Talk:USS Princeton (1843)

Comment
It should be emphasized that there was a big difference in the construction of the two unique guns onboard the Princeton. Ericsson chose placing bands of hot metal around the barrel, and Stockton chose making his gun thicker...and that difference has to be made plain to the reader of the article. Carajou 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
Question:

Where was the vice President during the accident aboard the USS Princeton?

Wwenzel 17:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no vice president. Tyler himself was Vice President until William Henry Harrison died in office in 1841, and at the time there was no Constitutional mandate to fill a vacant V.P. post. This has now been indicated in the article USS Princeton disaster of 1844. RM2KX (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

USS Princeton (1843) book
Pearson, L. (1966). Technology and Culture: The John Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0040165X.

This book is vol. 7 of 47 volumes, that goes in greater detail of the USS Princeton of 1843. It goes in depth about the gun that exploded on board that initially caused the tragedy. It also discusses when and how the boat was made and who created it.This book has great info for any project on the USS Princeton sailing vessel of 1843.RYANMURR (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger


Does there need to be a separate entry for USS Princeton Disaster of 1844? Can't that subject be covered well and in context in this entry for USS Princeton (1843) at the section called "Peacemaker accident"?

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge, such as it is. Perhaps if the ship's pagespace was bloated with battle action the incident could be pruned off and built separately, but since the Peacemaker mishap is the only important event in Princeton's four-year career, the new article is unnecessary. BusterD (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons given.Bigturtle (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger. If the articles are merged under the ship's name, the user is required to know the name of the ship on which the disaster took place in order to look it up. If all one recalls is that a gun exploded and killed members of the president's cabinet, he or she would be out of luck in locating the specific entry (unless "disaster" or "accident" or "explosion" appears in the title). The incident had important enough consequences in returning Calhoun to the cabinet as a replacement for one of the dead officials and in providing the popular romantic story of Julia Gardiner fainting into John Tyler's arms that the entry should stand alone. GeoWPC (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That is obviously not the case. A search for "ship disaster 1844" would work, as would "ship explosion cabinet" and many other possible search terms and combinations. Searches do not search titles only. And of course if they were merged the name Calhoun would appear in USS Princeton (1843). Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BY NO MEANS ME MERGED, IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT EVENT OF IT'S OWN AND IS WORTHY OF BEING SEPERATE. The page could use some expanding though.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to SHOUT. But "significant event in its own right" is not the rationale for an independent wikipedia entry. From the Manual of Style:
 * Reasons to merge a page include: unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic.

The ship and the most significant event in its history are inseparable, IMHO. If both entries are maintained, both require much of the same information and neither will have have so long an entry that material specific to one or the other, the ship or the disaster, can not be easily managed within a single entry. As was said above, "the Peacemaker mishap is the only important event in Princeton's four-year career." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)



President Tyler
The introduction says that President Tyler barely escaped death when the shipboard gun exploded, but the section describing that incident says that he was unharmed because he was belowdeck at the time. Which is it? 66.41.100.151 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I thought that too. "Barely" indicates he was in much more danger than was really the case, with the evidence we have. RM2KX (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

New Merger Proposal
I propose that USS Princeton disaster of 1844 be merged into USS Princeton (1843). I think that the content in the Disaster article can easily be explained in the context of USS Princeton, and the Princeton article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Disaster will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

The original discussion above was never technically closed, and stands at 2 support and 2 oppose. Please respond here with Support or Oppose if you have not already voted there. Here is my count: The original proposer never voted definitively, nor have I yet. There is a chance the discussion will still remain tied, so it should remain open for now. RM2KX (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Now I and the proposer have voted, but I also invited several of the most recent article contributors to this discussion, so let's give it some more time. RM2KX (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Please continue additional votes below:
 * Support BusterD (talk)
 * Support Bigturtle (talk)
 * Oppose GeoWPC (talk)
 * (Oppose) $1LENCE D00600D (talk)
 * Support for the reasons above. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons above. RM2KX (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ridiculous fork. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't merge - apparently, I removed the original merge tag. I'm not sure I remember why - but it was probably because one of my pet peeves is tags on the top of an article that sit there forever without actually doing anything.  It looks like the original merge proposal was from 7 years ago, so I wouldn't include them as part of this discussion - things change over a period that long - both the facts (or content) and the rules.  Why not merge?  It strikes me that the disaster was much more important than the ship.  Consider if today 6 of the president's friends and/or cabinet members were killed during a military test.  It was likely much more of a disaster in the terms of the day, i.e. smaller cabinet, fewer qualified people, smaller military budget. That type of stress on the government has little to do with the rest of the history of the ship.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points, thank you. That would put our current tally at 3-1 for merge instead of 5-3 (now 3-2/5-4). The articles could always be split again later if enough information were to present itself to meet today's standards and availability of info, as you noted. I agree the tragedy carries the most importance, and that being the case, it should get a more prominent acknowledgement in a rewrite during merge, should one occur. RM2KX (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI I have the merge ready to be executed (I did the work, currently resting in my sandbox [subpage]), should we reach consensus. It looks like we're almost there... RM2KX (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't merge - I concur with . Billmckern (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the article about the incident is not so long that it requires a fork. The two article titles are not so different that a merge will make it difficult for readers to find information about the incident. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: No useful purpose would be served by keeping this information separate, and the disaster redirect could be to the subsection of the Princeton article describing the accident. Thewellman (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Most the noteworthy content is already in the main article so it may only need a few tweaks rather than a full merge, redirect left behind will keep the searchers happy. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with a specific section redirect, per Thewellman. Stephen 22:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Eddie891 (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Although I don't feel strongly about it. Earendur (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of the notable changes made during merge
RM2KX (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Used a smaller article lead. Names of all victims and the guns are detailed in the main article. Moved references into article.
 * 2) Created separate section, "machinery," for engines and propellers, since "guns" already had its own section. This separated all design elements from the general section, "Ship history."
 * 3) Reconfigured section headings. Retitled "Ship history" section "Early history" because "Later history" already existed.
 * 4) Shuffled some information to appropriate new sections, including later developments of the people involved into "Aftermath."
 * 5) Added paragraph break between Oregon and Peacemaker info.
 * 6) Removed "two sailors" (unnamed) from casualty list, after failed verification.

Two Sailors Killed by Peacemaker
I finally got the book I've been waiting on at my library, to try to confirm the article's previous statement that two sailors were killed in the blast, in addition to the six people named. Unfortunately, Robert Merry in A Country of Vast Designs is not only the single source I can find that claims the two sailors, but even the two sources he cites in his text don't support him. So if anyone finds a credible source that also makes that claim, please mention it here on the talk page before adding back to the article. RM2KX (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. The silence of the Report of the Committee on Naval Affairs is important here as well. It's dated May 15 so enough time has passed for the status of the wounded to be clear. On page 3 when making a point of proceeding with caution with similar experiments the Report refers to "a matter of such importance to the success and reputation of the navy, and one in which the lives of those engaged in the public service are so deeply concerned". That would seem to be a cue to mention any additional loss of life. And they don't mention it.


 * 2. On a related note, consider this passage we now have:

"Several members of the gun crew were injured, but all survived. Another twenty people were injured, including Captain Stockton. The President was below decks and not injured."

The first citation, the Report, as far as I can tell, says nothing about members of the gun crew being wounded. Nor does it assert that they survived their wounds. It just reports no further casualties beyond the 6. And it includes testimony from some of the gun crew about testing, loading, etc. The Report (A) documents the fact the Stockton was wounded, as he claims in his letter on page 15 of the Report and as one of the officers describes on page 12; and (B) it says 16 to 20 persons were wounded, not 20. The second citation to the Naval Historical Center adds nothing at all to what is discussed in this passage. It's part of an image library and its only value is in providing 4 images. It might be suitable for "External resources". Unless someone has evidence specific to the gun crew, what would you make of this?

"Another sixteen to twenty people were injured, including Captain Stockton. The President was below decks and not injured."

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Tonight I went through every newspaper on Newspapers.com and Genealogybank.com for February 28, 1844 to March 31, 1844. Many of the initial unsourced reports, especially those in papers furthest from Washington, contained rumors of dead sailors.  The closer to DC the paper was, the more likely the stories were to be accurate.


 * Most stories were pretty consistent that between 10 and 15 sailors were injured, and two were injured severely. Those were in addition to the six individuals who are named as having died -- Upshur, Gilmer, Maxcy, Kennon, Gardiner, and Tyler's valet.  Many articles also indicate that Captain Stockton and Thomas Hart Benton were injured.


 * The Baltimore Sun for March 1, 1844 gives a by name list of 13 sailors it says were injured in the explosion, and details their injuries; it also names the two who were most severely injured.


 * I continued to track the names of the two most injured sailors to see if they died of their wounds; I didn't find any news articles indicating that they had.


 * I think I did due diligence here -- unless someone can cite a reliable source for two sailors having died, I have to conclude that it didn't happen.


 * Billmckern (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the work, guys (much more thorough than mine)! I had earlier edited a few other lists and articles that claimed eight dead (and in one case, seven!?), and I wanted to get this discussion on the record for the next person that reads Merry's book. He must have assumed the worst about the severely injured men. RM2KX (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)