Fort Towson

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada: Ontario / Quebec / Nova Scotia / Manitoba / British Columbia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec. This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia. This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / American Civil War 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The British position needs to be better explained. What argument, if any, did Britain make in its own behalf during the arbitration proceedings?John Paul Parks (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that some ships built in Britain for the Confederacy were stopped "after their completion but before their launch." This is impossible, as launch occurs as soon as the hull is complete, which is to say long before the ship is completed. If whoever wrote this can clean it up, great. Otherwise, I will delete the offending sentence. Altgeld (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with similar articles on topics which form part of America's founding anti-British mythology, this one needs careful watching for bias. When I found it details of the actions of one ship had somehow been whipped up into rhetoric that hinted that a whole armada was dent by the dastardly British. The problem with articles in the Revolutionary War/1812/Civil War field is that they are of far more significance in American history than in British history, and as a new country America needed to mythologize its origins, without letting facts or a sense of fairness get in the way of a good patriotic story. Postlebury (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postlebury, its difficult to understand what language in the article is problematic from your point of view. I agree that much Yankee Literature of the Northern United States regarding this war and craft were hyped. On the other hand, the CSS ALABAMA is touted by various historians as the most damaging Commerce Raider to have ever operated in any war, including any U-boats put out by Germany or the United States. But as far as this article reads, it contains no biases that I can see, in fact, it's a bit short as an article on this subject. Here in the United States, "rhetoric" is a word meaning to "communicate effectively" and since you seem to imply ineffective communications, thus some of the problem understanding what you are trying to say. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the British sell it or just give it to the Confederacy? Wow allot has changed in the last 100+ years, the US now sells and gives away weapons left and right and nobody blinks an eye.98.165.15.98 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Google books an read the short 1873 pamphlet 'Balance Sheet of the Washington Treaty of 1872 [i.e. 1871] in Account with Great Britain & the People of Her colonies' by William Coutts Keppel 7th earl of Albemarle. This sets out the British position, and explains the breathtaking hypocrisy of the US in demanding compensation. None of which, or course, is mentioned here--Godwhale (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alabama Claims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811082704/http://www.geneve.ch/chancellerie/salles/alabama.asp to http://www.geneve.ch/chancellerie/salles/alabama.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject Alabama Claims is notable enough to be featured in history.com and Britannica. I checked other reputable sources such as those two but none of them mentions Joseph Henderson. Only places where he and Alabama Claims co-exists are primary source proceedings and personal websites. So, it seems like inclusion here is highly undue. Graywalls (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Source, Hardin Craig, Jr., praised the decision of the Alabama Claims to compensate the pilots in his article, The William Bell, A New York Pilot Boat, saying that: "Her owners later filed claims for compensation on the strength of the Alabama Claims award; of concern to this study, however, it is not so much the recovery of damages as the information about New York pilotage in general, and of one typical boat in particular, which was brought out in the course of the testimony." He goes on to say that "To make good their claims, the owners had to show in detail what they had paid for their vessel and for the replacement, as well as a statement about their earnings."^[1][2] Greg Henderson (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006:, Due weight and sourced adequately for factual verification are two different things. Verifiability is a requirement, so if factual verification can't be established, that's an out; but here's the thing. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING as well as WP:NOTNEWS, simply because something is verifiable does not guarantee an inclusion if challenged. I am challenging that while Joseph Henderson was a claimant in Alabama Claims, his significance to the topic is not established as I said initially. I can easily find many things for which Freedom of Information Act (United States) was utilized, but to include just any reliable-source verifiable instance of where something was released per FOIA into the FOIA article simply because I want to include it would be undue even if the said event is verifiable through reliable sources. There is an entry on Alabama Claims in Encyclopædia Britannica as well as on history.com as well as other places, but none references Joseph Henderson in the context of Alabama Claims, so this is my reasoning why I find it is undue for inclusion into this article. Graywalls (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]