Talk:HMS Java (1811)

Merge from "Sinking of HMS Java"

Justification for merger: The only apparent interest in this ship is in its role in the battle whose article I merged into this one, after which the ship no longer existed. And, that battle only involved one other boat which has gone on to have quite an illustrious history. So, the details of the battle seem inextricably to belong together with the only boat that was described to have sunk in it. Precedent for this exists in the article for another boat, also sunk by the USS Constitution, the HMS Guerriere (1806), and it seems to work there quite nicely. Also, I changed the referencing style to footnotes. —Aratuk 21:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think I have put more work into this than anyone and I agree with this but... I don't think you should be merging articles out of the blue without listing or discussing it. Tirronan 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As I had never merged pages before, I looked up the guidelines for doing so, and read the following:

"Merging is something any editor can do, and if you are sure that something should be merged, you can be bold and do so. If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided.

"If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, you should propose it on the affected pages. After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so."

I didn't think that in this case it would be controversial, and, having a good precedent, I was not uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, a notion I see vindicated somewhat in your professed agreement with what I did. I'm sorry to have unsettled you, however, and in the future I will be more careful of attaining a consensus before carrying out major changes. Some good news, though: I have permission from the artist linked to at the bottom of the page to upload an image of his painting to Wikipedia under a CC license. :-) —Aratuk 23:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It didn't bother me or I would have reverted it. But its probably a good idea to gain consensus on it as you said. I think the only folks that would have a problem is with it would be the British military task force if they wanted a article with more about the HMS Java's history in the article. Then again if they do they can add it. Except for its capture from the French and its sinking by the US its not that notable a ship. Tirronan 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for adding those bullets in the journal section. I wanted to fix that when I merged the articles but I didn't know how. —Aratuk 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheel

The wheel on USS Constitution is NOT that taken from Java. It was replaced during a refit. My source for this is from researchers at Naval Historical Command Detachment, Boston and the USS Constitution Museum. The fact emerged explicitly in the script of a video tour I shot on board within the past week. Should I just remove this from the article, as the assertion is here uncited? DulcetTone (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Careful there, I am responsible for most of the content in there and I assure you that I didn't go around making things up. Someone is saying that in a history book somewhere or it wouldn't be there. It is possible that the book was wrong (it happens) or that the final wheel was fitted later and that a jury rig was used with Java's wheel. I don't have access to better information and it would seem that you do. Be careful that you don't cross the line into OR, I started reading Congressional discussions about the War of 1812 and found a lot of interesting conclusions that I can't use here because of that. Make sure you are using secondary sourcing for this. It is ok if you write a book and use that book to be a source though. Tirronan (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Java's wheel is documented to have been removed and used for some time as the wheel on the Constitution, it may have been replaced later but if you want to say that it has been subsequently replaced, then you should have a reference for that. Dabbler (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

re: "in a history book somewhere" ... perhaps the people who restore the ship read this in the companion volume "Another History Book Somewhere Else"?  :) I will see what documentation informs their understanding. Luckily, I am relieved to see that the line stating the wheel was removed occurs at a place where I could easily edit it out! (phew) If you would like to see my first (of four) videos, check [1] DulcetTone (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources I have direct to hand refer to taking of the Java's wheel though both refer to her Wheel being shot away and tackles set up to steer below. Just leave it out unless we find something directing to it. Then again it won't be the 1st myth to make it to a history book nor unfortunately the last. Tirronan (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reference to the Java's wheel being used aboard the Constitution after the end of the War of 1812. Page 168 footnote, The second war with England, Volume 2 By Joel Tyler Headley, 1853, 1989 reprint Dabbler (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

interesting that it had a eye witness or purported to be anyway. DulcetTone, you need to explain a bit here. Tirronan (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

My position is that it is understood by all that the Java's wheel was aboard Constitution for some time, but that the US Navy, as informed by the people entrusted to train the crew of USS Constitution in how to explain the ship's history to the public believes strongly enough that it was replaced at some point during an intervening restoration, possibly one after the 150+ year old source you cite which may not therefore be called into question in any way, that the assertion that the present wheel is no longer that taken from Java would make it into a US Navy-commissioned 3 minute video that highlights the Constitution's steering arrangements. I am inquiring as to what sources underlie the script I shot, and will read your source's background. We'll see what is what, or at least see it a little better. edit: I read your source and enjoy the anecdote. It may be gussied up in the telling, but the US Navy's telling seems to agree with it. It is merely a matter of WHEN the US Navy feels it was replaced, and what is the basis of their present understanding. I will say that the Captain's cabin on Constitution still sports a mirror taken from Guerriere. DulcetTone (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with the fact that Java's wheel was used for a time and most likely replaced at some later date, all that I am asking is that we get something in print as to when this occurred if we include the factoid. Lord knows that it was reputed to look like hell so it's replacement was probably mandated pretty quickly, that is one beloved ship!Tirronan (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

While the ship was beloved, the use of the scruffy Java wheel was treated as a trophy of war, just as French ships captured by the British (and occasionally vice versa) were not usually renamed. It was to rub the enemy`s face in the defeat. The anecdote in the reference I gave does not specify a date but it was obviously a number of years after the event when a British officer could safely tread the decks of the Cionstitution. Dabbler (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to hear from the Naval Historical Command person, but the researcher at the Museum responded with this: "I think there is little doubt that the wheel on Constitution's quarterdeck today is not from Java. So far, the only hard documentary evidence for the replacement of the wheel comes from a Nov. 1813 receipt from Boston joiners T& R Howe who charged the Navy Department $45 for a “Steairing [sic] Wheel�? for Constitution- though we're not sure when this was installed. It may have been after the Guerriere battle and not after the one with Java." I wonder if he was confusing dates with the last sentence, as the invoice date is nearly a year after the Java battle, which would indicate a lackadaisical accounts receivable desk at T & R Howe when the customer is a government at war. One must conclude that either this order was to replace a proper wheel which was in need of replacement for no effects other than regular weather and wear over less than 2 decades of use, or was to replace that lost in battle and replaced with one no one was happy with. In either case, it is hard to imagine that Java's wheel could be seen as a worthy fixture for 200 years service. I'll see what other info comes to light, and I am already envisioning an opportunity to make a micro-documentary on this interesting little point. Who knows? Maybe there is a builder's mark on some metal fitting. DulcetTone (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we then agreed that the Java's wheel was then used for a time at least? Tirronan (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe all accounts agree on Java's being used for (at a minimum) the remainder of the Constitution's cruise which featured her victory over Java. I have now heard from the Naval History Command, and the evidence could not be more overwhelming that the Java's wheel is long gone. Working primarily from a paper put together by Tyrone G. Martin (former commander of the Constitution in the 1970s, and in many ways her biographer), the history of the ship's wheel's maintenance is this: 1804 - Constitution completed with single wheel, inferred by her quarter bill listing that 2 sailors should man it. Feb, 1809 - Constitution now probably has a double wheel, as her quarter bill now says 4 sailors should man it. Dec 29, 1812 - double wheel destroyed in action with Java. Dec 30, 1812 - Java's wheel installed in place of missing double wheel. Sep 1813 - Java's wheel replaced, presumably, by one that was delivered to Constitution, sourced in Amos Binney's records, 4th auditor's report. May 4 1839 - new wheel fitted, as noted in ship's log. During the 1927-1931 restoration, a wheel manufactured by the Hyde Windlass Company of Bath, ME was installed. The present wheel was manufactured in the 1980s -- a difference in supposed age from 1812 or so that would have to fall into the realm of the plainly apparent. I would think that the article as now recorded should be softened at the very least. My own video (probably to be published before end of February) can serve as a publication to cite if the published works of Tyrone Martin and others do not extend to this level of detail. DulcetTone (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the article to reflect the discussion above. It would be nice if DulcetTone could provide the full reference for the wheel's replacement from the paper cited above. Dabbler (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link Class and type in info box

The "Pallas class" link in the info box (class and type) refers to the wrong wiki page, about the British Pallas-class_frigate, whereas it should be the French Pallas-class_frigate_(1808). I would have edited the box myself, but I don't know the template used in the box, so I'd probably mess up. Could someone else please make the correction?--Giant'sConscience (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)