Talk:City of Ragusa

Further research: Mother-ship Breeze

The following section has been transferred from the article to this talk page, following a discussion about article content. For the sake of further research, it is important that this information is not lost. I request that this section is kept here until or unless further research has resolved the question of the origins of the lifeboat later named City of Ragusa. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The precise origin of the City of Ragusa is not yet established. According to the Illustrated London News, the 20-foot City of Ragusa originated as the ship's boat of a ship named Breeze which had been lost in the Irish Channel at some time before 1870. It was possibly from the brig, Breeze, which foundered in a storm in the Irish Channel or Irish Sea. The Illustrated London News said that this boat was employed to save fourteen crew by ferrying them through bad weather to the Isle of Man. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Some possible origins of City of Ragusa

To my knowledge, no evidence has yet been found which exactly fits the above Illustrated London News story. However, there were several ships of the name, Breeze, which foundered during the decades before 1870. One story says that the Ragusa's mother-ship Breeze was a whaler which was lost in November 1869. The brigantine Breeze 42,819, of Liverpool, skippered by Davidson and owned by J.S. Detvoy & Co., of Liverpool and H. Smith of Douglas, Isle of Man, was wrecked off Ramsey, Isle of Man, on 12 November 1869, but she was not a whaler. She was carrying coal from Liverpool to Trinidad, when she "shipped a sea ... and was abandoned in a sinking state, about 3 leagues south of Mangold Head." The eight-man crew escaped in the ship's lifeboat, landing near the Point of Ayr. The wreckage washed ashore a month later at Workington. "The men saved but a small portion of their clothing, and the captain lost everything except the ship's papers. She was not insured." At Ramsay they were assisted by the Shipwrecked Mariners' Society. The fate of their lifeboat was not mentioned by the Isle of Man Times which reported this. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

On 28 May 1860, the 102 ton brigantine Breeze of London, carrying pig iron from Ardrossan to Llanelly, was damaged in a hurricane off Wicklow Head. The foremast fell sideways, damaging the ship so she took in water. The steamship Vasco de Gama began to tow her towards Holyhead in a high sea, but Breeze was filling with water and the skipper cast off the towrope. Captain Ducat of the Vasco de Gama and his crew, using their own boat, made several heroic rescues of the crew of the Breeze, saving five people but losing one boy. The brigantine was lost. The de Gama crew were later rewarded for their bravery by the Board of Trade Marine Department. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility is that it could be the brig, Breeze of Sunderland, bound from Alexandria to Lytham St Annes, which ran aground 3 nmi (5.6 km) south of Lytham in 1858. When grounded she was carrying wheat, and was described as "grounded on a middle bank," being left "at high water, straining." She was an A1, British-built, 165-ton clipper brig; a cargo vessel previously skippered by Captain Murdoch between Buenos Aires and George's Dock, England. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

British ensign

The British ensign shown is the white ensign, which is the ensign of the Royal Navy and the Royal Yacht Squadron. Nothing in the text suggests that the City of Ragusa belonged to either. Shouldn't that be the red ensign, the ensign of British civil navigation? J S Ayer (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The vessel belonged to Nikola Primorac, and in my humble opinion he was a fool. As you know, we cannot write or imply opinion, or attempt to deduce in articles. However I would say that the reliable information in the sources raises questions about him. Buckley's behaviour, on the other hand, appears to be exemplary - but the Ragusa was not his vessel. I am aware that the Ragusa had all the wrong flags, including the US ensign when she wasn't American. I really don't think we should pretend that she flew the red ensign when she didn't, just because she ought to have, do you? Come to think of it, there was possibly strong motivation to fly any ensigns that Primorac could get his hands on. That vessel was extremely vulnerable crossing the Atlantic, and she needed any and all passing ships to see friendly flags and be willing to speak her. Storye book (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I should add that the coloured drawing of the vessel shows a red (civil) ensign, but the colouring is believed to have been done a couple of years after the event, so is less reliable than 1870 information. I did think of changing the flag in the infobox to a red one because of that coloured drawing, but although it might please readers who like all loose ends tied, I suspect that the colourist might have been drawing what ought to have happened in 1870, not what did happen. Storye book (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I missed the note that drawings showed the British naval ensign. I yield. J S Ayer (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries. The vessel belonged to a tobacconist who was a character, to say the least. Who knows what he got up to, flagwise. But of course we can't say that. Keep up the good work!Storye book (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

False friends

“Yawl” has several meanings. This article is playing fast and loose with them, to the point it affects its accuracy. Qwirkle (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The term "yawl" is used in two contemporary newspapers, of which the Cork newspaper is very reliable on nautical matters. A third citation is elsewhere in the text. Contemporary newspapers do not use any other term for the rig. This leads me to believe that current terminology (in particular American terminology) may not coincide with the British and Irish usage of the term in 1870. I shall do further research on this matter, but the important thing is that the article reflects the sources. I agree that the relative heights of the masts and the position of the tiller do not match what we would call a yawl today. However our modern yawls are not square-rigged, and maybe the square rig plus gaff mizzen requires a different setup. There is no "fast and loose" here. There are only citations and what the citations say. When I can find citations which explain why and how the terminology has changed, I shall add it to the article. Thank you. (Update: I have now added an Oxford Reference citation which does indeed say that the term "yawl" was changing its meaning by the mid 19th century). Storye book (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The term "yawl" is used in two contemporary newspapers...in neither of which is it clear whether it refers to type of vessel or type of rig, at least in what has been shown in the article.

Contemporary newspapers do not use any other term for the rig. Again, it is unsure whether they are using one meaning or another, but you have bluelinked it to one that clearly does not apply. That’s your writing, not a problem with the sources.

This leads me to believe that current terminology (in particular American terminology) Yes; no. Yes, the default meaning of yawl has changed; no, it is not pondial, but a shared North Atlantic usage, centering on the Northeast, the Maritimes an Newfoundland on the one side, and the British Isles the other, and a separate concentration in the Caribbean. This has been the case for about one hundred years; it is not some recent innovation.

[T]he important thing is that the article reflects the sources Linking to a wikipedia page which uses a different meaning for a word most definitely does not accurately reflect the sources. It is equivocation of the worst sort. Qwirkle (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the bluelink of "yawl". I have removed those bluelinks. Thank you for pointing that out. That does not change the fact that the usage of the word "yawl" has changed. 1870 was 150 years ago, not 100. I have added a note to explain that the sources mean something different from our current usage of "yawl." I agree that the 1870 usage of the word was probably flexible, since 1870 was a time of great change and development of rigging. Moreover, the vessel's setup was inventive (to put it politely) anyway, what with the windmill and so on. No doubt the newspapers were describing it as best they could, since it was an unusual vessel, set up for an unusual purpose at that time. Storye book (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The “about100 years” refers, rather obviously, to the dominance of the current meaning. Most readers, in context, reading something written recently will expect the word to refer to a particular rig, and removing the bluelink only partially remedies this. It needs something like “..’yawl’, although not in the modern sense...” to be unequivocally accurate.

Section: Mother ship Breeze

Also, please do not blank sections without prior discussion. The first paragraph of the Breeze section is the cited fact that the ILN said that. The following paragraphs say that the stories about the origin of the Ragusa can be backed up to a certain extent, but not precisely. Full details of the sources that we have on this matter are given. This is to allow further research. Anyone who is interested in the Ragusa will want to know her origin. There is no OR and no pretence at speculation. It's just fact about what information is available and where. Storye book (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No. You are conflating the sum of human knowledge on the subject, whatever that may be, with the limitations of your own research. That’s the essence of WP:OR.

Given the sailor’s long-standing habit of byenames, it wouldn’t even surprise me that much if the ship’s name turned out to be “Brise”, “Duc de Brissac”, “Price” &cet. Qwirkle (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless you have citations for "Brise" and the other spellings, I cannot use it. Sidetracking will not improve the article, anyway. I have used what is in the citations. That section is intended for further research. I shall move the section and clarify the point that it is for further research. It is not intended to represent the sum of human knowledge, and it does not say that. Those paragraphs are there to show that more research needs to be done, or at least could be done, because there is clearly a gap in what we currently know of the origins of the City of Ragusa. Storye book (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The point...again rather obviously...is not to add further speculation, but to remove the stinking heaps of it already infesting the article. The main page is not the place for speculation, much less for a claim that No evidence has been found when it merely means that you have found no evidence. Qwirkle (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Mystery (lugger)

Is it worth adding a "See also" section with a link to Mystery (lugger)? Mystery was small boat which sailed from the UK to Australia in the 1850s. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Storye book (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Chronological order

This edit was reversed. It's unclear if this is the same boat as that belonging to Primorac.see here.

This article suggests differently: (John) Cowan (as superintendent of Birkenhead park (1863–86)) was closely involved in managing specifc tasks, including directing the repairs to the City of Ragusa. this was a small boat of two tons from the whaling ship Breeze which had been used in 1870 by Nikola Primoraz and John Buckley/Edward R. W. Hayter, accompanied by Boswain the dog, in the first recorded two-man return crossing of the Atlantic (figure 5). after their return, it was put on display at the Royal Castle Hotel in New Chester road, Tranmere, and subsequently presented to the committee by Mrs Simms, the owner, for use on the park lakes. the necessary repairs and painting were carried out under the supervision of the ‘assistant park superintendent’ and the boat remained a prominent feature in the lower park for some years.

How does this fit into the narrative.?

No mention either of her cargo of bricks. Broichmore (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here to discuss. First, the cargo of bricks. I had noticed that, too. One can only speculate, although of course, speculation can be suggested here (though not in the article) to assist researchers to open their minds to further research. Thus, in spite of opinions which I have copied into the article, I have long suspected that Primorac had the opportunity of hitching a ride home, lashed to the side of one of the ships which happened to arrive at the same time as Ragusa but did not speak her on arrival. Now, if that had happened, the bricks would have functioned fine as ballast on an Atlantic trip, but would have to be jettisoned (or used as payment) if the Ragusa were to be winched aboard a larger vessel. It's just a thought. The New York mention of bricks sounds genuine, so it is odd that the bricks were never mentioned again.

Secondly, the inclusion of a boat Ragusa retrieved from the sea in the historical paragraph. As you know, history is a construct, and we are very limited as to how far we can interpret (or construct events into a narrative) here. We do not know the precise start and end dates of Ragusa's time at the park. We do know when a boat of the same description was retrieved from the sea, and we do know the year when the Ragusa was destroyed in the museum. Obviously, the park events and the sea-retrieval events fit before the museum destruction. We don't know how the park obtained Ragusa. It is not impossible that the park acquired the lost and floating Ragusa, and if that were the case, we don't know whether the Ragusa at the park and then at the museum was the one which crossed the Atlantic. It would be very odd if there were two boats, both painted rather like the one in the pictures, and both named Ragusa. Primorac originally named his boat City of Ragusa after his hometown, so we know that the original vessel Breeze would not have had two boats on board called Ragusa. So although, as you rightly say, we don't know where the boat retrieved from the sea fits in, it is worth putting it into the timeline to give future researchers a chance to keep an eye out for any evidence to explain the history further.

To put it another way, putting the sea-retrieval into a separate paragraph may be taken to imply that it was a different boat from the Atlantic-crossing boat. Putting it in the history paragraph gives a stronger implication that the sea-retrieved boat could be either the same or a different boat- and that if it is a different boat, then there's a chance that somebody had fitted up a copy of something famous - and that in turn begs a question about what exactly they had at the park. I hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)