Talk:George W. Blunt (1856)

Contested deletion

This page (George W. Blunt, No. 11) should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the page sited (https://issuu.com/greghenderson/docs/hendersonfamilytree_v9c_greg_review) is owned by myself (Gregory Ford Henderson). Therefore, the content pertaining to George W. Blunt, No. 11, is available for modification and reuse.

If needed, I can place the following message in the above doc: hendersonfamilytree_v9c_greg_review The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Regards, --Greg Henderson 20:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs)

@Greghenderson2006: A note here will not be accepted as sufficient proof that you are the copyright holder and have the authority to release it under Wikipedia's terms. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the proper procedure to follow.

I'm not sure inserting a note about CC-BY-SA-3.0 on your site would be enough, as you have a contradictory message embedded in the text of the work:

THE HENDERSON FAMILY AND THE CALIFORNIA PERFUME COMPANY ©2017 Gregory Ford Henderson. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the Author.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Drm310: I inserted this note on http://hendersonfamilytree.com/helm2.html to resolve a similiar issue with my William Helm wiki page. I will also, as you suggestd, send an email and place OTRS pending on the article's talk page. --Greg Henderson 20:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs)

Daniel Westervelt of Westervelt & Co. shipyard

So, I did see the reference to "Daniel Westervelt" of "this city", but did not see that he built this boat, in affiliation with "Westervelt & Co. shipyard" in the article. Did I overlook something in the source? Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC) @Greghenderson2006: WRT above. Graywalls (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, the article, Jacob Aaron Westervelt includes a section about the Westervelt & Co. shipyard (1836–1864), which was formed with his son Daniel Westervelt. They were a shipbuilding company. So, since the George W. Blunt was built by Daniel Westervelt, it is a good assumption that the pilot-boat was built at the Westervelt shipyard. Still looking for solid proof of this. But the above leads to more primary and secondary sources about the 19th century pilot-boat, the Georege W. Blunt! --Greg Henderson (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have changed it so it reflects what the reliable source directly supports. Speculating based on what you know from multiple sources to form a conclusion that is not directly derived from the source is WP:SYNTHESIS and it is discouraged. I have modified it to reflect only what the source directly support. Graywalls (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thoroughly confusing

So which one is the one that was built in New York? Which was one was the one built in Boston? Which was the one that ran shore and became written off? Do they each have a formal name? it's confusing which was which. Graywalls (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, the 1st Blunt (1856) was built in New york; the 2nd Blunt (1861) was built in Boston; the one that ran ashore was the 2nd Blunt. They all go by the name George W. Blunt or G.W. Blunt. The U.S. Navy uses G.W. Blunt but the N.Y. Pilots used George W. Blunt. If we merge, we need to use the 1st Blunt (1856) that was bought by the US Navy in 1861. The 2nd Blunt was built by the NY Pilots to replace the one bought by the US Navy. The only problem I have is that when referencing the "George W. Blunt pilot boat, No. 11", we can't just rely on the USS G.W. Blunt article, because it would not cover the new pilot boat that was bout in 1861 to replace the one the Navy took. --Greg Henderson (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion, and it is confusing. The article lede should mention up-front that there were two versions of the boat. As it stands, the lede wording sounds like there was just one boat, not two. All it says is it was "a" boat, and that it was sold to the Navy. The lede should mention that there was an original boat (version 1), and a reproduction (replacement) boat (version 2). If you can agree on a naming standard, the rest of the article can be organized with their parallel histories in separate sections for each; level-2 subheads can be for things like Civil War and other details. Netherzone (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Netherzone for taking a look. I've updated the pilot boat article to show the two versions of the boat. --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I did a some trimming, organizing, and formatting for clarification. Netherzone (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference between the George W. Blunt, and the George W. Blunt (No. 11)? Are they the same boat in both the original and doppleganger cases? Decide which one to use, and then standardize that throughout the article. As it is, there are four different boat names used in this article, the George W. Blunt (No. 11), George W. Blunt, G.W. Blunt and USS G.W. Blunt. Or consider introducing the boat by the full name in the lead, and then referring to it throughout the rest of the article as simply Blunt (like in a biographic article). Not sure what MOS may say about using this for objects rather than people. Any way one looks at it, the confusing ambiguity needs to be cleaned up. Netherzone (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Netherzone, thanks, I updated the article to only reference George W. Blunt, No. 11 in the lead paragraph. No. 11 is the ship number, so it is important to include this. Then the rest of the article refers to the boat as George W. Blunt with the only exception when referring to the US Navy purchase and rename G. W. Blunt. --Greg Henderson (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

DANFS does not nail down the identity with "G. W. Blunt, formerly Blunt, was a wooden two-masted schooner" a vessel acquired in New York with no builder specified. So far I see no solid trace of a hull from pilots to Navy. We have similar names, similar initials, characteristics in unspecified measurements and a leap of identity without solid proof. The pilot boat number is not part of the vessel's name (see cited registry) and should not be part of any title. See Talk:USS G. W. Blunt (1861) about merger. Palmeira (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Which one was destroyed in a wreck?

My understanding was that the first one was sold to the military and became named USS. Then, the second smaller one wrecked and sank in 1875. Am I correct? I am confused, because USS G. W. Blunt (1861) (presumably the 1st one)'s fate is listed as sank at sea, 1875.

What we need is directly verifiable, not inferential sources to:

• Beginning, in between and end of ship #1.
• Beginning, in between and end of ship #2.

Graywalls (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, Yes, the second Blunt sank in 1875.

• 1st boat - beginning was 1856 when it was built in NY, per Griffiths,, Bates (October 1856). The Westervelt Yard. Monthly Nautical Magazine, and Quarterly Review. V. New York. p. 382.
• 1st boat - in between was 1861, when it was bought by Navy: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. 3. Navy Department. 1968. ISBN 9780160020551.
• 1st boat - end was, October 20, 1865 when it was decommissioned and sold. Not sure what happened after this.: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. 3. Navy Department, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. p. 2-3.
• 2nd boat - beginning was 1861 when smaller boat was built in Boston, "Total Wreck Of A Pilot Boat". New York Daily Herald. New York, New York. 1875-02-04.
• 2nd boat - in between - N/A
• 2nd boat end was, "Loss Of A Pilot-Boat". The New York Times. New York, New York. 1875-02-04.--Greg Henderson (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: So, it appears the #1 was made.. sold to become a USS; and #2 was built to replace the ship that was sold, and it was #2 that was wrecked. Assuming that's the case, why did you do this saying the ship that became the USS sank in 1875? Graywalls (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The information on USS G. W. Blunt about 1875 sinking is incorrect. I'll change it. --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This sort of thing is a major reason why DIRECTLY verifiability is required, and importing contents from some unreliable self-published website is not a great idea. Graywalls (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a lot more complicated than it was initially thought. https://www.newspapers.com/image/329399640/?terms=%22Pilot%2Bboat%2BG.%2BW.%2BBlunt%22 says The No.11 was built in Boston in 1861. Is there evidence showing the one built in New York was actually called "George W. Blunt, No. 11" as well? The size is tonnage is shown as"51 69*100 tons burden",whatever this means. If not, it's possible that the AfD may have proceeded erroneously by factoring in the notability of the one built in New York that became the USS, because on its own the No. 11 by itself may not meet notability Graywalls (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

And which one was the 121-ton acquired by the Navy in November 1861 that was built in E. Boston? Graywalls (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, The George W. Blunt built in 1856 was built in New York: Shows name: Geo W. Blunt, place: New York, owner: NY Pilots, and tonage: 140. This one was acquired by US Navy.

The George W. Blunt built in 1861 was built in Boston: Shows name: Geo W. Blunt, place: Boston, owner: NY Pilots, and tonage: 52. This one was the replacement for the Blunt sold to US Navy.

In terms of notability, I think both have notability, because one served as a pilot boat that went on serve in the US Navy; the the 2nd Blunt continued as a pilot boat and was responsible for saving the lives of the rescued the bark Alfred as well as representing the No. 11 of the pilot boats. This is a very low number, so there were not many of them in the 19th century. Anyone looking up in an encyclopedia would want to know about this pilot boat. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Connection made that is good enough

A single hit of an advanced search at Library of Congress (as suggested by Mjroots) for 1861—1862 using phrase and words go a new reference that seems to be what is needed. The New York Herald, December 02, 1861, Page 8, Image 8. It is about the second pilot boat but has "take the place of a yacht of the same name recently sold to the US government to go to Port Royal as a pilot boat." That is more than a slim thread connecting the vessels. I am adding it as a reference so that a link is made that is good enough. Palmeira (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Palmeira, what a wonderful find! Now we know who sold the boat and that it was bought by [Joseph] Henderson and [James] Callahan of New York for $8,000. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Palmeira:, do you feel like "for $8,000" is salient or unnecessarily detailed? I don't feel like it adds any encyclopedic value. Graywalls (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, $8,000 can be added to the "Cost" section of the Infobox. --Greg Henderson (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

and where did the current 10,000 come from in that box? Graywalls (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, It came from the citation: "Total Wreck Of A Pilot Boat".--Greg Henderson (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Clean up needed — merged (I support) or stand alone articles

(Duplicated in both Talk pages)

Now that we have a cite for the 1856 pilot boat being the USS G. W. Blunt there are a few clean up things that need doing regardless of the merge outcome. I now support the merge as a single article gives continuity and avoids confusion. Here are what I see as continuing problems:

• USS G. W. Blunt (1861) as a title: 1861 is the Navy "induction" not the launch date, thus confusing with the second, replacement pilot vessel George W. Blunt built in 1861.
• Title if merged: USS era has a bit more "career" information and perhaps subject of more searches. Does that outweigh the pilot boat's importance enough to over ride first name and title of George W. Blunt (1856) or some other DAB?
  • I strongly disapprove of George W. Blunt, No. 11 if not merged. The No. 11 was its pilot boat number, like a pennant number and its replacement might even have taken that number. In any case it is not even part of the vessels name. I lean to George W. Blunt (1856) even it it is now completion rather than launch.
• Coverage of the second, 1861 built George W. Blunt pilot boat: So far there may be nothing but the rescue and its loss for notability and a spearate article (George W. Blunt (1861)?) but it should definitely be mentioned and clearly distinguished from the first vessel. Otherwise the confusion we've sometimes gotten in between the first and second pilot vessels would be compounded among readers and editors conflating the two.

In researching this I ran across several discussions of the history of the Sandy Hook pilots. They were keen competitors owning fast vessels. One noted they sailed as far as New England and the Virginia Capes seeking business. They were eventually brought under tighter state control, but some of that needs to go into the pilot boat (merged or separate) as it explains some of the ownership and activities. Palmeira (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

In terms of boat name, consider other pilot-boats that use the ship-number in the title: William Bell, No. 24, Pet, No. 9, and the Ellwood Walter, No. 7. In terms of the article as a pilot-boat vs. as a USS Navy boat, see the article William Bell, No. 24, which is about a pilot-boat, that was used during the civil war, burned by the Confederate CSS Tallahassee, then a second pilot boat was built. My vote has been to keep the two Blunt articles or merge with the pilot boat article since both pilot boats can be covered fully in the George W. Blunt article. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Greghenderson2006, don't you have a COI with all of those articles, including the George W. Blunt (No. 11)? It seems they all feature your Henderson relative. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the numbers should go from all those pilot boat titles. It is not a part of the vessel's name. The registers are clear on that. I have more than a hunch that if we dig we will find the number essentially a signal number for a particular pilot(s) who owned the boat and might well be inherited by that pilot's next boat. Now a signal is just flown for "Pilot" with pilots being organizations or government entities. In that period the pilots competed on the station and I strongly suspect captains had favorites, thus might fly a call for No. 11 if wanting that pilot. The number should be covered in the introductory text concerning the pilot vessel. I see it as almost a reverse of the old lightships. They were numbered but took on names of the station they occupied. As soon as an assignment changed that changed but the number did not. Palmeira (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Palmeira, if we did, we would have to distinguish the name by adding (pilot boat) next the name, so not to get confused with another name like, George W. Blunt the person. --Greg Henderson (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Or (1856 schooner). I believe that fits the norm for sail. That assumes we don't get a consensus for a merge — my strong preference now. BTW, the only real reason I do not support dropping all those ship prefixes is that such help distinguish ships from namesakes in a minimalist way. Palmeira (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Clean up basics done. There should be no confusion.

• 1st pilot schooner, 1856, New York -> Navy 1861, sold at Port Royal 1865 then ?.
• 2nd pilot schooner, 1861, East Boston, total loss 1875.

Confusion will remain about dimensions. To mean much, certainly for comparison, the basis of dimensions and tonnage is required. Even withing the same basic type of dimension (LOA, LBP, Registry, etc.) some variance may come from different measurement techniques. Comparing numbers alone, particularly for very similar ships, is the madness of sorting apples, oranges and grapefruit at random based on color. On a merge with inclusion of the second pilot schooner I recommend the Navy vessel be merged into the pilot schooner article for several reasons. First, timeline to keep names and vessels in sequence. Second, the original and longest service was as a pilot vessel and that service may be expandable as these pilot vessels and owners were rather colorful (an example). Third, and personal view, Navy vessels of minor importance get overwhelming priority in Wikipedia simply because their owner/operator has the interest and capability to record their histories. Harbor boats of extreme non importance get articles, many falsely titled "USS" something, while vessels sometimes illustrating the state of nautical development or affairs are ignored. It is simple to copy DANFS and "create" an article. It is hard to dig deep into references and combine them into something useful. Make this George W. Blunt (1856 schooner) or such and let the USS G. W. Blunt — there seems no other so no DAB is needed — be a redirect and in the merged article section. The confusing and wildly inaccurate title USS G. W. Blunt (1861) may need to be a redirect tagged as inaccurate name.

Keep it clean and chronological. I have pressing personal affairs and little interest or "archive" on the Civil War era so I put this out as a proposal (Support/Oppose vote) for others with the interest to continue (though I may chime in if time allows). Palmeira (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Merge USS G. W. Blunt into pilot vessel article as proposed above: Support, for reasons above.Palmeira (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Palmeira makes some good points. I agree, we should merge USS G.W. Blunt article with George W. Blunt pilot boat article. --Greg Henderson (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought I'd formatted the "vote" above but I'm having strange keyboard/cursor problems so, a new section for Support/Oppose. Palmeira (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Enjoyment, not clean up. How would that No. 11 be used? I think one will see with these paintings showing those old, fast pilot schooners. Mary Taylor displays "17" and Moses H. Grinnell, owned by George W. Blunt by the way, displays "5". Remember, to hail a ship one hoisted flags with the ship's number. So to get business there was "sail speed dial" so to speak. Then there is this nice painting showing a pilot boat at work. An interesting piece, "The Rise of the New York Pilot Schooner", notes a British complaint to Washington about vessels patterned on the schooners flowing to French privateers. Palmeira (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly List of Northeastern U. S. Pilot Boats was not linked from this article; it is clear from there that the pilot boat numbers were extensively re-used, with no less than five taking No.11 in succession.Davidships (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge USS G. W. Blunt into pilot vessel article as proposed above:

Support, for reasons above. Palmeira (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Support, for reasons above. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, I support the merger, but oppose the merger INTO this article. If either name isn't quite right as I believe has been suggested, this could be merged into the USS, then renamed into appropriately titled. Graywalls (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Both names are correct. The sequence and identifications are well established now. The pilot vessel George W. Blunt, built by Daniel Westervelt of New York in 1856 was sold in 1861 to the "government" per reference #2 and renamed by Navy G. W. Blunt for pilot service at Port Royal, S.C. A second schooner named George W. Blunt was built in 1861 by Brown & Lovell in East Boston and delivered to the New York buyers, pilots to replace the first schooner. The merger should result should be chronological in text order and I think chronology and length of service gives the pilot boat precedence. The "No. 11" needs to be dropped from the title. It was a pilot identification and absolutely not part of the schooner's name. Palmeira (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

So, we if just merge this article into the USS article; then re-name it once everything is over, I think we're set... ? I don't know a ton about this stuff. What do you suggest for the final article name for both of them combined? Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it much matters which is merged into which. It also does not seem to be a major "untangling" task as the two are fairly clean, stand alone, pieces and most references will just follow. It may almost be a copy one into the other and then just resolve duplicate text and references and clean up the info box — which I sort of started (but more could be done). On the final title: I think it should be George W. Blunt (1856). It meets the current use of date to disambiguate from the second pilot vessel named George W. Blunt (1861) — which could one day get its own page or may have a redirect to the merged article since it will be mentioned. The title USS G. W. Blunt (1861) — remember, that date is just out of order meeting no date criteria here — to be USS G. W. Blunt (1856) in the meantime and as a redirect from an erroneous name.

See response to @Broichmore: on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#discussion on merging George W. Blunt, No. 11 with USS G. W. Blunt (1861) regarding the flat out incorrect titles for both the pilot schooner and naval vessel. No reply as yet to my answer to the question. I have held off moving the separate articles to correct clear blunders and errors with both names pending merge. It is time to at least correct those, leaving redirects even from blundering, erroneous former titles. Palmeira (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Support. Merging into this article covers the chronology better, as well as there being two pilot cutters. Regardless of any merger the article titless should be tidied up first: George W. Blunt (pilot boat) (or similar) as the "No.11" is not part of the name; and USS G. W. Blunt as no year dab is required.Davidships (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment. I am surprised to see the article moved during discussion and without consensus. I think the current one is unsatisfactory as we have prime George W. Blunt for the person, so the dab should initially differentiate ship from person (I do not think that a year dab does that). I suggested something just above - but am not particularly wedded to "pilot boat" if something else is preferred. As the article for the time being will cover both boats, the year is not needed unless each one later gets its own article.Davidships (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I moved the articles as the titles themselves were a source of confusion that came around again and again like a carousel horse. It was time to get that particular source of confusion off the table. Consensus is difficult when the subject itself is full of garbage — as in USS G. W. Blunt (1861). Even after detailed chronology people were coming back to the confusion. Now the things are distinctive, accurate and people can get on with merging — or not — without the absolute waste of electronic ink in confused discussion. Perhaps without that particular source of confusion someone can deal with the actual schooners? Palmeira (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Support George W. Blunt (pilot boat) without any additional disambiguators (redirects as required) and covering both vessels within the same article. Tupsumato (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If just (pilot boat) is used to distinguish from the person no year is needed except in a series of redirects — even for the blundering titles. Palmeira (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Support George W. Blunt (pilot boat). Palmeira (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Move to correct title before merge

(Duplicated in both article Talk pages) No matter whether merge is George W. Blunt built 1856 <-> USS G. W. Blunt built 1856 and acquired by Navy in 1861 the names required correction. That may cut down on confusion as well. The whole USS G. W. Blunt (1861) was a blunder using acquisition year instead of built year encouraging conflation with the second pilot schooner, built as a replacement for the first, in 1861. Clean up at linking pages after move with direct links except on various user and talk pages. Palmeira (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)