Talk:USS Niagara (1813)

Lies, Damn Lies, and Niagara

This article has a serious POV issue that borders on fraud. The "U.S. Brig Niagara" is a replica built in 1988 based on an approximate reconstruction built in 1913 on the bones of the original war of 1812 vessel. When the keel and other low-lying timbers were fished out of the mud in 1913, a new vessel was constructed around that base structure with lines drawn from reasonable guesswork about vessels from that era. The new vessel was approximately 30% original fabric and could reasonably be counted as a restoration of the original vessel. That reconstructed vessel deteriorated during the 1920s, and was hauled up on land where it rotted away to nothing and was deemed unrecoverable in the early 1980s. It was destroyed while a replica was constructed around it. Some reconstructions of historic vessels qualify as continuations of the original vessel when they retain significant portions of the vessel's "original fabric". Niagara has a few old timbers in it in non-structural roles, in other words, as "window-dressing". It is a replica. The only organization which routinely claims that the current Niagara is not a replica are the present owners of the vessel. They are desperate for funding and so they are distorting the historical record in order to draw more funds to their cause. Do you understand the danger, User Niagara, in soliciting money based on false claims?

So what about Wikipedia standards? It is easy to find proper sources in print which refer to the modern Niagara as a replica. There are dozens and dozens of newspaper articles, authoritative web sites, etc. which refer to this present vessel as a replica. Of course, there is the "Ship of Theseus" problem with any continually maintained old vessel but it does not apply here. Even the 1913 reconstruction was guesswork. The 1988 new construction did not simply replace old timbers. The old ship was nothing but rotten debris. A new vessel based on lines taken from a 1913 reconstruction cannot qualify as a continuation of the original brig Niagara. The current vessel is a replica. It is a beautiful replica built using traditional methods engaged in public goodwill work, and that is how it should be described. You don't need to lie to support your cause. 24.12.53.226 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - could you please provide some of the sources you mentioned? There were two articles, USS Niagara (1813) and US Brig Niagara (museum ship), until they were recently merged after discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#Niagara_conundrum. There is a Ship of Theseus issue here. I should note that no one opposed the merge and I was one of those who supported merging. For me the fact that the current Niagara is still listed on on the National Register of Historic Places, with the National Park Service believing the ship to be "5% original" [1] was convincing (the Constitution is 15% original). I agree that the article could say more about the controvesy - perhaps a section on "Replica or original" could be added? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Marines

How about information about Marines on board?

I believe the Niagara also transported troops from Buffalo to Canada after Put-in-Bay battle.

• Yes, Niagara did act as a transport, but very little, not being designed to carry troops very well. Czrisher 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

She Weren't A Ship!

This whole piece needs to be edited (and the references fixed) because Niagara was never, and could never have been, USS anything. A brig is not a ship, lacking a mast for it, and so Perry spoke of the US Brig Niagara, US Brig Lawrence, etc. This is a black mark upon Wikipedia's reputation. Czrisher 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• See discussion [[2]]. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The reversion by Benea is wholly uncalled for. The only matter under dispute is the WP naming convention, i.e., how this article should be listed in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no dispute or debate as to the fact that this Niagara was a brig and not a ship nor that she was properly so styled during her existence.Czrisher 02:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is very much a dispute over whether the correct name for these articles should be to use the USS prefix or to call them US brig such and such. I have already pointed out our guidelines call for the use of USS for ships commissioned into the US Navy, no matter whether they were cruiser, submarine, destroyer, brig, sloop, gunboat, frigate, battleship, etc. If you wish to change this convention, you will require consensus. Benea 02:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A useful compromise is to point out that she was also known as US Brig, thus removing any contention over the correct use of USS/US Brig, by acknowledging both can be used. But if you're seriously suggesting that any vessel that doesn't have three masts and a ship rig cannot bear the prefix HMS or USS, or similar, because they are not 'ships' by the sailing age definition, then not only are you ignoring the vast body of scholarly work on maritime history, but also the current practice of the navies in question, which perhaps by a staggering oversight, continues to use HMS or USS for ships that aren't apparently ships. This doesn't bother them apparently. I see no reason why it should bother us either. Benea 02:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Its been bugging me for a long time now. Why does the reconstructed ship need its own article, its virtually the same ship. The USS Constitution doesn't have a separate article for the modern version of the ship and the National Park Service recognizes the modern Niagara as the same as the on built in 1813. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the Park Service uses "Reconstruction" not to imply that it's the same boat but to convey that she was rebuilt along the same lines, rather than using, e.g., a fiberglass hull that looks like wood. The amount of original wood reused is negligible and only for sentimental reasons. There is no "modern version" of Constitution; she's just been preserved. Further, while originally created as extremely close, the extant Niagara now has watertight bulkheads -- thanks a lot, Coasties -- and an engine-room, inter alia, so is even less the original brig. That doesn't mean they should be separate articles, but the facts seem important. Czrisher (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not a full blown replica, though. Doesn't help the matter that there is a philosophical debate about the status of ships like this (Ship of Theseus). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

When she was built, she was a full-blown replica, or as close as one could get without getting prohibitively expensive. E.g., they used some laminates for the largest spars, and some disguised wire-cabling for the rigging. FWIW, the Ship of Theseus applies to Constitution but in no way to Niagara; the former was kept in one piece, the latter was wholly new construction. The original timbers were placed alongside the new keel but serve no practical purpose and decorate the officers' cabins. The extant vessel is, effectively, 100% new material. Czrisher (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How does the placement and use of the original materials pertain to whether or not a ship is reconsructed or a replica? What authorities specifically call the Niagara a replica? The National Park Service has it listed on the National Register of Historic Places and, as you said, calls it a "reconstruction." But now were getting off of whether the Niagara that is sitting behind Maritime Museum should be in the same article as the one that fought in the War of 1812. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Because you mentioned the Ship of Theseus. As I took it, you argue that the extant Niagara is the same as the 1813 Niagara based on the fact that wood from the original is used in the current. I explained how that wood is used because, if such use counted, your argument would suggest that the museum is the same as the original vessel, reduction ad absurdum. My point is that the existence of original wood in the extant version is wholly insignificant to the discussion. Czrisher (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Niagara is the same ship in the same way the extant White House is the same building as the one that was built in 1797. It is physically different but yet it is the same. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead with the merge (see WT:NRHP#Niagara conundrum for discussion). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed discontinuation of operations

On 4 March 2009, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) released a study of its 22 museums and historic sites, here: "Planning Our Future: Sustainability Committee Final Report". It recommended discontinuing operations at six of its sites, four of which are National Historic Landmarks. Proposed cuts to the PHMC budget mean these sites could close as early as July 1, 2009:

• Brandywine Battlefield (NHL)
• Bushy Run Battlefield (NHL)
• Conrad Weiser House (NHL)
• Fort Pitt Museum
• Joseph Priestley House (NHL)
• US Brig Niagara (museum ship)

Contact information for the Governor and Director of the PHMC are here for anyone interested in commenting on the proposal. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Combine with main article on the Niagra

If this is the same ship as is discussed at USS Niagara (1813), why is the information spread over two pages? Wouldn't it be clearer to simply combine the pages into one? --64.118.220.132 (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

George (Henry) Miles

An IP has just switched the wikilink for George Miles to George Henry Miles. The problem is neither article gives any indication of the person being the ship's captain. I assume a red link is needed, perhaps George Miles (sailor)? Since I do not know about the history of the ship, I will just raise the issue here for more informed editors, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither people, I believe, were involved with the Niagara. This Miles was captain in 1835, George Henry Miles was born in 1913 and George Miles was born in 1824. A red link would work, but I wonder if just delinking it would be better, as I doubt he'd be notable enough for a separate article. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Class=C?

This article has many unresolved issues, as even a brief glance at this talk page shows, but there is far more detail, and many more inline citations, than for a class=start article, so I have changed it to class=C. Other editors, more expert than I am, should work on this article, but they should also consider the quality of the article at the present time, which may well be class=C or higher. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Information concerning it's life underwater

I have information including documentation about things that happened to Niagara while it was sunk. Being new to Wikipedia I'm not sure if this information should be included. Whats the advice of the crowd? How do I proceed? Should the scanned documents be included with a written text? Skully09 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that would depend on what kind of information we are talking about. If it satisfies the Wikipedia policy on verfiability and is not original research, then anything relevant could be added with a reference to the documentation you have. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Tons burthen, visit to Canada and African-American crew members

A minor detail, but I was curious about why the old measurement of displacement, tons burthen, was 492 60⁄95 -- why ninety-fifths? I found the answer and added a footnote linking to the article on tons burthen.

I visited the Niagara when it was in Port Colborne, Ontario, Canada in 2015. I couldn't find any information about this but I think it may have been the first time it went there, which would be interesting considering the port's proximity to War of 1812 sites including ones relevant to the Battle of Lake Erie. Also, I was surprised to find out that many African-Americans were part of the crew. Roches (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)