falcon in 1802, HMS FALCON is recorded [by Winfield: British Warships in the Age of Sail ] with 16 guns, of which 14 x 24-pounders were on the main gundeck and 2 x 18-pounders were on the quarter deck. If other sources recorded only main deck guns, this would explain any confusion. This point had to be clarified by me early on, as the Danish source [Hahnemann, as quoted] listed eight cannon balls recovered from the one broadside] The Falcon immediately preceding this one [Falcon 1782] is recorded as having 14 guns – another possible source of confusion?

Ample details of the structure of FALCON and her 75 man crew are given by Winfield (as quoted by the website www.threedecks.org) Actions and prizes recorded in Falcon’s name, especially from 1806 to 1808 are quoted in various places and can be considered “notable”. It is Lieutenant John Price’s letter dated 15 May 1808 as published in the London Gazette and in the Edinburgh Annual Register that year, and re-quoted in “Battles of the British Navy, Volume 2” by Joseph Allen [who gives the ship 16 guns] and “The naval history of Great Britain .. Volume 5” by William James and various websites that notably brings HMS Falcon to (English speaking) attention in 1808.

This page, “HMS Falcon in Danish Waters 1808”, is (obviously) written in English and hence there is a (hopefully only slight) bias towards the British naval record – but there are implications for the Danish record of 1808. Several sources in Danish [ e.g. Hahnemann 1994 as quoted, Tunø & Samsø History 1946 as quoted, Rasmus Nielsen’s Sejerø Parish History 1923, page 176 – citing a source from 1809 ] record raids on, and temporary occupation of, numerous smaller undefended islands in the period between Copenhagen – September 1807 and Anholt – 1811. If this story were to be written by a Dane in Danish for a Danish Wiki-page the title would possibly be “Depredations by British ships on the smaller islands of the Great Belt”. Little of this Wikipedia page is “original research” except where it was necessary to try to confirm reports written and published in either language at dates long after 1808. What is attempted is to provide a bridge between notable English reports and notable Danish reports. The edit which links this page to the Danmark Portal is much appreciated.

There may be a case for a Wiki-page titled HMS Falcon(1802) on which I would happily cooperate with other authors/editors, but I feel that the 1808 story stands on its own merits. Comments from others? A better name for this page? Viking1808 (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Any objection to moving this article (equivalent to renaming the article) to a title about the ship rather than one period in its career, consistent with other ships? Look and see if there is an article about other comparable small warships, for every year of their commission. Then see articles about truly historic warships such as the USS Arizona (BB-39), or the HMS Victory. Is this 14 or 16 gun ship in any way more important in its overall notability, so that every year of operation needs a separate article? Move this article to one article about the warship. Edison (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the above. The page has now been renamed to HMS Falcon(1802). I will work offline to rewrite and remove the excess detail in the 1808 section (hopefully within the week), and then try to build a suitable history of the whole of the ship's career [all help appreciated]Viking1808 (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope that Wiki editors will help to improve the content as required. Refering back to the question of the number of cannon on HMS Falcon, she may have been originally commissioned with only 14 [I do not know!] and possibly had two extra added in the refit of 1804. Winfield gives her 16, and there is evidence - in Danish - that a single broadside consisted of eight cannonballs. Viking1808 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Viking1808 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Falcon (1802). 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 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110802041558/http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/pdf/Warship_Histories_Vessels_i.pdf to http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/pdf/Warship_Histories_Vessels_i.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)