Talk:CSS Alabama

Manning
Wasn´t it so that almost the entire crew was compiled of Non-Americans, fighting for prize money? And only the officers were from CS? Regards, Tekko 16 May 2007

Disovery of the Wreck
Though the French Navy is credited with discovering the wreck, much of the leg work had already been done by Clive Cussler and his NUMA organization. In his account "The Sea Hunters", Cussler comments that while near the wreck site, his vessel was boarded by the French Navy when they came to close to the nuclear submarine base at Cherbourg. All of NUMA's charts and logs were confiscated. Later, when the French Navy was announcing "their" discovery one of the NUMA charts indicating Cusslers previous search grids was actually shown on French TV.

Never entered a southern port
I don't understand the significance of this. Did they not want to deliver the captured goods to the Confederacy? Or were they raiding for purely destructive purposes? Valetude (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Quote attribution
could you please attribute the quote you just added, per MOS:QUOTE? Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I did attribute it. Note 18 gives:  Bingham, Tom (2005). "The Alabama Claims Arbitration". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (Cambridge University Press) 54 (1): 7.Ttocserp 11:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not an attribution, it's a source citation. It tells us where the quote came from but not who said it. If Bingham wasn't quoting someone else, we can attribute the quote to him. I can't check myself, it's behind a paywall. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see what you mean. Yes, Bingham himself said it, on page 7 of his article.  How do we attribute the quote to Bingham himself? Ttocserp 13:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CSS Alabama. 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/20081120201829/http://hnsa.org/conf2004/papers/watts.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/conf2004/papers/watts.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060715050655/http://www.lib.ua.edu/libraries/hoole/digital/cssala/llewllyn.htm to http://www.lib.ua.edu/libraries/hoole/digital/cssala/llewllyn.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609124419/http://www.hnsa.org/conf2004/papers/watts_files/image012.jpg to http://www.hnsa.org/conf2004/papers/watts_files/image012.jpg

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) 01:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
Some of the language in the current version seems to belong more to a tribute to rather than an article about the Alabama. This will require some attention. I invite other editors to help out. Jd2718 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree. I added the POV and Tone banners to the article. The history section sticks out as the most innaporpriate; it's well written, but not encyclopedic in tone, and certainly borders on WP:NPOV ("back-breaking work", "floated free on the breeze", "Semmes changed his tack"). The discussion of the flags also seems problematic. Referring to the "Stars and Bars", especially in a section heading, is not neutral. Certianly needs additional citations as well, although those banners are already present. ThunderBacon (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was struck by exactly the same thing as soon as I read the article, not taking too much notice of the banners. I started editing the article for grammar plus some punctuation and found myself changing the more emotional stuff. I only saw your comment here later and note that I have dealt with your three examples. I have left the banners so that other editors can judge what more has to be done.
 * Incidentally, I think that the whole section on the battle should be considerably reduced here as it is substantially the same as the text in the Battle of Cherbourg (1864) article. Freeman501 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)