Talk:CSS Alabama

Manning

Wasn´t it so that almost the entire crew was compiled of Non-Americans, fighting for prize money? And only the officers were from CS? Regards, Tekko 16 May 2007

Disovery of the Wreck

Though the French Navy is credited with discovering the wreck, much of the leg work had already been done by Clive Cussler and his NUMA organization. In his account "The Sea Hunters", Cussler comments that while near the wreck site, his vessel was boarded by the French Navy when they came to close to the nuclear submarine base at Cherbourg. All of NUMA's charts and logs were confiscated. Later, when the French Navy was announcing "their" discovery one of the NUMA charts indicating Cusslers previous search grids was actually shown on French TV.

Neutrality

Some of the language in the current version seems to belong more to a tribute to rather than an article about the Alabama. This will require some attention. I invite other editors to help out. Jd2718 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I added the POV and Tone banners to the article. The history section sticks out as the most innaporpriate; it's well written, but not encyclopedic in tone, and certainly borders on WP:NPOV ("back-breaking work", "floated free on the breeze", "Semmes changed his tack"). The discussion of the flags also seems problematic. Referring to the "Stars and Bars", especially in a section heading, is not neutral. Certianly needs additional citations as well, although those banners are already present. ThunderBacon (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I was struck by exactly the same thing as soon as I read the article, not taking too much notice of the banners. I started editing the article for grammar plus some punctuation and found myself changing the more emotional stuff. I only saw your comment here later and note that I have dealt with your three examples. I have left the banners so that other editors can judge what more has to be done.

Incidentally, I think that the whole section on the battle should be considerably reduced here as it is substantially the same as the text in the Battle of Cherbourg (1864) article. Freeman501 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Jumping in here because I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to do this: I noticed that there's a bunch of small, low effort articles on various parts of the Alabama's service with the CSN that should probably be combined with the main article.

Full List:

CSS Alabama's Eastern Atlantic Expeditionary Raid

CSS Alabama's New England Expeditionary Raid

CSS Alabama's Eastern Atlantic Expeditionary Raid

CSS Alabama's South Atlantic Expeditionary Raid

CSS Alabama's South African Expeditionary Raid

CSS Alabama's Gulf of Mexico Expeditionary Raid

CSS Alabama's Indian Ocean Expeditionary Raid Zatack7 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Cherbourg

What's the sourcing behind the detailed account of this battle on this page? Also seems odd that it's longer than the "main article". Fangz (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

CSS Naming

This is just a general question for ALL confederate ships. There is not a single nation on earth that recognized the confederacy as a legitimate state, they were a rebelling territory of the United States. So why is CSS added to their ship names?

Won't make any article changes. Aldrich.Faithful (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"CSS" or Confederate States Ship, is the designation placed on a ship when it was commissioned as a warship in the Confederate States Navy. Recognition by other nations has nothing to do with it. 2601:985:B80:CBD0:A42B:878C:D14A:5D1C (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My edit

Regarding my edit, see also MOS:GOODHEAD. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)