Talk:USS Bear

USS Bear??

It is my understanding that the Cutter Bear was refered to officially as the USRC Bear which stood for "United States Revenue Cutter" This would have been before 1915 when the Revenue Cutter Service was in existence. After 1915, and the establishment of the Coast Guard it would have been refered to as "USCGC Bear"

The article should be renamed USRC Bear but it is beyond my editing capabilities to do this. My reference in this matter is the book 'The Coast Guard Expands, 1865-1915'; Irving H. King; Naval Institute Press; 1996

Can someone help with this? Cuprum17 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

After some additional reseach I do find a Navy connection; however, the Bear was probably best known during her service in Alaska with Mike Healy as skipper. The article should be 'USRC Bear' with tie-ins from 'USS Bear' and 'USCGC Bear'. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

However you like. I felt that she was best known for her service in the Greely Relief Expedition, which is why I chose the title that I did. (I was filling out articles related to Uriel Sebree, one of the officers of the expedition, at the time I renamed this from Bear (ship), which was worse than either this title or your suggestion. JRP (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with Bear (ship)? Given that this vessel had many owners, both civilian and government, under several national flags, USS Bear is misleading as it was only a brief stage of her career. She is quite famous in Newfoundland for her sealing exploits in addition to her US adventures.Letterofmarque (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Bear (ship) as more accurate, given that the ship's life was only briefly a USS vessel. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If you prefer more accurate, (given the ship's life) the ship was commissioned into the United States Revenue Cutter Service from 1885 until 1915 (30 years) and it's successor, the United States Coast Guard from 1915 to 1926 (11 years); a total of 41 years out of her 78 year United States service life, the last 19 of which were spent laid up. Since she was best known for her service in Alaska on the Bering Sea Patrol, I would support a change to USRC Bear. It is probably the most famous cutter that served in the USRC or USCG. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Best known" is pretty subjective. While this ship is justifiably a legend within the US Coast Guard, in Atlantic Canada Bear is famous as a sealing vessel and no one talks about her time in Alaska. Most people outside of US Coast Guard circles will even recognize what USRC or USCG means. Bear (ship) or Bear (barquentine) is a more accurate reflection of a long and varied career.Letterofmarque (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that the people of Alaska would probably have a different opinion on the matter. USRC Bear and her crew were the law in Alaska in the 1890's to 1920's. She performed a multitude of services for the people of Alaska during the Bering Sea Patrol. I would venture a guess that few people outside of the Maritime Provinces of Canada even would know that sealing went on there let alone the fact that the Bear was used as a sealing vessel. Cuprum17 (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that because of the various owners, the title page should be Bear(ship). No owner or person of any geographic local is more important than any other. I will move the page to the Bear(ship) as before. 174.116.38.15 (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! Even though I support a change to USRC Bear, I don't think there has been enough comment on this issue to really form a concensus. Let's take the time to get this right in a way that is objective and agreeable to all interested parties. There is no rush to do this. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Date

Date laid down can not be 1948! A ship is laid down before launch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.130.177 (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably should be deleted until actual year can be discerned; also not likely 1848, unless keel was mothballed for 25 years. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Episodic layout, may require duplicate link.

While I respect the goal of eliminated needless, excessive cross-linking, I think that articles such as this, that are essentially a collection of related sub-articles, can do with internal references in each section, since a good many readers -and even editors - will skim everything but their portion of the work. Anmccaff (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So does that mean that if Healy would be mentioned in several different "episodes" (your wording), that each time he is mentioned it should be linked? Cuprum17 (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all. Healy is worth linking at the intro, and during the portion that describes when it served as a Revenue Cutter.

Anmccaff (talk)

Yes, I know all about Healy's exploits, I was a major contributor to the Healy article when I did a complete re-write some time ago. Put your link in and I will leave it alone...I can't guarantee other editors won't take it out though. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Was the Bear even capable of carring sail in WWII naval service?

http://www.uscg.mil/history/cutters/Bear/img/Bear_11_300.jpg

Category change explanation

I have taken this out of Category:Ships built on the River Clyde as the Bear was built in Dundee (as the text of the article makes clear) which is on the River Tay on the other side of Scotland form the Clyde. I have put it in the more appropriate Category:Ships built in Dundee instead. Dunarc (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)