Jump to content

Talk:Francis Drake/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Untitled

An event in this article is a April 4 selected anniversary.

Elli peeps Jsky k. (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Uncle

The word "uncle" appears in the text. I am not sure that this is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.138 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Uncle" has now gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.142.211 (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources of slaves

According to the article

Hawkins' own account of his actions (in which Drake took part) cites two sources for their victims. One was military attacks on African towns and villages (with the assistance of rival African warlords).

What is the other source?

Top.Squark (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese slave ships. Have added this. Ackees (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
is there a citation for this information? Thozza (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What confirmation is there of that single source cited in note 30, as to Drake's having been "a slaver"? That source was written a long time after Drake. Someone must have looked all this up since, source-checking, and written about it? Drake must have had plenty of enemies. Kessler (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See [1] also for sources. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

sir frances drake

do you think that sir frances drake affected todays life in any way?no way are you jocking Why do you think he did what he did. Do you think he was obligated to do what he did. Do you think he loved the queen of england?? Teacherquestions.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.98.226 (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi Protection is FULL OF FAIL and AIDS. :)

I wanted to bracket Isthmus which is mentioned in his 'first victory' section as it is a word I have never come across, and I like to consider myself very well educated at the best of times, but as a lan' lubbar it was foreign to me. There's a wiki article detailing it, can someone link the word up with brackets? Also, to the mod / admin who's semi protected this, wtf is with 99% of wiki being all semi protected since it went all ugly and lame? Sucks man. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir Frances Drake

does any one know what the main purpose of sir francis drake's journey was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countyguy (talk • contribs) 05:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Monetary Conversion

"a reward of 20,000 ducats,[3] about £4,000,000 (US$6.5M) by modern standards, for his life." I would like to know how did the author arrived at this conversion; where is the source for this info? THanks for the help. 64.237.145.186 (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC) 'I Would like to see maps of his journey. Like a map of the path he took and the map should show the whole world not just North America, please. -Help from a girl in School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.237.160 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Birth date confusion and contradiction.

The paragraph on his age starts saying he's born in 1544 at the earliest, then says possibly 1535 or 1542, but continues referring back to "the 1540 date" that hasn't been mentioned. So I assume "the earliest" should be "the latest" [as he cannot be less than 17 years old in command of a vessel], and the "the 1540 date" passage ripe for rewriting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.246.115 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Drake-Norris expedition to Corruna

12,000 men lost in twenty ships (thus on average 600 men per ship lost)seems very improbable considering the size of the ships. They were nowhere near as big as Nelsons ships and were unlikely to be lost with all hands. And if they had been it would have been a notable naval catastophe and it isnt. Has anyone got more reliable information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.84.252 (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

Under Sailing Career, third paragraph, first sentence: In 1572 "that" he embarked . . . "that" is not correct.

Grancafe (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 29 October 2011

"is a rare documented survivor among sixteen-century jewels" should be "is a rare documented survivor among sixteenth-century jewels"

98.247.55.10 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What?

Do you see the typo in the artical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubersmakel (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

dupe

Edit request on the 24 April, 2012 (the 24th April, 2012)

The term "Classified information" is both an Americanism and an anachronism of the 20th Century. Such things were, and have always been, in this context, simply called "secrets" instead in England. — 94.72.224.55 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, though using "state secrets" rather than simply "secrets". Thanks. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I, previously at, being and known as user:94.72.224.55, thank you. It is still somewhat anachronistic, still of the 20th Century, a rather Soviet, modern Russian and modern Communist Chinese style of use, in fact, but fair enough, I suppose. I further suppose that we wouldn't want the writing and the style thereof to sound or to look too Elizabethan or Medieval, would we, mye goode fryende, Syr? — 99801155KC9TV (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Character Based After Him

In the anime/manga series One Piece, there is a character named "Captain X Drake". He is based after Sir Francis Drake, so you might wanna add that in "Cultural References". 204.184.214.55 (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sultan Babu

Been reading the Horribly Famous book on Drake, and have been surprised to find nothing on this prolific meeting - which later led to a successful relationship (Drake was given exclusive access to the clove trade). The book claims that although it is relatively unknown, this is considered one of his finest and greatest achievements. I'd love to see at least something about it in this article--Coin945 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


84.13.254.34 (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


Marriage to Elizabeth

I'd like to point out that the date of his marriage to Elizabeth according to the Thomas Hearne Collection, Oxford Historical Society. [vol. 43 p. 120] they were married the 18th day of June 1583 by Mr Barret, Archdeacon of Exeter. Please check out this rather interesting page I came across where Michael Turner has researched into it. [1] 84.13.254.34 

(talk) 01:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.indrakeswake.co.uk/Society/Research/sydenham.htm

"Cophin of Lead"

"He was buried at sea in a lead coffin, near Portobelo. Divers continue to search for the coffin.[citation needed]". While it is reasonable for someone to tag this with "citation needed", it would be difficult to include a citation for that statement. Maybe someone would like to remove or modify the statement to something more resilient to the passage of time, e.g. "as of :date: divers were continuing to search for the Coffin". The only source I know is In Drake's Wake, but I'm a little to close to that to include it, and in any case it doesn't say much past the 1990s. SMeeds (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding Sir Francis Drake's raid on St. Augustine

I'd like to add a small narrative about Sir Francis Drakes raid and sacking of St. Augustine in June of 1568. Also a small link to our Florida History Timeline at 1586 Would that be okay?--Ourhistory153 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

To create a small narrative with a link is an excellent idea. I think this particular section could be expanded some, maybe telling a little more regarding this particular expedition including the St. Augustine raid. You might also mention his stop at the Roanoke Colony a few days later.Horst59 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sir Francis Drake incorrect info

Just to advise that part of the information on this page is wrong.

WIKI says..........He was ordained deacon and made vicar of Upnor Church upon the Medway.[11] Italic text

He was NOT vicar of Upnor Church....it was 'St Mary The Virgin Church in the village of UPCHURCH Kent

I live in the village of Upchurch (across from Drake's CLose) and this is a fact. Upnor is across the River Medway a few miles upstream and has no association with Sir Francis Drake.


Extract below from: http://www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Upchurch

Sir Francis Drake's father was vicar here in the sixteenth century. The church is memorable for its odd spire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janichblue (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

DOB in opening sentence

Later in the article it says:

Although Drake's birth is not formally recorded, it is known that he was born while the Six Articles were in force. "Drake was two and twenty when he obtained the command of the Judith"[6] (1566). This would date his birth to 1544. A date of c.1540 is suggested from two portraits: one a miniature painted by Nicholas Hilliard in 1581 when he was allegedly 42, the other painted in 1594 when he was said to be 53.[7]

On this basis, should his birth date in the opening sentence read "c. 1540"? 86.161.61.208 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've noticed that most other sources also say the DOB is not exactly known but is guessed to be around 1540, so I would like to request that "1540" in the opening sentence be changed to "c. 1540".

86.160.216.43 (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Done with this edit. Thank you. Begoon talk 03:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV: pirate infobox

POV to define Drake in a prominent and unqualified way as he was seen by his enemies.

See earlier discussion, with which I agree.

The lead summarizes him as "sea captain, privateer, navigator, slaver, and politician"; and later "a hero to the English but a pirate to the Spaniards". It's simplistic and sensational to describe Eliz I's supplementary navy as piracy.

The privateer Christopher Newport has a person infobox, but there may be another more suitable. Spicemix (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Term 'Pirate' is incorrectly applied to Drake

Drake was sponsored by the Queen and operating on behalf of Britain ad within its laws and as such, he was not a Pirate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.63.61.161 (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true; as far as the English were concerned Drake was a type of privateer. However, the Spanish never recognized him as a legitimate agent of the British crown and so labeled him a pirate, a charge Britain was unwilling to dispute since it would mean they would be liable for Drake's provocations. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to term Francis Drake a pirate, as he was generally considered one by everyone but Britain. The Cap'n (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a minefield. There was no such country as Britain for most of his life (what a howler!). What everyone except England thought of him is indeterminable, since large parts of the world would never have heard of him, and I am not aware that even European countries which had heard of him formed a definitvie view. PatGallacher (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

He attacked Spanish fleets during times of peace between England and Castille/Aragon/whatever, which makes him a pirate. While it’s true that he was financed by the English nobility, it doesn’t make him any less of a pirate. And what does it matter what view other countries had of him? That’s like saying Osama Bin Laden wasn’t a terrorist just because some people don’t know of him. I’m pretty sure any country would have called him a pirate if he attacked their ships during peacetime between the respective country and England. Derpherp 24 oct 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.1.165 (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


Yes Francis Drake it's just a terrorist of XVI century — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.137.184 (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pirate is inaccurate, and that this was a time of peace is questionable. An apt term to describe this time is cold war. Tensions were very strained between Spain and England, and Drake was one of several English mariners preying on Spanish commerce at this time. To accurately describe him would be privateer. To describe Drake as a terrorist is out of line. I suggest Sudden's outstanding biography to discover the most unusual ways Drake treated his Spanish prisoners.Horst59 (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
If someone robs you on the street but let's you live he is a gentleman? Maybe if he robs your rich neighbour he's a hero, but if he robs you he's a villain? This whole article reads like a cheap novel, not an encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.36.158 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"The UN Security Council adopted a resolution on November 20, 2008, proposed by Britain, introducing tougher sanctions against Somalia over the country's failure to prevent a surge in sea piracy. The Somali government is struggling for control of the country against an Islamic insurgency and its navy is currently in development, leaving it almost powerless to stop piracy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgecid (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't appropriate to simply characterize him as a pirate. This is narrow-minded, culturally ignorant and insensitive. England at the time was a significantly weaker power, greatly threatened by Spanish hegemony and imperialism. True, England won out and became 'the new Spain', herself a tremendous hegemonic imperial power. The idea, though, that the era of the Spanish Armada was a time of peace between Spain and England is simply laughable; Cold War is indeed an apt description as Horst59 notes. It is absolutely appropriate to include the view of him being a pirate and to note his depredations on Spanish shipping. It is not appropriate to define him solely as such. Privateer would make more sense. Holmwood (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't appropriate to simply characterize Osama as a terrorist. This is narrow-minded, culturally ignorant and insensitive. Afghanistan at the time was a significantly weaker power, greatly threatened by United States hegemony and imperialism. True, Afghanistan lost and never became a tremendous hegemonic imperial power. The idea, though, that the era of the United States imperialism was a time of peace between the US and Afghanistan is simply laughable; Cold War is indeed an apt description as Horst59 notes. It is absolutely appropriate to include the view of him being a terrorist and to note his depredations on US symbols of world power. It is not appropriate to define him solely as such. Freedom fighter would make more sense.--77.42.169.57 (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 June 2013

In the section titled Execution of Thomas Doughty of the Francis Drake page, it mentions a preacher, Francis Fletcher. However the hyper link opens a page detailing another, much later, Francis Fletcher. 92.21.29.25 (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Correctly observed. I have changed the link to the (currently red) Francis Fletcher (clergyman). Thanks! Favonian (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
And I have begun an article on him. Moonraker (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2013

Add Francis Drake's birthplace to the birth section (Tavistock, Devonshire, England). Works Cited "Francis Drake Biography." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2013. <http://www.biography.com/people/francis-drake-9278809>. 76.21.122.255 (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Already done at the start of the Birth and early years section, though I've appended England. I haven't added the source, as I have doubts about the reliability of a source that calls it Devonshire rather than Devon. --Stfg (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's own article on Devon cites Devonshire as an alternative name. As an Englishman, I am very familiar with the longer, albeit less commonly-used, name. 208.81.28.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
As someone from Devon, I can confirm this. It's mostly used in a romanticized way...--Somchai Sun (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional Portrayals

Rod Taylor portrays Francis Drake in the 1962 MGM Italian production, Seven Seas to Calais. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.59.233 (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Providing a citation

Bear with me, it's my first time trying to contribute to an article. This article does not have the edit link. I assume because it is a Level-4 Vital Article. Nevertheless, paragraph two under "Sailing career" says citation needed. I believe the following would be an adequate citation: [1] Cordingly, David. Under the Black Flag: The Romance and Reality of Life Among the Pirates (Random House, 1996) ISBN0-15-600549-2

SnowCatRider (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cordingly, David (1996). Under the Black Flag: the Romance and the Reality of Life Among the Pirates. New York: Random House. p. 39. ISBN 0-15-600549-2.

Bring info from the spanish page

La Invencible Inglesa (1589)[editar] Artículo principal: Invencible Inglesa. Al año siguiente del descalabro de la Armada Invencible, Inglaterra intentó aprovecharse del fracaso español, organizando la que posteriormente se ha conocido como La Invencible Inglesa o Contraarmada, que curiosamente tuvo un destino tan desastroso como el de su precursora española, y marcaría el inicio del fin de la buena estrella del marino inglés. Los objetivos ingleses eran atacar y saquear las costas españolas y provocar y apoyar una insurrección en Portugal contra su rey, Felipe II de España. Posteriormente tratarían de hacerse con alguna de las islas Azores para disponer de una base permanente en el Atlántico desde la que asaltar las flotas de Indias españolas. Drake atacó La Coruña, consiguiendo saquear una parte de la ciudad pero siendo finalmente rechazado, destacando la figura de María Pita en la heroica defensa y sufriendo los ingleses unos 1.300 muertos y la pérdida de 4 naves. Además fracasó también en iniciar la revuelta de los portugueses contra Felipe II y en ocupar alguna de las Islas Azores, viéndose obligado finalmente a batirse en retirada sin haber logrado ni uno solo de sus objetivos y habiendo sufrido unas tremendas pérdidas de 12.000 hombres y 20 barcos. Quiso sin embargo cambiar tan amarga espina y para no volver con las manos vacías y la moral de sus tropas hundida, hizo durante su vuelta, fugaz escala en la rías bajas gallegas, arrasando sin compasión durante cuatro días, la indefensa villa de Vigo, a la que su tripulación, sin gobierno y deseosa de venganza, infligió desmanes cargados de crueldad hasta dejar la villa reducida a cenizas. Ni de esta demostración abusiva de poder salió indemne el corsario, ya que perdió unos quinientos hombres en tierra, además de otros tantos heridos. La creciente defensa de los moradores y las llegadas de milicias provenientes de Portugal, pusieron a las naves de nuevo en retirada. Tras abrirse una investigación en Inglaterra para tratar de esclarecer las causas del desastre, Drake, cuyo comportamiento fue duramente criticado por sus compañeros de armas, fue relegado al modesto puesto de comandante de las defensas costeras de Plymouth, negándosele el mando de cualquier expedición naval durante los siguientes 6 años. Muerte: segunda expedición a las Indias (1595–1596)[editar] Artículo principal: Ataque de Drake y Hawkins contra la América Española (1595).

Recorrido aproximado de la expedición de Francis Drake y de John Hawkins de 1595-1596 (en rojo) y del seguimiento y final ataque naval de la flota de Bernardino de Avellaneda y don Juan Gutiérrez de Garibay (en azul) En 1595, ante el mal cariz que la guerra estaba tomando para los intereses ingleses, Drake propuso a la reina Isabel una audaz operación contra la América Española, que tenía como objetivo principal establecer una base inglesa permanente en Panamá para desde allí poner en jaque los dominios españoles en el Caribe. Así, consiguió salir del ostracismo en el que había caído tras el desastre de la Invencible Inglesa y se embarcó en una larga y desastrosa campaña, en la que sufrió varias derrotas consecutivas frente a fuerzas españolas muy inferiores. Trató de capturar un galeón en San Juan de Puerto Rico, pero los artilleros españoles del castillo de El Morro alcanzaron el puente de su barco, matando en el acto a dos oficiales ingleses, aunque Drake sobrevivió. Poco después, atacó de nuevo San Juan, volviendo a ser derrotado por 5 fragatas españolas al mando de don Pedro Téllez de Guzmán. Tras sufrir una nueva derrota en Panamá frente a una minúscula fuerza de 120 soldados españoles mandados por los capitanes Enríquez y Agüero, a mediados de enero de 1596, a los 56 años, enfermó de disentería. El 28 del mismo mes murió frente a las costas de Portobelo, Panamá, después de haber hecho testamento en favor de su sobrino Francis;5 el mando de la expedición quedó a cargo de Sir Thomas Baskerville.15 16 A manera de entierro, su cuerpo fue lanzado al mar en un ataúd lastrado. La flota inglesa sería de nuevo derrotada en la isla de Pinos por una escuadra española enviada para expulsarlos del Caribe, comandada por don Bernardino de Avellaneda y don Juan Gutiérrez de Garibay. El saldo de la expedición que además de a Drake, también costó la vida a John Hawkins sería de tres buques capturados por los españoles, 17 buques hundidos o abandonados, 2.500 muertos y 500 prisioneros.. La noticia de su muerte llegó a España por una misiva de finales de marzo del general español Bernardino Delgadillo de Avellaneda dirigida a Pedro Flores, presidente de la Casa de Contratación de Indias.17 Posteriormente, el 20 de junio del mismo año, el licenciado Andrés Armenteros envió una carta al duque de Medina-Sidonia18 en la que informaba del regreso de la flota inglesa a Inglaterra, añadiendo (errónea o falsamente) la noticia de que el cuerpo de Drake iba en uno de estos barcos, metido en un tonel.

I don't understand why copy from Spanish Wikipedia would have a conflict of interest problem; I can read Spanish but did the lazy man's googletranslate of this just now, would seem to have useful information for the article; whether it's cited properly in Spanish Wikipedia, or who added it (the COI editor in question?), but:
  • The English Invincible ( 1589 ) [ edit] Main article : British Invincible. The year after the defeat of the Spanish Armada , England tried to take advantage of the Spanish failure , organizing later become known as The Invincible or Contraarmada English , which incidentally was as disastrous as his precursor Spanish destination, and mark the beginning of so good English sailor star . The British objectives were attacking and plundering the Spanish coasts and cause and support an insurrection in Portugal against their king , Philip II of Spain . Then try to get hold of any of the Azores islands to have a permanent base on the Atlantic from the fleets to raid Spanish Indies. Drake attacked Corunna, getting loot a part of the city but was finally rejected , highlighting the figure of Maria Pita in the heroic defense and the British suffering 1,300 deaths and the loss of 4 ships. In addition also failed to start the revolt of the Portuguese against Philip II and occupy one of the Azores Islands , looking finally forced to retreat without achieving a single one of its objectives and having suffered a tremendous loss of 12,000 men and 20 ships . Did however change so bitter thorn and not return empty-handed and depressed morale of his troops did during his return, brief stopover in the Galician rias bajas , leveling mercilessly for four days, the defenseless town of Vigo, which his crew, without government and desirous of revenge, cruelty inflicted excesses loaded to leave the village to ashes . Neither this abusive power demonstration unscathed the privateer , as they lost five hundred men on the ground , besides many wounded . The growing defense of the inhabitants and militia arrivals from Portugal, put the ships back in retreat. After opening an investigation in England to try to clarify the causes of the disaster , Drake, whose behavior was severely criticized by his fellow soldiers , was relegated to the modest post of commander of the coastal defenses of Plymouth, denying him the command of any naval expedition during the following 6. Death : second expedition to the Indies (1595-1596) [ edit] Main article: Attack of Drake and Hawkins against Spanish America ( 1595 ) .
  • Approximate distance of the issuance of Francis Drake and John Hawkins of 1595-1596 ( in red) and the monitoring and final attack naval fleet Bernardino de Avellaneda and Don Juan Gutiérrez de Garibay (blue) In 1595 , the face of evil turn that the war was taking to English interests , Drake queen Elizabeth proposed a daring operation against Spanish America, which had as its main objective to establish a permanent English base in Panama and from there put in check the Spanish dominions in the Caribbean. So , he managed to leave the ostracism which had fallen after the disaster of the British Invincible and embarked on a long and disastrous campaign, he suffered several consecutive losses to well below Spanish forces. Tried to capture a galleon San Juan de Puerto Rico , but the Spanish gunners from El Morro Castle reached the bridge of his ship, killing on the spot two British officers, but Drake survived. Soon after, San Juan struck again , returning to being defeated by five Spanish frigates commanded by Don Pedro Téllez de Guzman. After suffering another defeat in Panama against a tiny force of 120 Spanish soldiers commanded by captains Agüero Enriquez and mid- January 1596 , at age 56 , ill with dysentery. On 28 September he died off the coast of Portobelo, Panama , having made ​​a will in favor of his nephew Francis , 5 the command of the expedition was entrusted to Sir Thomas Baskerville.15 16 A way to burial, his body I was thrown into the sea in a coffin weighting . The English fleet would again be defeated in the Isle of Pines by a Spanish fleet sent to drive them out of the Caribbean, led by Don Bernardino de Avellaneda and Don Juan Gutiérrez de Garibay . The balance of the expedition besides Drake also took the lives of three John Hawkins would be captured by the Spaniards, 17 ships sunk or abandoned , 2,500 dead and 500 prisoners vessels .. The news of his death reached Spain by a missive late March Spanish Bernardino Delgadillo de Avellaneda General addressed to Pedro Flores, president of the House of Trade Indias.17 Subsequently, on June 20 of that year , Mr. Andrés Armenteros sent a letter to the Duke of Medina- Sidonia18 in which he reported the return of the English fleet to England , adding (erroneous or false ) news that Drake 's body was in one of these boats , stuck in a barrel .
when I get a chance I'll look at Spanish Wikipedia; makes me wonder what might be on history pages for the various Latin American countries at issue.Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Drake and his "secret voyage" north to Chatham Strait

Having read Bawlf's book, I can tell you this is entirely speculation on his part. Can anyone find a source that proves he actually reached this far north (Chatham Strait)? Seeing as how this came completely out of Bawlf's imagination, I'm doubtful any such sources will be surfacing anytime soon. I'll be removing the statement in a few days if no one comes forward. BlankSpace79 (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would concur that this should get pulled out. Shouldn't all the discussion of New Albion theories go to the New Albion page? Whale Cove, Oregon; Nehalem Bay, Oregon and British Columbia could all be pulled. All that needs to go on the Francis Drake page is a statement about "the generally accepted location of Drake's New Albion is Drakes Bay, California, although nearly a score of other notions have been offered." MikeVdP (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Pulled this out -- full discussion is on the New Albion article MikeVdP (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Where the California-nowhere-else crowd holds sway and similarly discredits non-California theories; at least they mention them though; here there is no mention at all and "officially-recognised location" is "officially recognized" by the US Parks Service, which has an obvious COI in these matters. Though this is quoted on a blog, Compelling' discovery rewrites B.C. history: Elizabethan conspiracy hid Francis Drake's true discovery for 400 years; Samuel Bawlf's passion for history led to startling findings that have persuaded eminent international historians it's copy from a Vancouver Sun article in 2000 by a very good historical reporter, Stephen Hume; I remember reading it, and also remember other coverage about what James Delgado, then in charge of the Maritime Museum in Vancouver had to say about it; Californians and Britons may sneer at Bawlf's ideas and the US government may have "officially" designated the location; but they "officially" claimed a lot of things, and their own COI/POV must be taken into account with such a claim. Bawlf wasn't the first (look at the cites on the Mount Sir Francis Drake page), and reputable historians who have read his book (named in that article) dispute the "entirely speculation on his part" claim by User:Blankspace79. Since when is a Wikipedian's opinion worth more than a reliable source or academic commentary thereon?Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting stuff. I agree that all alternative theories belong on the New Albion page. Saying that the Drake's Bay location is "generally accepted" doesn't mean there's no possibility that he landed somewhere else, or that there's a conspiracy by some mysterious "California-nowhere-else crowd" that "discredits non-California theories". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the article acknowledges that Drake's movements are open to speculation. I read the Hume article, and one of the quotes in it points out the non-neutral tendencies of this discussion:

"In retrospect, it's so obvious," he [Richard Ruggles, a Canadian] says. "The only place there are islands on the West Coast is north of the 48th parallel. Even if you took the largest island away, there is still the distinctive indentation on the mainland into which Vancouver Island fits."

This statement is untrue, and tends to discredit Ruggles as a reliable, neutral authority. The Farallon Islands lie southwest of Drake's Bay. Both the Farallons and the Channel Islands of California farther south were discovered by Cabrillo in 1542. Andrés de Urdaneta sailed west-to-east across the Pacific and reached the Pacific coast somewhere between 38 and 40 degrees north in 1565, then sailed south to Acapulco. Manila galleon voyages followed the same route in subsequent years. Drake was trying to intercept one of those treasure ships in 1579, not to explore the coast, so it makes no sense that he would have gone much further north than 40dN. If and when real evidence shows us more clearly that Drake went further north, I'll be the first to support adding that information to Wikipedia. WCCasey (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Re this, and the USPOV at the New Albion page/talkpage and re the opinions of actual academics rather than hostile-to-the-idea Wikipedians, see Talk:New Albion#BPOV vs USPOV: Nova Albion re BC. The USPOV carries over into the title "New Albion"...what the actual most common usage in sources is I haven't set out to determine yet, but in BC and in British history it's "Nova Albion"....apparently because the theory-that-shall-not-be-disputed says California and the official US historical site status constitutes "proof", the thNS Nat'l Park Service-designated name prevails....but should it?Skookum1 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2014

The domain name has changed, is it possible to update the url in *General sites from

to

Thank you. 90.197.102.53 (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)  Done - Arjayay (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Theodor de Bry Picture Caption

Ggitzen (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)The picture caption of Theodor de Bry's so-called Nova Albion has the wrong date. It was printed in 1599 not 1590. The promoters of Drakes Bay are up to their usual tricks of tying to offer non-scientific data to prove their faux theories. Theodor de Bry was never in America. http://www.museumca.org/picturethis/pictures/americae-pars-viii-franciscus-draco Ggitzen (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2015

Category:Nautical lore 76.88.98.65 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Category:Francis Drake is a subcategory of Category:Nautical lore and we only list the highest subcategory - Arjayay (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not the second circumnavigation

But actually the third (or even fourth or fifth). See Andrés de Urdaneta. Jesús Maíz (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jesús Maís, you're right (or partially right) if you will. If I may, just a clarification: In a single expedition and travel (not multiple voyages), is the second (the Drake's journey). Must be the phrase "in a single expedition" as actually is.
As a personal circum-navigation, Urdaneta (and others) as the second depends on the interpretation and chronology (as it depends on Drake as the 3rd or 4th) Possibly Magellan and some other men, Elcano and his crew in fact or without doubt, expedition survivors (3 Separate groups of the expedition) in various stages via Moluccas, India and Cape Verde). The Urdaneta multiple voyages (as crew member, captain, and prisoner) can also be considered (beyond the 2nd) the 3rd, 4th or the 5th; the Drake`s crew, as you also have pointed out very well (beyond the 3th), the 4th, the 5th, or the 6th. --LuzoGraal (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"#2 Forbes Top Earning Pirate"

I have begun a discussion about the reliability of this list in terms of hierarchy, not currency conversion, at the Pirate WikiProject. There are several pirates omitted in that reference (Henry Every being a big one) which means that may possibly change the order of richest pirates in history, including Drake, who may fall one or two slots in the list when those are included. Please participate. 107.77.216.11 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francis Drake. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Date of Death

Most sources give it as January 28, 1596 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/drake_francis.shtml https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francis-Drake
What's the source for January 27? Thisdaytrivia (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. My sources also say 28 January. I have traced this back to a change by an anonymous user on 10 May 2007 (and the previous edit from the same IP address). The primary source seems to be The "Paris Profiles" in the Bibliotéque Nationale, Paris. Portfolio 17 apparently says "Sir Frauncis Dracke on the 28 Januarie 1595" (i.e. 1995/96 - 1596 in the current Gregorian calendar). I found this reference on a website that admittedly I have had a hand in so it needs checking. If the Wikipedia article is indeed incorrect, as it seems, it is certainly a long-lasting error in a piece of high-profile information. There is relevant discussion at Talk:Francis Drake/Archive 2#Death and at Talk:Francis Drake/Archive 1#Drake.27s_place_of_death, the latter of which was written before the change of death date in 2007. SMeeds (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2017

Please correct Drake's place of death in the infobox to "Portobelo, Viceroyalty of Peru". 79.72.143.52 (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Question: Do you have a reliable source to support your statement? DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 19:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Read the article Viceroyalty of Peru. Then read the article Panama. A mere glance at the ledes and infoboxes should be sufficient to demonstrate the name of the region Portobelo was in at the time of Drake's death. 79.72.141.206 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: While the parameter for the Template:Infobox_person does say "Use the name of the deathplace at the time of death," it is not clear that, in 1596, the Viceroyalty extended extended as far north as contemporary Panama. After looking at those articles, it wasn't until Balboa crossed the isthmus in 1513 at least that one can say that this area was part of any Spanish colony. There needs to be reliable sources to establish that anyone in 1596 thought it was part of Peru. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Drakes Political career.

I have significantly rewritten the section about Drake's Westminster career. If you think anything i have written is wrong, please find proof it is wrong and post it here before changing it. I have included the core references i used. A Guy into Books (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Language edit needed

Career at sea section, para six, a couple of things need tweaking. Drake and tracked? After their an attack?

Done. WCCasey (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Lok

The exploits of John Lok and William Towerson might be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.95.91 (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I propose that the entire 'in popular culture' section is removed. It does nothing except proportionally list a few recent products which are based on Drake. It could be perhaps replaced by a 'Impact on popular culture' section, Drake has had a massive impact on popular culture over the years, he is basically the inspiration for much of the 'pirates' genre, and was the original person to bury treasure, inspiring most buried treasure stories. His legendary battle with Spanish armada has been made into many many films and documentaries, as well as books, and I am sure something useful could be organized into a few paragraphs along these lines without listing some new computer games that happen to be based on him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk • contribs) 09:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Potato?

In the first paragraph of the page there is a very misleading assertion. There is little if any evidence that Drake introduced the potato to England. Furthermore, the contributor’s citation for this fiction is not even accurate, as it references an employee of Sir Walter Raleigh, Thomas Harriot as the person responsible for brining the potato to the British Isles. The cited piece then goes on to say that it was Raleigh not Drake that popularized the plant.

Though it has not been established beyond doubt, there is a strong case that it was in fact the Spanish who introduced the potato to the British and Irish. Some contemporary writers certainly make that attribution. William Coles writing in London in 1657 says “potatoes.....were first brought up to us out of Spain, grew originally in the Indies...” Darragh1518 (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. It was added in December. I have removed it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The English Armada in 1589 is very hidden

Why the defeat of Drake is not titled "Defeat of the English Armada" as it is the Spanish one? Why not saying that Spain won the war in 1604 with the Treaty of London? British nationalism is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.71.32 (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018

The voyages of Sir Francis Drake changed the world in two ways. The first way was when Drake raided the Spaniards and killed many of them. That was the reason for the Spanish war. This evidence indicates that Drake doesn’t like Spain and he wants England to be better. 60.248.111.131 (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Spintendo      07:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

166.216.159.165 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

oldest instead of eldest

 Done Minor edit only, as this is not the type of edit that protection is meant to stop. I have no prejudice against this edit being reverted. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2019

Please add to the firs text his mention in the game Uncharted:

Sir Francis Drake also is a plot point in the PS4 game Uncharted, the main protagonist Nathan Drake renamed himself after Sir Francis Drake and told everyone that he believed to be a descendant of Francis. In the game Sir Francis Drake supposedly faked his death so that he could search for the lost treasure of El Dorado.

Also add a section for how he is use in the game Uncharted:

According to the PS4 game Sir Francis Drake belonged to a secret Hermetic society, headed by Queen Elizabeth. The society included many notable members, including but not limited to: the British Occult Secret Service, the School of Night, the Hellfire Club, the Order of the Golden Dawn, and Francis Walsingham. Drake reached the Arabian Peninsula after the East Indies, and in trying to find Iram, discovered a chamber of sorts underneath Yemen (via a well with a pentagram-esque symbol). He sketched the controls to open the way to the cistern on the back of his map and wrote the message "The moon will show the way" in Enochian script on the walls should future explorers try to find Iram. He proceeded into the chamber; what he saw (presumably the effects of the tainted water from Ubar, though how it could be there in the first place is unknown) was enough for him to stop his secret mission altogether. In the next game Uncharted: Drake's Deception After returning from his trip, he lied to the Queen and told her he didn't find anything on his voyage. By doing this, the society he, the Queen, & many others were part of did not have the means to control through fear. Essentially, he rewrote history, as countless people in the future would believe his saying of how it took him 6 months to sail through the East Indies when a month was more likely, given his sailing skills. Regardless of Drake's "failure", he was knighted and given a ring by the Queen, inscribed with the motto "Sic Parvis Magna" (translated as "greatness from small beginnings"). He hid all traces of his voyage, by hiding the map of his trip to Arabia (which was signed by John Dee in a 007 mark) in the deer figurehead of his ship, the Golden Hind. Dee created a decoder (which looked like an astrolabe) which when joined with Drake's ring, would reveal the message "Long Hidden", an anagram for Golden Hind; the reasons for this are unknown. His ship was also broken down, as a chair in Buckland Abbey is made out of the wood of his ship. Dansolor (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. 1) You need to provide reliable source(s) to back up claims like this. And 2) This is just trivia, and way too detailed to include. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2019

He was born between 1536 and 1546 2600:1700:FC80:4C00:391F:4C4A:FFEE:4A06 (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Problems

The note about the number of expeditions, while needing some clarification, has much truth. The section about the Cadiz raid also includes Corunna. Drake did not go to Corunna in the same year he went to Cadiz. He went to Corunna in 1589, and encountered an entirely different campaign and much different experience.

There are many other problems to this article. The Rathlin Island massacre has wp:neutral problems. There are large areas needing citations. Simple, basic information such as the date of his death is only vaguely mentioned. This article will misinform. Might this even be a start or stub on the quality scale? I do not know how such is decided or how to identify and flag problems such as these.Hu Nhu (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

third expedition

this is false, it was the third expedition

Drake carried out the second circumnavigation of the world in a single expedition.

the first was Jaun Sebastian Elcano (1490-1526)

the second was García Jofre de Loaisa (1490-1526)

I ask, please, that this historical lie, so shameless, be removed

That simply isn't true. The first circumnavigation was an expedition originally led by Magellan and after he died Elcano. I'm not sure what the (1490-1526) in your post refers to, but it is neither the date of the expedition nor either of their lifespans.
Next, while the second circumnavigation was started by Loaisa, he died before making it back to Europe. Some of his crew did survive, but they had to be brought back on a Portuguese ship 10 years later. They did circumnavigate the globe, but under no definition was it "in a single expedition".
Drake led the third circumnavigation of the world, after Magellan-Elcano and Loaisa's crew, but he was the second one to do it "in a single expedition" like the article states. There is nothing wrong with it as is. Swaggernagger (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

I BELIEVE THAT THE WAY YOU ARE SOPPOSED TO SPEL HIS NAME IS SIR FRANCeS DRAKE. (THE LOWERCASE E INDICATES THE CHANGE Blackwolf4667 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources that support this claim, and please don't WP:SHOUT. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

sir francis drake had a pet pidion that he used to send messages called spencer 217.38.171.35 (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to sources for that? – Thjarkur (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

'Sir' appears twice; both as a title and as a part of the subject's name. 86.26.148.137 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

change "Drakes" to "Drake's" 73.93.148.22 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: There are three "Drakes." Please specify the one by the phrase. Otherwise, you request remains unclear. Please reply to me with {{SUBST:Replyto|Can I Log In}} in the beginning of your reply, and use one more colon (" : ") than me under my message. Can I Log In 22:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The information [HERE] might help the user who made the request.Hu Nhu (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

Include office in infobox: Mayor of Plymouth, 1581–1582, preceded by Nicholas Slanning, succeeded by James Bagg

Reference: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SJhYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA47&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.78.178 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done:; no parameter for it it turns out. my bad! Sennecaster (What now?) 22:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Slavery

The label 'slave trader' was added but there were no citations provided. Unless these are provided I don't think this should be there. This is a controversial issue and I don't see a consensus in the sources I am reading.

Lazdona (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This was in the original citation which was deleted by the anon user. I'll leave it to you to determine if this is sufficient. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/09/derbyshire-towns-bust-of-black-man-seized-by-defiant-locals MisterCSharp (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

As I was writing the article about New Albion, I read much regarding Francis Drake--mostly in John Sugden's excellent book Francis Drake. Drake, as a very young man, did indeed participate in two voyages to the New World that included the odious act of trading of slaves. Addressing the matter so that it ends there is, however, incomplete and an injustice to accuracy. Drake's subsequent actions through his life were very different. He factually liberated several slaves on various occasions. This was in Panama and in Mexico. In Panama, he liberated a man named Diego, and Dr. Sugden describes their relationship by using the word friendship. Diego later accompanied Drake on his circumnavigation. Drake's landing in California was the first presence of liberated slaves in the future United States--people liberated by Drake. Perhaps these facts about the change that Drake displayed should be considered. Drake has a complicated legacy, and perhaps that should be addressed. Maybe this matter requires what could be a new section. However, I see this article has with so many other problems, that I fully understand that I am not the one to attempt such an undertaking. Most kind regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Excellent points and well-researched. I too contend the use of the term ‘slaver’ (especially so given that the term was positioned so starkly in the intro) in reference to the young Drake was given undue weight.Roland Of Yew (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Reported in the Guardian newspaper, Sir Francis Drake was a slave trader, making three voyages to Guinea and Sierra Leone that enslaved between 1,200 and 1,400 Africans between 1562 and 1567. Contemporary estimates the deaths of around three times as many slaves.[1] Haolinz (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider either solid source enough to base this on, especially the History Channel. Hu Nhu made some good points, and I think we need to find some historians of Drake's time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazdona (talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
This was before the Atlantic Slave Trade really took off - Europeans would buy slaves from Africans on much more even terms. Unlike the later slave trade when African nations had little choice. 81.155.51.21 (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm returning the phrase "slave trader" in the introduction because of its contemporary relevance. There is no historical dispute that Drake traded in slaves, therefore he was a slave trader. It's not complicated. For support, I'm also adding a reference to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History, which states, "He completed his training in trading, slaving, and piracy. Edmund Drake died in 1567, and later that year Drake was given what seems to have been his first command—that of Judith in John Hawkins’s slaving/trading voyage to West Africa and the Indies." If anyone thinks that is not enough then I would suggest the burden is on them to show why this should not be a top-line item in a contemporary account of Drake's life.Ynizcw (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bland, Archie. "After Colston, figures such as Drake and Peel could be next". Guardian. Retrieved 14 June 2020.
Ynizcw, Hu Nhu, Roland Of Yew, (talk), Lazdona and MisterCSharp It is my opinion the phrase "slave trader" implies a level of activity that Drake never participated in, and I believe the section Career at Sea and the lead need to better reflect what sources say on this topic.
Drake was indeed on two voyages when he was very young, 23, serving under Hawkins, (whom everyone knows was Elizabeth's actual slave trader), and John Lovell, Hawkins' cousin, on Drake's very first journeys to the New World. Those two voyages did involve carrying slaves, but it isn't as if a 23 year old junior officer would have had any say in that. He would have been glad of the posting, and his only say in what they did would have been "Yes sir". These are the only slave trading voyages there is any record of Drake ever participating in.
I recommend a better discussion of what actually happened on those voyages which were significant in themselves: "Drake was on two slave carrying voyages as a young officer under the command of Hawkins and Lovell. Scholars believe that, as a 23 year old junior officer, Drake was in charge of one of Hawkins' four ships, the Judith. In a later letter, Hawkins accused Drake of deserting him after the battle of San Juan d'Ulau..." and go on with the two other eyewitness accounts that disagree, but how that possibility of desertion cast a pall over his career. It is likely the accusations were untrue as Drake was never disciplined for it. It put an end to his friendship with Hawkins and he never returned to the Caribbean (which is significant with regard to slave trading) and that overall experience may have been what soured him against slave trading.
Because, once Drake had his own command, there is not only no record of him trading in slaves, there is instead evidence that Drake told slaves that had been captured by raiding other vessels that they would be freed when the ship returned to England,[1] and that on his trip around the world Drake gave away water rather than trade it for slaves and released slaves that had been captured in raiding.[2] See Hu Nhu's comment above.
Calling him a slave trader, therefore, is clearly an exaggeration, and misleading in its implications, and seems to reflect a non-neutral POV; the phrase should therefore be removed.
One of you who cares about this article Be Bold and fix this. Rewrite "Career at Sea" and remove the misleading label from the lead. Present only what is known in high quality sources (not the history channel or the Guardian). That is what's good for WP and this article.
If you object to the Bold rewrite that removes the term 'slave trader', bring a high quality source that says he was an actual slave trader himself, (not that he served under one), with references to which voyages were for the purpose of slave trading, and perhaps, where those slaves were traded. Come here with it, and don't edit war anymore. That will evidence your good faith, will be undeniable content, and 'slave trader' will be replaced accordingly without issue. Otherwise leave the change.

References

  1. ^ Kelsey, Harry (1998). Sir Francis Drake: The Queen's Pirate (unabridged ed.). Yale University Press. p. 274. ISBN 9780300071825.
  2. ^ Bawlf, Samuel (2003). The Secret Voyage of Sir Francis Drake: 1577-1580 (illustrated ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 83–84. ISBN 9780802714053.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ynizcw,Roland Of Yew, (talk), Lazdona and MisterCSharp. Jenhawk777 is correct about Drake's involvement regarding the slave trade: the Drake article has it improperly stated and the article has only deteriorated since my previous talk page comment. Much of the deterioration is due to THIS reason. I first saw this type of problem on the section about the Rathlin Island Massacre but decided to leave it alone. Just as then, I'm unfortunately at a loss of how to work around this problem. I edit Wikipedia primarily because it has value for articles like New Albion and Tracy R. Norris, not those like Francis Drake. If one desires to know about The Sirens and Ulysses, nothing is better than Wikipedia. But the limitations as described by Sanger cause much damage to many other articles.
Despite WP:Bold editing, I believe the symptoms of the Sanger-identified bias movement and those editors who are so infected are too strong for me to effect change. The Francis Drake article is a sign of a much greater problem. In fixing that, I'm lost. That is why I've withdrawn from what little I did with the article. And until that greater problem is addressed in a general matter across Wikipedia, articles such as Drake's will sadly continue to be littered with debris. Although I'm confident I could write an excellent Drake biography article, this is why I leave it alone. On Wikipedia I see activism prevail too often over accuracy. Of course, my conclusions about addressing the greater problem Sanger identifies may be wrong, and if so, I'd like to hear about that. Most kind regards to all,Hu Nhu (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hu Nhu I am jumping in here out of place, breaking the rules, just to appeal directly to you not to give up. It is editors like you that really do make all the difference in this struggle. WP has, from its beginnings, had problems with bias because people have problems with bias, but it is possible with awareness and effort to overcome such natural tendencies. We all fix it, one edit at a time, by using good quality sources, by summarizing accurately what they say, and by being careful not to only read things that we like and agree with, but to look at a broad range, getting the consensus on a topic and reporting it accurately. You do that, and there is no one who can stand against that. I obviously don't have to tell you to maintain your composure and good manners, but in the end, the best sourced material must win - whether it's ours or someone else's. Always - always - go to the talk page with sources and requests for sources. Then if you have to take anyone to arbitration, you will have a record of your good faith efforts - and accuracy - and you will be upheld. The wheels of justice do turn slowly on WP - but they do turn! Do good quality work and never be afraid to defend what you know is right. That's how to work around this problem: one well-sourced edit at a time. You have my best wishes, and I hope to continue to see you out here fighting the good fight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I utterly appreciate all of your comments Jenhawk777. I know that your position is correct. Additionally, I also understand that the strength of Wikipedia is that it allows many to contribute. That is also, paradoxically, its greatest weakness--one which does much damage. It gives those with good intentions who are honestly ignorant, misinformed, somewhat informed--and those with an axe to grind and those who write out of passionate negative emotion--a place of influence.

In addition to his improper use of slave trader there are other WP:GF errors in what Ynizcw states on this page about Drake's background. He is simply mistaken. But Wikipedia has an unfortunate place for those errors to be propagated. Such edits are easy to make and take much time and effort to rectify. Just look at the talk page of Donald Trump. Oh my. I fear the Drake bio is heading in the same direction. Nevertheless, I fully understand the necessity of pushing back on errant information. Perhaps there are other ways to indirectly influence the matter. Even so, my of editing the Drake biography article is over as I am am just not up to an edit war. And I'll be exiting this conversation. There are other things--good things--to do on this platform. I've looked at your talk page and am impressed with what you do. I may, of course, be contacted via my talk page. Kind regards to all,Hu Nhu (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The term "slave trader" in the introductory sentence includes a reference to an article by David Loades in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History, which as I noted before includes the description, "He completed his training in trading, slaving, and piracy." And as I also noted there, this is an aspect of Drake's life that has contemporary relevance. He was in charge of a slaving ship, so he was a slave trader. The body of the article can include details about the circumstances, such as his motivation, age, etc. If anything, it is inaccurate to minimize this aspect of Drake's life, since it is how he began his "career at sea." The demand that this term requires "a high quality source that says he was an actual slave trader himself, (not that he served under one), with references to which voyages were for the purpose of slave trading, and perhaps, where those slaves were traded," is simply excessive.Ynizcw (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Ynizcw If you read your own reference it says WP editors write summaries of what sources say. So let's do that. But not just of one source. Whenever there is information which the sources themselves describe differently, all the representative views should be summarized. Let's do that.
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History is certainly a good source, but it has no preview available, so I have put in a request at resources to see the chapter or section on Francis Drake by David Loades. I would like to know more from them. One line saying he was trained in slaving doesn't prove he actually did any, it just says he was trained. Reading more into it than what it actually says is [original research?].
All the sources agree he was given charge of a ship while serving under Hawkins the slave trader, and they agree he was given a ship with slaves on it. That should definitely be in the article. Include that he was trained in slaving, absolutely, that is sourced. Then also include the other source's comments on his behavior and attitude toward slaves and slavery throughout the rest of his life. That too is certainly just as relevant. Nothing should be minimized or exaggerated. It should all be included as it is actually stated.
Your statement He was in charge of a slaving ship, so he was a slave trader is pure [original research?] and I dispute that definition of trader. The truck driver that transports goods for someone else - a trader who buys and sells (trades) those goods - is not automatically considered a trader himself. He might be - but he might not be. I have not yet seen a source that says Drake actively engaged in trading slaves at any time in his life. That is not an excessive search for truth, it is just the ordinary requirement of accuracy, neutrality and good sources.
Perhaps Drake was an enthusiastic slave trader, but if so, that needs to be demonstrated by more than one source whose only comment is on his training. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Jenhawk777, I did read my own reference, so please don't insinuate that the problem here is with my reading comprehension. We simply disagree on what constitutes an appropriate summary of what the sources say. And since you seem to take issue with the meaning of the term "slave trader", not with the factual basis for assigning that term to Drake, I fail to see how further referencing of the facts of Drake's involvement in the slave trade is useful here. If you look up "slave trader" in the OED you will find 1. "One who trades in slaves; a slaver," and 2. "A ship engaged in the slave-trade," with no further restrictions. The definition of "slaver" includes 1. "A vessel engaged in slave-traffic," and 2. "One who deals or traffics in, or owns, slaves." Drake's role as a ship captain in Hawkins' foundational English slaving voyages satisfies this set of definitions. The fact of his participation is described in numerous sources, including the Loades reference. When I reintroduced the term "slave trader," I included a representative historical reference, which I thought sufficient to address the criticism that the earlier reference was not sufficiently scholarly. It was not intended to be exhaustive, nor is this required. The new reference is a short, encyclopedic entry, and I have provided the relevant portions on this page. It's not hard to find other references to Drake as a slave trader in contemporary historical discourse. The saliency of this aspect of Drake's biography is not something that needs to be proven to your satisfaction: see the page on sealioning for details. Finally, the term under discussion is "slave trader", not "enthusiastic slave trader," or "actively engaged slave trader." Don't move the goalposts.Ynizcw (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Ynizcw I never insinuate. I make every effort to be as clear as possible. You used a WP reference to suit your interpretation. I used the rest of it. No point in getting touchy about the fact it didn't simply, or fully, support your argument. We simply disagree on what constitutes an appropriate summary of what the sources say. It was your choice of reference! You used it but now you don't agree with it?! But no, that doesn't sum up what we disagree about.
This And since you seem to take issue with the meaning of the term "slave trader", not with the factual basis for assigning that term to Drake, is disingenuous sophistry at its worst. This entire discussion has been about whether or not "slave trader" is a fair and accurate label for Drake. You invented your own OR definition of slave trader, then used it as proof of your own OR conclusion, and then conclude you are not required to source either one since you can now call it a fact! Then you say that isn't what we're talking about!! This is not a good faith approach. Please start over and try again.
As to your use of definitions: 1. "One who trades in slaves; a slaver," there is no source I can find that indicates Drake ever actually traded in slaves. On pages 16-17 of Kelsey's book, there is a discussion of those early voyages with Hawkins. Hawkins had trade partners in the Canaries, his father-in-law, and the surveyor of the navy, William Wynter, that formed a syndicate of partners to break into the slave trade in the Caribbean. Their names are known. Drake wasn't one of them. Kelsey says, "In 1562, four small ships left Plymouth manned by hundreds of sailors one of whom was probably Francis Drake. He was not a trading partner. He was just a sailor. Does that make him a slave trader? Well that's the question isn't it?
There is no point in going over "A vessel engaged in slave-traffic," because Drake was not a ship.
Next you have 2. "One who deals or traffics in, or owns, slaves." and without showing in any source anywhere - including the Maritime Encyclopedia which I now have - that he ever did actually deal, own, or traffic in slaves, you simply leap over this tall building in a single bound claiming Drake's role as a ship captain in Hawkins' foundational English slaving voyages satisfies this set of definitions. That is OR again and so no, it does not. Saying it is so, doesn't make it so. It requires a source to make it so, because everything requires a source per your previous reference.
In Sir Francis Drake By Peter Whitfield, on page 25 he says that what happened at San Juan de Ulua (when Drake was accused of abandoning Hawkins), was a turning point in the young man's life. "Thereafter Spain and all things Spanish became his prey; slaving and trading voyages no longer interested him, and he would dedicate himself to attacking and plundering Spanish possessions in whatever corner of the world he found them." So no actual trading partnership early, and no slave trading later either. That's what these sources say.
What have you provided to support your argument? The new reference is a short, encyclopedic entry, and I have provided the relevant portions on this page. What your short encyclopedic entry says is here: he went out "as a seaman on one of the Hawkins’s voyages to Guinea. He seems to have gone on several of these voyages between 1562 and 1567, although in a fairly humble capacity, and he is seldom mentioned by name. In so doing, he completed his training in trading, slaving, and piracy." He says basically the same thing Whitfield does: "Over the following years Drake made a number of voyages to the Caribbean of a frankly piratical nature, exploiting the weaknesses in Spanish colonial defenses". The article by David Loades that you quote calls him a fighter, a sailor, a good tactition, a militant Protestant, and eventually a legitimate trader, but he never once refers to Drake as a slave trader. It isn't there. Your reference doesn't say what you claim.
This doesn't seem resolvable as things stand right now. I think we should either call for a third opinion, or post an RFC with the question as to whether the phrase 'slave trader' should be used. If you provide sources or if we can come to an agreement it won't be necessary, otherwise that seems to be our best approach. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we appear to be at an impasse. We seem to agree that the following statement, which I included at the beginning of this discussion, is true: "Edmund Drake died in 1567, and later that year Drake was given what seems to have been his first command—that of Judith in John Hawkins’s slaving/trading voyage to West Africa and the Indies." You say the reference doesn't say what I claim, but my claim is simply that the term "slave trader" encompasses the activity described by this quote and merits inclusion in the introductory statement of the article. Your response is that I'm making up my own OR definitions and engaging in "disingenuous sophistry."
I think we can agree that there are legitimate distinctions to make between Drake and Hawkins, or between Hawkins and later slavers like Colston, for that matter. I believe it is appropriate to say that they were all slave traders in different capacities, whereas you would exclude Drake.Ynizcw (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I have added another reference that may even satisfy Jenhawk777: on p. 34 of Pillaging the empire: piracy in the Americas, 1500-1750, in a subsection entitled West Country Slave Traders, Kris Lane writes, "In spite of centuries of whitewash and legendizing, Francis Drake and the Hawkinses first entered the Caribbean as slave traders." But if y'all insist on litigating this further, have at it.Ynizcw (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ynizcw Progress may be possible. I do agree that "Edmund Drake died in 1567, and later that year Drake was given what seems to have been his first command—that of Judith in John Hawkins’s slaving/trading voyage to West Africa and the Indies." is a sourced and valid statement. That should be in the article, and should even be expanded to include his training under Hawkins. We agree.
I also agree to including "In spite of centuries of whitewash and legendizing, Francis Drake and the Hawkinses first entered the Caribbean as slave traders." can certainly be included with some additional discussion of what Drakes role actually was. But it should be in there. We agree.
But this one I believe it is appropriate to say that they were all slave traders in different capacities, whereas you would exclude Drake. is the problem we keep having. Go here: [2] See for yourself that it says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[i] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.
That's what keeps happening here. You have taken "A" - that Drake was a Captain of one of Hawkins' ships - and combined it with "B" - that Hawkins was indeed a slave trader - and reached "C" tarring Drake with the same brush regardless of the fact that no source says Drake was a trader himself. You cannot use the phrase based on your own synthesized version of what you think.
I have found no source and you have provided no source with that phrase in it. When you find a source that says it, then I will 100% agree that you can put it in the article.
As for me, no, I am not personally excluding Drake. I couldn't care less about Drake. What I care about is this wonderful exasperating project of an encyclopedia. I care about the accuracy of its information. Slave trader is a loaded phrase, and it mustn't - can't - be used unless it's sourced and we are sure it's accurate. To do otherwise is to do potential harm.
That's what you must understand and agree to yourself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Um, you say you agree to including "In spite of centuries of whitewash and legendizing, Francis Drake and the Hawkinses first entered the Caribbean as slave traders," then say that "I have found no source and you have provided no source with that phrase in it." The quote that you agree with has the phrase. What am I missing here?Ynizcw (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Ynizcw Sorry for the delay, I have been off line. I am working on a redo of the section that includes this, but I have company this week and my RL has been interfering with my WP. :-) But I will get it done within a couple days I promise. Thank you for tracking down a valid source, for upholding WP standards, and especially for resolving this issue. I am grateful. Be back soon! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Ynizcw the section is now redone; it includes the reference to Drake as one of the first slave traders. The description remains in the lead as well. This should no longer be contested in my view. This has been sufficiently
Resolved
. Thank you very much for your cooperation in obtaining a better source. I hope we have the opportunity to work together with such good results another time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't having 'slave-trader' in the lede put undue weight on that term and what Francis is famous for, as opposed to his later opposition to the slave trade? https://www.marinij.com/2020/09/03/marin-voice-from-historians-perspective-sir-francis-drake-a-man-to-be-admired/ Halbared (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I would also agree that it's undue. If people have done a deep dive into sources about Drake and what's currently in the article is the product, I would not call slave-trading "integral to the person's notability" as required by MOS:ROLEBIO, which states "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles". Compare George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc., where unlike Drake slavery was fundamental to their lives but they are not described as slave-owners in the opening sentence, because that is not where their notability stems from. Would have no issue with Drake's participation in slavery being described later in the lede. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Ivar the Boneful Then you should change it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the discussion, Halbared and Ivar the Boneful. Halbared, part of what Francis is famous for today is that he was a slave trader, so by that standard the phrase definitely belongs in the opening. Perspectives change. His status as a slave trader is also significant in his personal biography, because it is how he began his pirating career—by stealing enslaved Africans. It is also relevant to the history of British involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, since his slaving voyages with Hawkins were the first English attempts to break the lucrative Portuguese and Spanish monopoly on the slave trade. Finally, the section of the WP Manual of Style that Ivar the Boneful cites begins with the sentence, The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. Please refer to earlier the discussion between me and Jenhawk777 on this topic, which focuses on one reliable source by Kris Lane, which states, In spite of centuries of whitewash and legendizing, Francis Drake and the Hawkinses first entered the Caribbean as slave traders. Another reliable source by David Loades notes, He completed his training in trading, slaving, and piracy. Edmund Drake died in 1567, and later that year Drake was given what seems to have been his first command—that of Judith in John Hawkins’s slaving/trading voyage to West Africa and the Indies. Ynizcw (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
One more description from a source that is in the bibliography for the article, Heroes: A History of Hero Worship, by Lucy Hughes-Hallett. Drake had been a slave trader in his time. On the Guinea coast with Hawkins he saw black people as valuable commodities up for grabbing. Ynizcw (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

When Drake was in command he did not trade in slaves - on the contrary, he freed slaves from the Spanish.2A02:C7E:1C8D:3800:C9E8:9946:2BB9:2F39 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

2A02:C7E:1C8D:3800:C9E8:9946:2BB9:2F39 New contributions go at the bottom of a discussion, otherwise it is extremely difficult to keep track of and find stuff, and this is a comment worth noting. It will be missed if left out of place, so according to WP proticol, I have moved it so it can be part of the ongoing discussion.
My original objection was the same as yours: ... it isn't as if a 23 year old junior officer would have had any say in [what Hawkins hauled]. He would have been glad of the posting, and his only say in what they did would have been "Yes sir". These are the only slave trading voyages there is any record of Drake ever participating in. ... once Drake had his own command, there is not only no record of him trading in slaves,...
Hu Nhu made the same points. As have Halbared and Ivar the Boneful. There is consensus on this, unfortunately, I could not find a RS that makes these points, leaving it as Or and unusable.
If you can find a source - any of you - that evaluates Drake's participation in such a manner, then I say add it, change the text, tell me and I will, write a whole new section on Drake's attitudes toward slavery - do something that reflects a more accurate, fair, balanced and neutral view, which in my opinion this is not! The hangup is that we have to reflect the sources, and Ynizcw found good sources that do in fact make the claims about Drake that are now in the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jenhawk777, Halbared, Ynizcw, and Ivar the Boneful. I'm momentarily inserting myself into this conversation again after seeing the last post and the heartfelt plea of Jenhawk777. I address you four as you are the most recent participants. It is good to see Jenhawk777 continually promoting and driving accuracy. So that the article may accurately reflect Drake, here are a few sources one may wish to peruse. Even though Jenhawk777 is the one pointing out the glaring need for sources to remediate this article, these sources are not, however, strictly directed toward Jenhawk777. Anyone may view them. They are available to all who wish to provide--as has been stated--an accurate, fair, balanced and neutral view. This article is most sadly vacant of accuracy, fairness, neutrality, and balance.
Activism, not accuracy, is often the heartbeat of too many Wikipedia articles. Maybe Larry Sanger is right when he says, "The days of Wikipedia's robust commitment to neutrality are long gone." I think he's correct; I could be wrong. Will other editors who've invested into this article care to delve into these? I suspect that will be most telling. Please know that this is not an exhaustive list. It is, however, adequate.
• John Sugden, b04107b8-631e-47cc-897a-bb1ee86f3d27.filesusr.com/ugd/cd7535_294ea14168a947b787f9f44c64bf2b52.pdf
• Umar Faruz Abd-Allah, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54eb86afe4b0b896afa4080a/t/58dc24c420099e17a848341a/1490822354449/roots_of_islam_p1.pdf
• Zelia Nuttall (1967). New Light On Drake. p 174.
• John Sugden (2006). Francis Drake. pp. 61-6, 100, 141, 127.
• Miranda Kaufmann (2017). Black Tudors. pp. 56-89.
• Laurence Bergreen (2021). In Search of a Kingdom. p. 396.
Again know that I won't be editing this article. I offer these on the off chance they might be constructively used toward correcting a troubled article. Kind regards and much love to all,Hu Nhu (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Sanger also says WP can give a "reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Bergreen begins his book, In Search of a Kingdom, with a list of "Principal Characters" that includes Drake's involvement in slavery in his short summary. Eldest of twelve sons of Edmund Drake. Second cousin of Sir John Hawkins, with whom he sold slaves in the Caribbean. Led the first successful circumnavigation, 1577–1580. Vice admiral of the English fleet during the Armada period. Died of dysentery and buried at sea near Portobello, Panama, in January 1596. Later, in the Acknowledgements, he writes, Francis Drake played many parts in his flamboyant career: pirate, explorer, naval hero, and, less admirably, slaver and thief. These characterizations support the current wording in the WP article. Ynizcw (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Great expedition

this chapter is pityful brief and incomplete. just as a start, the unsuccessful siege of La Palma is missing (see map), which caused the loss of a ship and left Drake injured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.67.135 (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Ynizcw and PhotogenicScientist please see the changes I made to the lead that hopefully reflect everyone's desires and concerns. Vice admiral and slaving are both in the first paragraph, as is privateer, but not in the first sentence. The label "slave trader" is not used, but "participation" being in the first paragraph reflects the notability of the topic to many readers. Vice admiral is described and not just listed. Repetition has been removed. It is a summary. Please be okay with this version!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't like it at all, and I don't think it's an improvement over what was there before. The juxtaposition of his early-career slave ship work and his actions as vice admiral - both one sentence long, in the first paragraph - gives FAR too much importance to his early career. The previous formulation of the lead was much better imo: 1 paragraph describing the man, and 3 subsequent paragraphs in loose chronological order with a bit more detail. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777 I'm also a bit confused by your edit. Above, you agreed with my proposals (That is a definite improvement I think and more representative of his notability. I really like it.; and The examples offered from other WP articles carries the weight imo.) But with this edit, you moved the lead away from them. While I appreciate your apparent desire to find compromise with which everyone is happy, I think it would be helpful if you would take a stance here on content. It's not always possible to make everyone happy in a content dispute. Sometimes it comes down to strength of arguments, and one side doesn't get their content included, if consensus leans that way. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
For most of this discussion there has just been the three of us, so consensus is perhaps over broad to proclaim. We have come to some tentative agreements between us by being willing to compromise. This is that. Ynizcw wants vice admiral excluded altogether; you want it in the first sentence; compromise includes it, but not in the first sentence.
Ynizcw wanted 'slave trader' in the first sentence; you and I agreed that label was loaded, and he accepted the alternative "participation" though he is correct on how notable this is to some readers. It isn't the second sentence that he wanted, but it is in the first paragraph: more compromise on his part. You didn't want slavery at all, but also accepted that compromise. It is a notable enough issue for readers to be in the first paragraph - and it's in half the sources. It just doesn't fit as the second sentence. So, compromise.
I didn't move the lead away from any of what I commented on. They are all still in the first paragraph.
It isn't always possible to make everyone happy, and I clearly have not made you happy, but without a willingness to compromise, consensus will be virtually impossible here. Call for an RFC if you disagree strongly, but it will have to be on some other basis than an unwillingness to compromise on where to place what everyone agrees is accurate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I never claimed that we had reached consensus here. And I will say that achieving compromise for compromise's sake does not always improve the quality of the article in question. Sometimes, discussions end with no consensus, which is a-ok.
I'd also ask that we all consider strength of arguments when deciding on the content here. "Alice wants X, while Bob wants Y" doesn't mean that the article should include both X and Y. Even if Alice and Bob have been at it a while in a protracted discussion.
Lastly, apologies if I've given offence. But I have compromised on a few discussion points above, which should be proof that I am not "unwilling to compromise."PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I can contribute here, except to note that the scope and context of the discussion has shifted, and that it would be helpful for us all to recognize this as we continue to work toward resolution—possibly through an RFC, as @Carlstak suggested. When I was insisting on including the term "slave trader", it was a local edit of a list with several other terms, many of which I felt were either redundant or less notable (such as his role as a politician). (As a side note, I did not insert the term originally, but I restored it after another editor reverted the original insertion.) While arguing against including this term, @PhotogenicScientist pointed out that Drake's involvement in the early English slave trade was underdeveloped in the body of the article, and other editors, notably @Desertarun and @Carlstak, began to address this weakness. Concurrently, we expanded the scope of the discussion here, from the list of terms in the first sentence to the whole introductory passage. I think we all agree that referring to Drake's participation in the slave trade is less prone to misunderstanding than to describe him as a slave trader, so I would say the original issue is resolved. The disagreement now is more about the placement and priority that we give to Drake's various activities, the language used to describe them, and how to evaluate the plethora of sources on Drake that have emerged over the last half-millennium. I think the whole article would benefit from a more critical discussion of these topics. If there is a better way to organize that discussion than the current "wall of text," I'd be happy to learn about it. Ynizcw (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that referring to Drake's participation in the slave trade is less prone to misunderstanding than to describe him as a "slave trader". You all will have to settle its placement and priority without me, or call an RFC, or whatever else you decide to do. This weekend I intend to work on some content I'd like to add to the article. (I don't have the energy now to organize the sources I wanted to add here for your delectation.) In the process, I may find information that has a bearing on the points mentioned above, and will bring it up here if I do.
My style is to marshal the most unimpeachable sources I can find and add them to a dedicated collection in Zotero. Then I compose in a Google doc with notes I take from the sources (I save them under the "Notes" tab for each item in Zotero, or just add them directly to the document). I copyedit, then I boldly add to the article. If anyone objects to the content I'll hear about on the talk page, whether it's reverted or not. As I said, I have a low tolerance (and little time) for endless talk page discussion, so I try to anticipate objections to debatable statements, and add the best sources I can to support them. In the meantime, good luck, all. Carlstak (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I'll get anything up today, but just so everyone knows, I have a particular interest in Drake because he burnt my hometown and left it in smoldering ruins. This article does not mention this event, and I think it should. I went to school with descendants of the Spaniards who lived here then, and they have not forgiven him. One of the contributors to this article, Eastfarthingan, wrote most of "Raid on St. Augustine", and did a nice job of it. I am still collecting and reading sources, particularly those in Spanish, and will keep plodding along. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
What a terrible experience! You have my support and sympathy. And while I would support you creating a sub-article on the topic, it is too much detail, imo, for this article. We can't possibly include all the names of every town that was raided by both English and Spanish fighters, and that would have to be done for neutrality's sake. We can only include the most notable battles, and while it being your hometown makes it notable to you, it is not notable by WP standards. I'm sorry. That seems cold and unfeeling to say, and I am sorry to say it. This suggestion just isn't consistent with WP policy imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Jenhawk777, but as I said, we already have an article on the topic, Raid on St. Augustine. I'm talking about a one-sentence mention and a link to that article. The material I'm working on is more consequential in Drake's biography than the raid carried out by "El Draque" on my hometown, although it did have consequences for Spain's imperial ambitions in North America. Carlstak (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Carlstak That sounds perfectly reasonable. Hope things are better soon.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to sign. Thanks, Jenhawk777. I'm thinking that I'll incorporate it into the material I'm working on. As I'm sure you know, there is a vast amount of literature about Drake in English and Spanish, so I still have a lot of reading to do, and then to distill it into a section (or part of a section) of reasonable length. I love this sort of work, although I'm afraid my ambition is larger than my execution on WP, and I tend to spread myself too thin. I am under a lot of pressure in real life, and editing here is a safety valve where that can be released, at least temporarily.;-) Regards, Carlstak (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
"PhotogenicScientist it seems from what Ynizcw says above I think we all agree that referring to Drake's participation in the slave trade is less prone to misunderstanding than to describe him as a slave trader, so I would say the original issue is resolved. Perhaps we can all agree on that point.
You said above that I think it would be helpful if you would take a stance here on content. I did. I edited the lead accordingly. You said it made you unhappy. The juxtaposition of his early-career slave ship work and his actions as vice admiral - both one sentence long, in the first paragraph - gives FAR too much importance to his early career. It gives no emphasis at all to his early career; it says nothing about smuggling or privateering. It gives emphasis to his involvement in slaving, which is representative of modern scholarship, sensibilities and interest. Some readers will come looking for that, without doubt. That same emphasis - or greater emphasis - is in half the sources. That sentence needs to be where it is.
The sentence that he became a vice-admiral also belongs in the first paragraph. I agreed with you. I disagreed with Ynizcw enough to put that sentence in myself. You're right, there is no extended discussion of his vice-admiralty, just the statement, because it's the lead. Your arguments were valid, but sometimes in a short summary of a long article, one sentence per topic is all there is. We had too much to put in the first sentence. Some of it had to go in the rest of the paragraph. That's all that happened.
I don't agree that there was ever 1 paragraph describing the man, and 3 subsequent paragraphs in loose chronological order with a bit more detail. The first paragraph has always described his achievement of circumnavigation and listed his various roles and achievements. It never described him as a man. There are descriptions of his character out there, and that would be an interesting addition to this article, but it wasn't, isn't, and never has been in the first paragraph of this article in any form - so far.
I don't think I understand what you are unhappy about. However, I would like to achieve some stability for this article, therefore, if you are willing to take the time to explain your views, I am willing to keep working towards resolution as well - wall of text not withstanding. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Ynizcw The disagreement now is more about ... how to evaluate the plethora of sources on Drake that have emerged over the last half-millennium. Sorry. I don't agree. If there had been discoveries of new sources, or perhaps a large input of new data from other fields such as archaeology, or numismatics or some such thing, then I would agree that a reassessment of sources would be called for. I even wrote an article like that recently. But that hasn't happened. We have no new source material. We just have a change of perspective on its interpretation. That does not, on any level, invalidate the interpretations of the same sources that preceded the more recent ones. Interpretation is interpretation, and one doesn't invalidate the other. They must both be presented.
You say, in all good faith, I'm sure that when @PhotogenicScientist pointed out that Drake's involvement in the early English slave trade was underdeveloped in the body of the article, and other editors, notably @Desertarun and @Carlstak, began to address this weakness. I think if you check, you will find I originally did that expanding. Here under career at sea: [3] The others later edited it, gave it its own section and did an excellent job. Just keeping things straight.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Just checking in to see what has changed—I don't have the time to contribute to the article right now, but I can respond quickly to the discussion here in preparation for future contributions.
  • @Jenhawk777, I'm glad to see that at least the two of us agree that Drake's role in the English slave trade deserves mention in the lede. Since there was no objection from @PhotogenicScientist, I would like to consider this point resolved.
  • I'm also happy to acknowledge your contributions to the content on Drake's participation in the slave trade, @Jenhawk777. To clarify, my point was that @PhotogenicScientist cited the limited discussion of this topic in the body—despite your additions—as justification for removing the phrase "slave trader" from the lede, and afterwards @Desertarun and @Carlstak began to address this. I'm also happy to acknowledge contributions from others, if I missed them—those were just the ones that I noticed. Regardless, the phrase was replaced but the role was maintained, which as I said earlier is OK by me.
  • On the perceived disagreement over how to assess previous sources, I would suggest that it will be better to resolve this with reference to concrete examples, rather than in the abstract. Historians are constantly reevaluating and updating historical interpretation, and some interpretations are rightly discredited—for example, it is known that large portions of Drake's biography were distorted and embellished by 19th century authors, and that many of these distortions are maintained today by popular mythology. As the historian Bruce Wathen (cited above) writes, "[Drake's] reputation owes much to the Victorians who looked to an idealized Elizabethan past when constructing their imperial history." He also notes that "Most [Victorians] chose to exclude the subject [of Drake's involvement in slavery] from their biographies."
When I have more time, I hope to introduce more of this kind of historiographic insight into the body of the article, backed by reliable sources. Perhaps then we can have a more productive discussion of historical sourcing and evaluation. Ynizcw (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Agreed.
On sources, I disagree. Historiographical perspective is already mentioned in the article. More would just cause problems over topic - is this an article on Drake or on the study of Drake? Those are two different things, and this article is history of the first type. I felt a little bit daring adding in what I did, but more? No, I don't see how that would benefit the article.
People disagree about him. That's been said. Apparently they always did. Perhaps that could be emphasized a bit more - a paragraph on what a controversial figure he was, and is, would not be unhistorical. Modern historiography could legitimately get a sentence in that maybe.
Otherwise, imo, interpretation by scholars - of any topic - is constantly changing. That is not worth mentioning. That scholarly views vary and shift is not notable, it's normal. If there had been a discovery of new information previously unavailable, that would be notable. As it is, focusing on one kind of interpretation borders on a common logical fallacy of assuming the new is superior to the old just because it's new. Both should be mentioned; both are. The disagreement and change in views is mentioned. I find that sufficient personally. More would be making a bigger deal out of this than it deserves. That's my opinion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@Ynizcw if you can find a concrete example of a historical source that has been discredited, and you find deprecated material from that source in this article, by all means remove it. However, you can't rely on the abstract categorization of "rightly discredited historical interpretations" alone to justify removing material from older sources.
And I agree with what Jenhawk777 said above regarding writing much about interpretation by scholars in this article. People who read this article should be learning about Francis Drake the man, not about the interpretations of historians or the lens of perspective through which he's viewed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@PhotogenicScientist I'm very curious to learn how we come to know "Francis Drake the man" without also coming to grips with the "interpretations of historians." This whole discussion has centered around the weight that we should assign to different reliable sources written by professional historians. In your most recent edit summary, you assert that the scholarship of Richard White—a Stanford emeritus professor of history, a MacArthur Fellow, and a former President of the Organization of American Historians, "may not technically be WP:FRINGE." Yet White describes in great detail how our understanding of "Francis Drake the man" was shaped by historical forces of the 19th and 20th century. You appear to dismiss work that you have not bothered to understand.
This comes after you have, yet again, removed content that I added in good faith, knowing that it is the subject of discussion here. @Jenhawk777 explicitly indicated the need for citations, and you deleted them almost as soon as I provided them. Your edit summary asserts that "the current emphasis on Anglo-Saxonism is WP:UNDUE." I suggest you familiarize yourself with the decades of scholarship on how Anglo-Saxons ideology has shaped our current historical understanding of "Francis Drake the man," and consider that my contributions to the article, which draw on this scholarship, might have more value than you allow. I'll restore my earlier contributions, and would ask that you leave it alone. Ynizcw (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Restoring your preferred content after it gets reverted, without an edit summary, and without engaging in talk page discussion first is extremely poor form. Are you aware of the bold, revert, discuss cycle? "Bold edits in good faith" may be reverted by editors who, also in good faith, think the bold edits aren't an improvement. Thus is the importance of discussion around here.
Your argument to White's credentials is flawed, because my edit in no way called his credentials into question - all I did was change the language around his assertion of Anglo-saxonism influence, so that it reads less like "this is why the places were named" and more like "this is why THIS PROFESSOR SAYS the places were named". White's theory IS NOT WP:FRINGE, like I said; but it is certainly not the mainstream view, and must be treated with WP:DUE weight in the article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
As you can see above, I discussed your edit just before reverting it—and while it's true that I did not provide an edit summary, I had just tagged you here, so I did not think it was necessary. If that's all you're complaining about, then I apologize and will make sure to add a reference to the talk page in an edit summary.
But I gather that you also think I should have allowed more time between making my comment here and restoring my edit, so let me address that. When you yourself entered this discussion, you entered a longstanding disagreement that I had been engaged with for an extended period of time, which @Jenhawk777 and I had resolved. You made your case for changing it, then changed it one minute later, initiating a period of pretty unpleasant conflict between us. In this more recent instance, you reverted changes that I had just made in response to @Jenhawk777's changes, without engaging at all in a discussion here. My point here is not to relitigate old conflicts, but to find a way to avoid further conflict by describing my perspective on our interactions. To avoid further conflict, I suggest that in the future we both make an effort to emphasize the discussion part of the WP:BRD process.
Regarding my "flawed" argument about White's credentials, I referred to them because your edit summary said "White's theory may not technically be WP:FRINGE [emphasis added]," and that the edited passage was "White's opinion of Drake [emphasis added]", which misrepresents both White's argument and his quality as a source. (Note also that you omitted the word "technically" in your response above, misrepresenting the tone of the comment.) White is not expressing an opinion on Drake, he is explaining why there are so many monuments to a 16th-century English pirate in the middle of California, with ample historical evidence to support his explanation—it is not just his opinion, and your edit, "American historian Richard White asserts that these commemorations originated from nineteenth-century Anglo-Saxonism," violates the MOS:CLAIM guideline that "to say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question." White's explanation is also not just "not technically WP:FRINGE", it is an eminently reliable source on a topic that belongs in a section on Drake's legacy. You claim that his view is not mainstream, so fine: provide equally reliable sources that articulate what you consider to be the mainstream view of the historical origins of Drake commemorations in California, and we can have a discussion. Ynizcw (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD: "To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit... Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement."
You might have noticed I myself abided by this when I entered the discussion. I made a bold edit to an article, then engaged in talk page discussion for 3 days before reverting to what I percieved as new consensus. After that was challenged, I did not restore that edit (though, someone else ended up making a similar change, since talk page discussion eventually supported it.)
Regarding White, MOS:SAID is of limited applicability generally, as it's primarily about the use of stylistic synonyms for "said"; however, it specifically says not to use words like clarified, explained, found, or showed - all similar to "traced to" - as these imply a sense of unimpeachable truth. Now, White's findings do make sense to me personally, and may in fact be the truth. However, when discussing history, it is somewhere between very difficult and impossible to deduce the unimpeachable truth (on account of the past being observable only through primary sources). So, we typically rely on historians as a group to tell us what is true of history. One historian may make a novel discovery, and publish it - if it's accepted as the nearest thing to the truth as has been said, other historians will cite their finding, and discuss it as well. And for one reason or another, there aren't many other historians besides White talking about this link to Anglo-Saxonism. A good litmus test for this is a simple Google search. Since this finding has not entered mainstream historical discussion about Drake, as far as I've been able to tell, it makes sense to attribute it as White's assertion, rather than implying it to be accepted truth.
If you still think I should provide more sources that say Drake's monuments' naming ISN'T linked to white supremacy or Anglo-saxonism, please read up on proving a negative and Evidence of absence; see also Russell's teapot and Argument from ignorance. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

PS: would it be appropriate to archive some of the older discussion on this page? It’s gotten pretty unwieldy. Ynizcw (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ynizcw: I've reduced the archiving period to 180 days and the threads to leave to 2, so that should help. What doesn't help is people resurrecting old threads and keeping them going for three years! DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I've also split the thread at the top into two, at the point where nobody said anything for over a year. And I'm splitting off this discssion of archiving into its own thread because it distracts from the thread it was attached to, and again adds to the problem of interminably long threads which will never archive! DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Already done if that helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, just seen the archiving period 180 days, if you wish me to revert then I can. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Eastfarthingan please revert the recent archiving of the various threads. They contain plenty of discussion that is still relevant at present. Thank you, stricken - all good now PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@PhotogenicScientist: Eastfarthingian only archived one thread. The others were archived automatically following my reduction of the archiving period and splitting of a ludicrously long thread which had unfortunately been resurrected after a gap of over a year. It is really unhelpful to have this page filled with threads that go on and on and on and which nobody in their right mind would read from beginning to end. While I wouldn't myself have archived the thread from January, I also don't think restoring it would be at all helpful. It can still be read, and referred back to, if necessary, and if any points in it do need revisiting I think it would be far more constructive to do so in new, less long-winded, threads rather than in one which is a fine example of TL:DR. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@DuncanHill Whatever they did, this talk page no longer has a table of contents as of this edit (previous version here), which led to my confusion on which threads they archived.
I agree that long talk pages are unwieldy and not helpful to future readers. However, long talk page discussions sometimes happen in the course of trying to resolve content disputes. Archiving them right away hides them from view, often prompting new visitors to open new threads on the same topic. And though they may be long, threads can be skipped over from the TOC links to get to newer threads; long threads can also be hatted to save space, while still keeping them visible. I feel both of these are better alternatives to quick archiving. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
When there are fewer than four headings a table of contents does not automatically appear. I have now forced it to appear, so that addresses that issue. As I said, I would not myself have archived the January discussion, but the 180 day limit I set for archiving is hardly "right away" or "quick". We are not glaciers! As for hatting that really should only be used for material that is disruptive, not for anything regarded as constructive. If you want the January thread restored then you go ahead and do it. I think it would be unhelpful. DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@PhotogenicScientist: My apologies, it seems @Eastfarthingan: did archive more than one thread - unfortunatley the threads were so long I missed the headers in the diff! DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
And with that in mind I've restored the thread about the Lead, which I see was still active only a few days ago. The January resurrection of the old Slavery thread, and the Sic Parius Magna thread were both over a fortnight old, so I haven't restored them. I can't stop you restoring them if you want to , but I genuinely feel that, particularly with the Slavery thread, it would be more constructive not to continue such a long thread but to raise specific points in a new one, or new ones. DuncanHill (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Whew - glad to see that sorted out! It seems 'Lead' was the thread I was missing after East's edit; I agree with you that the other 2 can stay archived at this point. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll leave the "FORCETOC" in place in case the page does go down to fewer threads in the future, as it is very helpful to have. DuncanHill (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Cummins 1997

In the article there are references to "Cummins 1997", but no such work is listed. If anyone knows what the source is could they add it? It's a common fault with shortened citations. DuncanHill (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Done - looks like the parent ref to Cummins used to be in the lead. I put the book citation in the bib, and updated the orphaned short refs into sfn templates. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict with you when I found it and started to do exactly what you were doing! DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Fastest ref-rescuer in the West! PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_Drake/Archive_3&oldid=1170066566"