m Added {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, talk page general fixes & other cleanup per WP:TPL using AWB (11749) |
|||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
Edit: Sorry, hadn't gotten to the bottom of the page yet. Still seems like it would be nice to make brief mention of this argument in the initial narrative of the mutiny.[[User:.45Colt|.45Colt]] 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC) |
Edit: Sorry, hadn't gotten to the bottom of the page yet. Still seems like it would be nice to make brief mention of this argument in the initial narrative of the mutiny.[[User:.45Colt|.45Colt]] 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
* {{U|.45Colt}}, your first paragraph makes an excellent point. I included [https://web.archive.org/web/20070114210649/http://www.ses-explore.org/Page1.aspx?PageID=3001 this reference] in the article on ''[[The Unknown Shore]]''. Some quotes: |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
| |
|||
:...Eventually the four reached England, by which time Anson had returned in triumph and was now an Admiral. A Court Martial absolved the Captain of blame for the loss of HMS Wager and no action was taken against those members of the crew who had disobeyed his orders. '''However, to avoid such a situation reoccuring, Admiral Anson introduced an Act of Parliament in 1748 extending Naval discipline to crews wrecked, lost or captured.''' |
|||
|} |
|||
: This article most cited reference is [[Stanley Walter Croucher Pack]]'s 1952 book, entitled ''"[[The Wager Mutiny]]"'', which seems to characterize the events, after the wreck, as a ''"mutiny"''. I think this is highly misleading. It is not just that officer's authority over seamen ended when their pay stopped, when the ship was sunk, but officer's commission were also only for the ship, and ended when the ship was laid up -- ''or sunk''. Similarly, the Navy regulations contained the same loophole. |
|||
: I think including the word "mutiny" in this article's name lapses from [[WP:UNDUE]], as does its focus on the chaos following the wreck as a mutiny. As per [[WP:UNDUE]] more focus should be given to '''(1)''' recognition that those who stopped following orders weren't necessarily mutineers; '''(2)''' Anson's reforms to the Navy's regulations to close the loophole that stripped officers of authority over ratings, when their ship was lost. |
|||
: Perhaps a rename is in order. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 13:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:23, 21 October 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A Tiger
Without wishing to plagiarise Monty Python "A Tiger! (In Africa?)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.33.126 (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- No a tiger in America. Obviously incorrect, but that was how the sailors described the aminal in their accounts at the time. I think they just meant 'big cat', i.e. jaguar or something. (Oberon Houston - Author)
- More likely a cougar. I don't think Jaguars range that far south. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, Isaac Morris describes the sighting of a 'lion' separately to the sighting of a tiger, have tigers ever existed in South America (i.e. been hunted to extinction?? Oberon Houston (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ignore my last comment, looked into it, one sighting must have been a cougar and the other a jaguar, I've updated the narrative. Oberon Houston (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Court-martial and aftermath?
It appears this article is incomplete. mkehrt (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Oberon: Yes it is, and apologies for the time it has taken to fix. My reference books (i.e. Byron, WC Pack, etc..) are on a shipping container back to the UK - will fix, but will be probably March-April 2010. Unless anyone else want to have a go?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberon Houston (talk • contribs) 07:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Oberon 22 April 2011: I've (finally) extensively revised and updated the sections on Cheaps group and some others, and will endeavour to complete the Court Martial in the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberon Houston (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've made good progress on the court martial and the aftermath, however there is still some work to do on this. The books and journals don't cover the aftermath that well, i.e. they stop fairly abruptly at the court martial, therefore I'm having to go to original Admiralty documents etc.. to get more information. So far I have Cheap and Kidd's will and found out where, when and what Baynes was when he died from Admiralty documents. There are many others however, what I'd REALLY like to find is information on King, Bulkley, Cummins and Campball - but as their RN careers ended or were warrant officer/other ranks there is little Admiralty information on them and other sources are hard to locate, any help would be good! Oberon Houston (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Sensationalism
It's an encyclopaedia, not a novel or a comic. Stuff like "...and Cheap no doubt felt he was doing the right thing, although many reading this story and the things this small group endured together, may stare at the wisdom of this decision. Needless to say Campbell hit the roof..." and "It hit him like a thunderbolt. Years after abandoning Cheap at the other side of the world, an isolated uncharted nightmare into the bargain, the guy had just waded ashore at Dover, back from the dead. Never in a million years had his survival and return to England been remotely expected. But impossible as it may have seemed, Cheap was very much alive, and charging towards the Admiralty in London with his version of events. This may have seemed like a nightmare and stranger than fiction to Bulkley, but it was very real" are not appropriate use of language for Wikipedia. Use plain English. Shem (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"Comic" is a bit harsh, but point taken, will try to be dry... Oberon Houston (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
French frigate Lys
I can't find a French frigate of that name existing in 1744. It could be Fleur de Lys, but I can't find one of those either. In any case, linking to the DAB page Lys is inappropriate. Shem (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Of course there was a French ship-of-the-line (vaisseaux de Deuxième Rang) called Lys or Lis, launched in June 1706 at Brest and broken up in 1747. The correct Wikilink would be French ship Lis (1706), according to List of ships of the line of France. Shem (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It must be the one launched in 1707. The name of the ship as I've written it matches exactly the spelling of the narratives in all the source material. i.e. "Lys", and that's how it's spelled in the Wikipedia entry you mention too- it must have been broken-up shortly after it returned to Brest with Cheap et al..., anyway I've properly referenced it now Oberon Houston (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've corrected the link (the italics go after the pipe, not before) but retained your spelling. The link remains red. Perhaps if you ask Rama, he might start an article on the ship for you - it is his area of expertise, I believe. Shem (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Main Picture
I want to use this picture - LINK [1] of the Wager by the famous marine artist Geoff Hunt as the main piece (and for the other HMS Wager article). I will contact Geoff to get permission for this and upload the image when I (hopefully) get the thumbs up. Oberon Houston (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is a great picture - good luck. It will improve your case if you ask for a low-res version. Shem (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've spoken to Geoff Hunt (called him at his studio in Wimbledon) and have not got his permission by Email, he is just checking with the publishers who commissioned the piece before we can use it. This will be after 12 May as Geoff was just leaving when we spoke and is away until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberon Houston (talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Source - what is it?
One of the sources is "Walter, Richard. 1749 (5th Ed.). John and Paul Knapdon, London, p. 7". What is this? Does it have a title? Shem (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've fixed it, omitting the title was a mistake Oberon Houston (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Antique Geographical References
If anyone knows the modern name for the island of Sirocco, perhaps they could include it? The Wikipedia reference is a dead end and a quick Google query provided no answer. And I persume "St. Jago" is modern Santiago? If so, that reference should also be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.105.50 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Not Sirocco - it's Socorro. Fixed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.105.50 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Wager Mutiny/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments
A few things to do here:
- Lead (see WP:LEAD): too short; a good lead is as good as a really short article. Consider two long paragraphs or three shorter ones for this length of article.
- Layout (see WP:LAYOUT): too many level two headings. Consider breaking the main story into 2 or three chunks with level three headings. Also the headings themselves are a little long (not too mush of a problem).
- Coverage: the section "HMS Wager" is too short (and lacks citations). We don't really get an idea from that and the following section what the Wager was doing without reading the other articles (which we shouldn't have to unless we wanted further details).
- Sourcing: I've indicated some citations needed (about a dozen). (Page ranges should be shown using en-dashes; see WP:DASH).
- Tone: As Wager, now alone, continued beating to the west, the question remained, when to turn north? - rather unencyclopedic as is Checking rebellious thoughts of the crew was British Naval law. Dissent by seamen or officers within the contemporary Royal Navy was met with a brutal and energetically-pursued vigour.. There are probably other examples to look out for. I suggest getting in the Guild (requests) if you can't "see" the problem (it takes some getting used to).
- Images: File:WagerMutiny 03.jpg needs a Template:PD-ART tag and for you to indicate where the photograph of the painting came from. File:WagerMutiny 01.jpg is clearly partly the work of Byron. Whilst you may have taken the photograph, you haven't established the copyright status of the underlying work. Make sure to keep these two things separate. It's {{PD-100}}, I think.
All in all, the article currently isn't ready for GA. There's just too much to work on here, so I'm failing the article at this juncture. Failing doesn't prejudice any future reviews, and the comments above should put you on the right track. Feel free to nominate again when they have been addressed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Anna & Industry
Those of you who follow this article will notice that I've corrected the mistake related to the ships Anna and Industry, which was previously called Anna Pink, but 'pink' is in actual fact a type of square-rigged ship; see pink. I realised this when reading Patrick O'Brian's novel Post Captain where this type of ship is mentioned when he sees one in a painting and Jack Aubrey tells his companion (Diana Villiers) that given the way the artist has painted the scene with the land, wind and the ships sailing plan and position 'there she is on a lee-shore, there is no hope for them, poor fellows' (page 162). A 'pink' also now has its own entry in wikipedia too (flat bottomed store ships), or those with a narrow stern..
From memory only: The other pink in Anson's squadron was Industry which turned back before the Atlantic was fully crossed (having barely met it's contractual obligations), however Anna carried-on and even made the rounding of the Horn, albeit lost and alone like Wager. The crew of Anna had a considerable adventure actually, in a terrible storm they went onto a lee-shore but at the last minute sailed into a natural harbour on the Chilean west coast - finding this harbour and managing to enter it in the circumstances was little short of a miracle to my mind (cue similarities to the real Leopard fictitiously used in Patrick O'Brian's brilliant novel Desolation Island. The crew then recuperated, re-fitted and promptly sailed to Juan Fernandez island and re-joined Anson's squadron! I'll add this in, but I think the plucky exploits of Anna and her crew deserve an entry of her own (under the ship). Once I've gathered my required references I'll write it-up. Oberon Houston (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Report from Charles Crompton, British Ambassador to Portugal
I've added in the report of Wager survivors arriving in Lisbon before continuing on to England. This is dated 1 October 1742 and is from the British Ambassador, Charles Crompton, to the Secretary of State, the Duke of Newcastle. I found this report in the National Archives, REF: SP 89/42, which is the same reference I've used as that I've referenced for SWC Pack's version - he didn't provide detailed references in his book, so I am not definite what his source is. The two texts differ but I can't be sure his reference is SP 89/42 - I assumed it was, but didn't have time to read through the whole bundle (it is slow and time consuming as reading copper-plate hand writing is not easy, and the packet of papers has a few hundred sheets in it. To add some colour and interest to the article I've added digital photos of the dispatch to the article for readers to look at. Oberon Houston (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Letter from Captain Cheap to Anson
I found an original letter from Cheap to Anson in the British Library, transcript as follows...
12 Dec 1745 Admiral Anson
Sir
I should be unpardonable if I should let slip this opportunity which is the first that I have to of congratulating you on your safe arrival in your native country after so tedious and fatiguing a voyage and your having obtained the preferment you so justly deserve in the opinion of mankind; even your enemy's speak well of you, I mean the enemies of Great Britain for I believe you have no personal ones, and at the same time I take the liberty to assure you that no man on earth wishes your prosperity with a warmer heart than I do.
You are no doubt already informed of some of our misfortunes because I have been told that some of the officers and men are got home, but they know only a few of them and probably have not told the truth, for what can be expected from such poltroons who, rather than do their duty by endeavouring to join you (which might have easily been done) and look the enemy in the face; chose to expose themselves to the fatigue of so long a navigation, and perishing of hunger after most inhumanely abandoning us & destroying at their departure everything they thought could be of any use to us that they could not carry with them.
However Sir I will say no more upon that until I have the happiness of seeing you. Only give me leave to add that if the rest of the marine officers had done their duty as well as Mr Hamilton who is here with me, I have very good grounds to believe I should have brought the mutineers to reason; and although we unluckily miscarried in that and some subsequent projects, yet I hope you will be persuaded it was not for want of inclination.
You'll see by the letter that I wrote to Mr Secretary Corbett, the time of our sailing from chile and arrival at Brest and the subsequent sending us here to wait the result of the Court of Spain, which we daily expect, and hope it will being us leave to return home, but if we should be disappointed and kept longer here I must beg your favour and protection which I flatter myself I shall have whilst I behave myself as I ought; and when I behave otherwise I shall expect neither.
Sometime before we left Chile the Jesuits lent us what money we wanted and said it was by order of the General at Rome. I do not know from what quarter the credit came, however we took no more than we wanted to pay off a debt we had contracted with one of the supercargoes of the ship, which was nine hundred pieces of eight.
Messrs Byron and Hamilton (my two faithful companions & fellow sufferers) beg leave to kiss your hands and I am
Sir Your most Humble and most Obedient servant
David Cheap
Oberon Houston (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Mutiny?
According to the article on the HMS Wager, "In the Royal Navy of 1741 officers' commissions were valid only for the ship to which they had been appointed; thus the loss of the ship implied the loss of any official authority. Seamen ceased to be paid on the loss of their ship. " This seems to imply that the crewmen were within their rights to disobey the captain, as his authority was no longer valid. This seems to contradict the version of events given on this page. One or the other must be correct, and they ought to be reconciled. If there is any possibility of there being some arguable truth behind this statement about the legality of the crews actions, it ought to be at least mentioned on this page, because here it sounds like a clear-cut case of unlawful mutiny, and there it sounds like a potentially-debatable act of mutiny. They ought to be in agreement..45Colt 09:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Sorry, hadn't gotten to the bottom of the page yet. Still seems like it would be nice to make brief mention of this argument in the initial narrative of the mutiny..45Colt 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- .45Colt, your first paragraph makes an excellent point. I included this reference in the article on The Unknown Shore. Some quotes:
|
- This article most cited reference is Stanley Walter Croucher Pack's 1952 book, entitled "The Wager Mutiny", which seems to characterize the events, after the wreck, as a "mutiny". I think this is highly misleading. It is not just that officer's authority over seamen ended when their pay stopped, when the ship was sunk, but officer's commission were also only for the ship, and ended when the ship was laid up -- or sunk. Similarly, the Navy regulations contained the same loophole.
- I think including the word "mutiny" in this article's name lapses from WP:UNDUE, as does its focus on the chaos following the wreck as a mutiny. As per WP:UNDUE more focus should be given to (1) recognition that those who stopped following orders weren't necessarily mutineers; (2) Anson's reforms to the Navy's regulations to close the loophole that stripped officers of authority over ratings, when their ship was lost.