Talk:HMS Bounty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Bounty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 28, 2004. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
Pandora's relation to Bounty
It is not clear how the Pandora is related to the Bounty in this article. 204.65.0.20 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Move back to HMS Bounty
Google gives these statistics for the different versions of Bounty's title:
- about 212,000 for "HMS Bounty"
- about 10,400 for "HMAV Bounty"
- about 776 for "HM Armed Vessel Bounty"
Of these three choices, verifiable contemporary sources are available for the first and third. Many have asserted that "HMAV" is the correct prefix but this appears to be an erroneous assumption dating no earlier than mid twentieth century. If you disagree then please supply some evidence to support your argument.
Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia guidelines also require that names are used in an historically accurate context.
This article is a complete mess at present. The first step to putting it straight is to give it the correct name.
--Petecarney (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll reply both to this and to the comment on my talk page. First of all, my issue was not as much with the move as the way it was done. Moves should be discussed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, or at least brought up on the talk page with time for discussion. More important than this, however, is that cut and paste moves are not used, instead we use the "move this page" option. In this case this would involve deletion of the target page to clear way, which is all the more reason why a requested move is necessary. If this seems like unnecessary red tape, there is a reason for it: cut/paste moves do not retain the article history, which is important.
- As for the correct title, that is certainly something to be discussed. I created this article a little while ago by pulling information pertaining to the ship out of the mutiny on the Bounty article. Noticing the controversy at the bottom of the article as to the correct title, I decided to call it simply "Bounty", which of course needed the disambiguating parentheses. I'm no expert, but at least one source indicates that the ship predates the use of the prefix "HMS". While it is often referred to as "HMS Bounty" today (hence the google hits, which cannot be relied upon as a reliable source) exactly what it was called by contemporaries seems not to be consistent (taking the medical book referred to int he article, for example). It seems the controversy is not so much whether she was "His Majesty's Ship the Bounty" but whether that was ever abbreviated to "HMS" at the time, so moving the article to His Majesty's Ship the Bounty could work, but that seems overly long and convoluted. That it was called "Bounty" is something everyone can agree on, regardless of prefixes, so that is why, for the moment, it is here. I have no strong feelings on the matter; I merely wish that it is first discussed, then, if moved, moved correctly. -R. fiend (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that moves should be done according to the policies. Cutting and pasting should NEVER be used, because it violates {{GFDL}} rights. In particular, it totally violates the rights previous contributors of the cut and pasted material continue to retain. They are entitled to have their contributions attributed to them. We do this through the history mechanism. Cutting and pasting material can make it very difficult, or in the worst cases, impossible, to determine who was the original author of that material.
- In my opinion we should have articles not only on the original vessel, but also on each of the replicas. In addition to the 1962 and 1984 replicas -- which were meant to be reasonably accurate, there were replicas built for the earlier films.
- Back in the 1990s I was a member of a mailing list for discussing nautical fiction and nautical history. Several of my correspondents on this list were notable authors of nautical material. One of my correspondents on that list had done very considerable research on the 1930 replicas. They were built when real sailing vessels were still in use, or had recently been retired. I remember that in his research he had found that at least one of those replicas was built around a schooner that had been used as a merchant vessel. It had new masts added, a false hull added to its real hull, and considerable concrete added as ballast. A replica of HMS Pandora was also built. IIRC he found the resting place of these vessels just off Catalina Island.
- Some might agree that the main information on the replicas shouldn't be in the article on the original vessel, but think that all the replicas should be shoehorned into a single article. I would disagree. The 1962 vessel, in particular, has had a long history after the film.
I have to agree with you that moving the page like that was a wrong step. The article should continue to develop in its present incarnation and I'll put together a complete statement of my arguments for a future name change debate according to the proper protcol. Cheers. --Petecarney (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Returning to a VERY OLD discussion, I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that the correct prefixed name should be HM Sloop Bounty. If this is correct then it might explain the use of HMS, with the 'S" standing for sloop, not ship. This might explain the majority choice of HMS. The Greenwich museum uses HM Sloop Bounty. I'm no expert though, just someone with a niggling doubt that HMShip is wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Requested move
Fryer
Fryer was never 'demoted'. He was master when the Bounty sailed, and he was still master when the mutiny occurred. Christian was named Acting Lieutenant so that Bligh could split the crew into three watches, thus providing them with more time for rest. Christian had been named Acting Lieutenant before, on HMS Eurydice. There was ill-will between Fryer and Bligh, to be sure, but it did not arise because Fryer was 'demoted'. James Galloway (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Map
A new map of the Bounty's last voyage is available - it is used in Peter Heywood with a key in the caption, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is a good and informative map. So informative, in fact, that it provides information about Bligh's open-boat journey to Coupang, an event that is not covered in the article. Since Bligh's fate immediately following the mutiny is of note and relevant to the article, as well as covered in this map, I have added a short account of it to the article's text. A2soup (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Re-discovery of Pitcairn's Island
This article claims that HMS Blossom arrived in Pitcairn's island in 1825 However the following appears in Wikipedia under the heading "Mayhew Folger"
>Rediscovery of the Pitcairn Islands
>Mayhew Folger captained the ship Topaz that left Boston on April 5, 1807 hunting for seals. They rediscovered the Pitcairn Islands on February 6, 1808. Only one of the original HMS Bounty mutineers, Alexander Smith, whose real name was >John Adams, was still alive. The Topaz remained at the island for only ten hours.
And, in the "Wyeth Edition" of the "Bounty Trilogy" by Nordoff and Hall published by Grosset & Dunlap the American seal hunting ship Topaz was the ship that first arrived at Pitcairn's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.157.30 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
If someone has access to the sources spoken of (but not properly referenced) about Folger's discovery of the Bounty survivors in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayhew_Folger#Rediscovery_of_the_Pitcairn_Islands then please add them to the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Map Coordinates?
If the Bounty remains are in Bounty Bay of Pitcairn, shouldn't the location coordinates in the upper right be something like "-25.068|-130.095" rather than "47|45|S|179|03|E" which is some three thousand miles from Pitcairn? HowardMorland (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Discovery of wreck
Surely the wreck was discovered before January 1957? It was shown in the 1935 documentary "Pitcairn Island Today", narrated by Carey Wilson. (92.10.128.201 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC))