Talk:Battle of Hampton Roads

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Hampton Roads article.
Article policies
Featured article star Battle of Hampton Roads is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 26, 2005.
December 25, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
User:Vaoverland
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

Contents

[edit] Historical names: Merrimack, Virginia, Merrimac

The name of the warship which served the Confederacy in the famous Battle of Hampton Roads eventually became a continuing source of confusion, to the present day.
Of course, she was commissioned by the Confederacy as CSS Virginia. However, even after she was rebuilt, the Union preferred to call the Confederate ironclad warship by its earlier name, "Merrimack." Perhaps because the Union won the US Civil War, the history of the United States generally records the Union version wherever there is a name discrepancy with Confederate naming. However, in an apparent quirk in history, at some later time, the name commonly used was shortened to drop the final "-k", hence "the Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac".
The small community in Montgomery County near the location where the iron for the Confederate ironclad was forged is now known as Merrimac, Virginia. The name of the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel, built in Hampton Roads in the general vicinity of the famous engagment, with both Virginia and federal funds, reflects this more recent version.
This section got cut out, but some version of needs to be restored, to explain why this battle is so commonly called "the Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac"--as is demonstrated by the name of the bridge. The euphonious alliteration was probably a factor.
—wwoods 11
07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I moved it over to the article on the CSS Virginia, since it's mainly about that ship, rather than about the battle. If you want to put a simplified version back in, feel free. --Carnildo 19:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 continuation

I happened across these records from the DANFS, and updated the section accordingly. Virginia [1] Merrimack [2] Merrimac [3] Anynobody 08:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Here are a bunch of public domain pictures I've found for use in this article. Place them where you like. --brian0918™ 02:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


There are also some nice public domain pictures here as well, although you might want to see if you can find larger originals so that the quality is better. --brian0918™ 12:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

Thanks, |brian0918! The new color painting and box look very nice. I will try to work on articels for the red links (int links to non-existant articles), as these are often a stumbling block to fac status. Vaoverland 20:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

If you want info, this would probably be the place to get it. All the info on that site is public domain, so you could simply copy and paste it if you wanted to, making sure to put a battlebox in for each of those articles. I know that Wikipedia doesn't like people copying and pasting, but I've never agreed with them on it, especially in the case of public domain material. Everytime something is paraphrased, some information is most likely lost, and unless the toughest critics are actually going to check all the facts in every article to make sure that info wasn't paraphrased/summarized incorrectly, they need to keep quiet. It's better to provide the public with the most correct information than with some inadequate alternative for originality's sake. (now I'm starting to ramble...) --brian0918™ 12:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbs up

I'm sure you all are aware this is a featured article. Kudos, it is an excellent article. Stirling Newberry 18:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry didn't erase what you wrote. Besides, it made no sense and was more like vandalism than anything else. How was school today? --brian0918™ 21:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Very well. I understand your logic. But where does,"How was school today?",come from ?-Flyingcheese 12:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to thank the creators for building this. Helpful for school shit--> Alex Wilhelm

[edit] victory

After seeing the nonsensical edit that resulted in "tactically inconclusive, tactical Confederate victory," I changed this to be simply Inconclusive. The previous version, which said strategic Union victory, was an overstatement. Although the Monitor was able to neutralize the immediate threat of the Virginia against the Union wooden fleet in the vicinity, the U.S. Navy was affected sufficiently by the threat of Virginia to cause Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan to change his strategic plan for the invasion of the Virginia Peninsula (the Peninsula Campaign). Although this battle is widely recognized as a turning point in the history of naval warfare, we should have citations from secondary sources to document whether it was in fact a strategic or tactical victory for either side. Hal Jespersen 01:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In the battle, the strategic goal of the Confederacy was to break the Union blockade. Anything less than that is a defeat. The strategic goal of the Union was to maintain the blockade. Doing so is a victory. --Carnildo 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of these battle boxes because they tried to distill complex issues into simple soundbites. Your explanation should be included within the text of the article, not simply a phrase in the box. Can you update? Hal Jespersen 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very minor correction

I did not attempt to change it, due to the fact that this page was a featured article, but in the last paragraph it talks about how fragile items were raised from the Monitor's wreck, including "the turret and the two Dahlgren cannons." The word "gun" should be used instead of "cannon" when it comes to naval vessals of all types; it's been in use by sailors for generations and should be the prefered term in Wikipedia regarding warship articles. Carajou 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Who retreated?

I have noticed that in this article, the Virginia retreats, thus ending the fight. However, both the Victoria and the Monitor article claim that the Monitor retreated (the captain being blinded by some gunpowder). While we can debate on the impact of the battle and who one, who retreated should be a more straightforward issue, and I am a bit annoyed that they do not match... I hope someone who is more knowledgeable than I can fix it! (and reference it, of course) Observer31 02:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Both retreated. The Monitor backed off to check the pilot house for damage after it was hit by a shot from the Virginia (the captain, being blinded by gunpowder, thought that the pilot house armor had been blown completely off). The captain of the Virginia interpreted this as a retreat, and headed back to restock on coal and gunpowder. After it was determined that the damage was less than feared, the acting captain of the Monitor turned his ship back to re-engage, and interpreted the Virginia's actions as a retreat. --Carnildo 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


''''

I dont get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'''''''

[edit] Needs some work

This article isn't up to current Featured Article standards, mainly due to a lack of citations. Anyone else up for fixing it? The Land 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Rebel"?

On two occassions, the article calls the Virgina a "rebel" vessel. I am not that familiar with the US Civil War; is it political correct (in both senses of the word) to do so, or is "rebel" POV? 212.149.48.43 08:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebel is a very common term to refer to the CSA. IMO, however, Confederate is the more official term. 72.213.183.178 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merrimac-Virginia

the article now states that the Merrimac is often misnamed the Virginia. Isn't it the other way around? 72.213.183.178 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)