Talk:Henry Hudson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sections

I think that this page should be a tad better organized (i.e. sections), someone (else) want to do that? (I'm not very good at that) Goffrie 00:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mutinous crew

"nobody ever saw of heard from the Hudsons or their companions again." That should be nobody ever saw or heard from the Hudsons, however the article is locked so I cannot personally edit it myself. I am sure it would be most appreciated if someone could correct this minor error, please.

I want to know what happened to the mutinous crew!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.240.185 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 5 August 2006

Son?

How old was his son when they were set adrift? Any info on the boy's name, DOB, etc? Morhange 01:25, 26 August 2006

Reverts

I reverted all of todays edits, as none of them were constructive, and early reverts by VandalBot missed some vandalism. I checked all of the edits, and none of them seemed to contribute anything productive. I sincerley apoligize if I accidentaly reverted a constructive edit. 141.153.193.110 , while I think your edit was well intentioned, it did not seem to work right. eric 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Half Moon vs Halve Maen

There seems to be a good bit of back and forth going between Half Moon and Halve Maen. Any ideas on which we should go with? eric 21:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was a Dutch ship. The name was Halve Maen. The name of the ship should be stated, not the English translation. Or should the Santa María be renamed Saint Maria? BoH 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. Also, because the article on the ship is named Halve Maen, we should probably keep it consistant. eric 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Age

how old was henry hudson when his crew mutinied him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2006 68.36.90.190 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 13 December

Vandalism

I am thinking that do to the extremlly high amount of vandalism that this page is recieving, it should be semi-protected. Any thoughts? meamemg 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the 16th & 17th Century explorer articles are prime targets for vandals. Likely due to them being such common school project subjects. I currently keep about 2 dozen similar articles on my watchlist. Best to just stay diligent as it's highly doubtful that the page will be protected. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandals...

Vandals have changed around the wording of a portion of this page to vulgar language, If it could be reverted that wouldn't be great. I also think this page should be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicfire (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 December 2006

Additional information

if u want information go to www.ianchadwick.com/hudson is a great site! there is an in- depth discription about EVERYTHING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.53.54 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 April 2007

Too bad it makes false claims. Henry Hudson did not discover Jan Mayen Island as he left NO record of doing so, and his reports DID NOT lead to whaling expeditions being sent to Spitsbergen. The reason the Mary Margaret was sent up in 1611 was because of the report of the "great stores of whales" made by Jonas Poole in the Amity the previous year. If they had followed Hudson's advice they would have sent up ships in 1608, but they didn't. Jonas Poole 01:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hudson cast adrift with "No food, water or weapons"?

Prickett's journal: "Now were all the poore men in the shallop, whose names are as followeth: Henry Hudson, John Hudson, Arnold Lodlo, Sidrach Faner, Phillip Staffe, Thomas Woodhouse, (or Wydhouse,) Adam Moore, Henrie King, and Michael Bute. The carpenter got of them a peece, and powder and shot, and some pikes, an iron pot, with some meale and other things. They stood out of the ice, the shallop being fast to the sterne of the shippe, and so when they were nigh out, for I cannot say they were cleane out, they cut her head fast from the sterne of the ship, then out with theire topsayles, and towards the east they stood in a cleare sea."

Source of quote from Prickett's Journal: http://www.ianchadwick.com/hudson/hudson_04.htm

also: "Das Ratsael Nordwestpassage" by Kurt Luetgen states that Hudson and the others were provided with food and weapons.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.30.143 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 May 2007

Editing Needed

This article jumps around to much someone should edit it209.107.114.190 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

It's a bit strange to have a portrait start the page, when it is known that the picture is not of Hudson. I would think it makes more sense to have a big question mark (or similar) as the portrait and then the HenryHudson.jpg further down with comment. Jeffhoy 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction

It's just a minor detail but Henry Hudson was thrown into a longboat with 7 ,not 8, of his crew members(plus his son) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.118.67 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 October 2007

Year Born and died

1570-1942 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.137.163 (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Impressive! 372 years of age

Birthdate

I don't see where it says that Hudson was born September 12th. I am changing the birthdate to 1570? because all my sources say know one knows. If they find information saying he was born the 12th, tell me.99.244.66.12 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A simple Google search ("henry hudson 12 september 1570") throws up many references to this, eg. [1], [2], and [3]. It is speculative at best. These are all secondary or later sources, so I don’t know who originally worked out the date “12 September 1570” or what they used to come to that conclusion. But it must be traceable somewhere. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To whomever keeps reverting Hudson's date of birth to September 11, 1575 without a source please stop. When you provide a primary source that proves Hudson was born at such a date I will stop reverting these edits. Thank you. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to know the origin of the theory that he was born on precisely 12 September 1570. Anyone know? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced "some claim" statement

"Hudson was never seen again although some claim that he successfully made his way as far south as the Ottawa River" - any objections to the deletion of the "some claim" statement? 208.76.82.4 (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Now deleted [4] - 208.76.82.4 (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

hery hudsons discoveries

i was just wanting to ask when did henry hudson descover the north-west passage? if he did not descover the north-west passage then what and when did he descover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.188.148 (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Too many stews spoil the cook

This still reads as if written by my 12 year old granddaughter as a class assignment.

Surely there must be a competent historian of maritime exploration willing to undertake a serious revision of the article in suitable style and diction. Tusbra (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I improved the 1607 section. I have no interest in 1608 (seeing as how he accomplished nothing, just like the previous voyage), and I don't care to add to 1609-11. At least part of it looks better. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More childhood information required

It dosn't mention what so ever about Henry Hudson's childhood.Such as; Wealthy family,Lived in basement,early years worked for military,ect... b—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendini97 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 December 2008

I don't believe said information exists. Jonas Poole (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ian Chadwick's website

This site should not be relied on period. It makes several false claims and often repeats others mistakes. For example:

• Henry Hudson did not discover Jan Mayen. There is no cartographical or written proof of this. The first documented English expedition to the island was made by Robert Fotherby in 1615 (see Purchas, 1625; and Hacquebord, 2004)

• Henry Hudson, despite the ignorant claims made by several authors, was not the "father of English whaling". If anyone deserves this title it should be Jonas Poole, who's 1610 expedition led to a whaling expedition being sent to Spitsbergen by the Muscovy Company the following year (again, see Purhcas, 1625)

• Other countries did not send whaling expeditions to Spitsbergen because of Hudson's report. In fact, it was the success of the 1612 Basque whaling expedition to Spitsbergen that led to a fleet of whaling vessels from France, Spain, and the United Provinces being sent to Spitsbergen in 1613 (see Purchas, 1625; Conway, 1906)

• Chadwick also makes the extremely ignorant (too stupid to even comprehend) claim that whales had been decimated from Spitsbergen waters within a decade! So that's why bay whaling continued there until the mid-17th century? What a fool! (see Purchas 1625; Conway 1904; Conway 1906; Dalgard 1962, among others) Jonas Poole (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hudson-Fulton Celebration

I have just made the page for the Hudson-Fulton Celebration of 1909, and was wondering if you could include it under the "See Also" section of this narrative. Thank you very much,

Mathew Rodriguez Fordham University Honors Class 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmarodriguez (talk • contribs) 06:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pricket's Journal

Prickett's journal: "Now were all the poore men in the shallop, whose names are as followeth: It's just a minor detail but Henry Hudson was thrown into a longboat with 7 ,not 8, of his crew members(plus his son) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.118.67 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 October 2007

henry hudson was one of the greatest explorers in all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.228.204 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Henry Hudson

{{editsemiprotected}}

Henry Hudson (September 12, 1570s – 1611) was an English sea explorer and navigator in the early seventeenth century. He was born in London, England, and he presumably died in 1611 in Hudson Bay, Canada after his mutinous crew left him there. Hudson's daring, albeit short, career as an explorer of the New World earned him a place in history as one of the most important European explorers of North America

Hudson's explorations of the arctic regions exemplify the relentless human quest to understand and master the environment. Facing extraordinary physical hardships, Hudson and his crew navigated through unknown regions in search of a commercial sea route to the Indies. Yet his greatest adversary proved to be not the harsh arctic elements but his own crew. Lacking empathy and abandoning their obligations as subordinates to the ship's captain, the mutineers dispatched Hudson, his teenage son, and loyal crew members to almost certain death in the arctic wastelands.

Significantly, Hudson's exploration of the Hudson River led to Dutch colonial claims on the region and the establishment of the colony of New Amsterdam, later renamed New York following British defeat of the Dutch

 Question: Could you please clarify exactly what you think needs changing, and why? ~ mazca ^t|c 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

please return the "editsemiprotected" template if there's actually a requestSkier Dude (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Discovery error?

The link on the name of Hudson's ship for his final voyage, the Discovery, links to a ship named Discovery connected with the Virginia colony in the same period--but it appears to be a different ship, since the linked page suggests that that Discovery stayed in America rather than returning to the UK in time for Hudson to use it. An error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.215.235 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hudson River exploration

The article currently states "On September 11, 1609 he sailed down the Hudson River into what is now New York City." This seems illogical. He would have sailed up the Hudson River by what became New York City, and if i recall correctly from history classes, I believe he went far up the river, like to Albany, to wherever his ship could navigate no further. doncram (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC) by demarco landingham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.24.194 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

External links

Please consider adding this external link to the entry on Hudson

• The Diary Junction Blog Pikle (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

henry hudson was cool; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.166.132 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Henry Hudson's birth date

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nothing is known about the early years of Henry Hudson. User:Jonas Poole wants the article to avoid any speculation about when Henry Hudson was born. User:Michael C Price has a source that discusses the speculation about when Henry Hudson might have been born. User:Michael C Price wants to mention that speculation in the article. For some preliminary discussion of this matter, please see User talk:Jonas Poole#Henry_Hudson and User talk:Michael C Price#Henry_Hudson's_date_of_birth and the sections thereafter. PYRRHON  talk   18:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, reality check time. His date of death is speculative. Are you going to remove that as well???? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. Hudson died in or just after 1611. He was abandoned by his men in June 1611 and faced a winter relatively unprepared. How long do you think he would have lasted? His date of birth is complete speculation! It's based on nothing but guesses. His speculated date of death at least has some support behind it. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. And irrelevant per WP:TRUTH. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't think for yourself can you? I'd really like to know whether you can. Wikipedia guidelines this Wiki guidelines that. Are you an automation? I'm beginning to think you're nothing but a (poorly-constructed) computer program. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I can think, and one of my thoughts is that if you wish to argue against policy you should take it to the policy talk pages. Oh, but wait, you don't care about policy do you? --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I should have brought this here in the first place, rather than hold the conversation between edit summaries and on my talk page. First, the Ian Chadwick website is self-published information. As such, it falls under WP:SELFPUB and cannot be used as a reliable source. The Encyclopædia Britannica, however, is practically the definition of a reliable source. On my talk page, User:Jona Poole seems worried that because the earlier versions of EB did not contain the date, but later versions, in his words, "magically give his date as c. 1565," this makes the info "an obvious guess." Such an assertion holds literally no merit. Encyclopedias should change content over time, as new information becomes available. I do not know how EB edits their info, but they are considered reliable, and, as such, we can't reject one piece of their information without alternative contradictory information. I'm reverting to my edit to include the EB info but not the Chadwick info. In order to legitimately remove that info, you will need some sort of specific evidence that this info is not reliable (via another source). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In early 2010, User:BullRangifer was inserting a statement into various articles. The statement said the belief in ghosts was pseudoscience. Various editors tried to tell BullRangifer and his hangers-on that a mere belief did not amount to an exercise in pseudoscience. Various editors tried to tell BullRangifer and his hangers-on that a person is engaged in pseudoscience only when he pretends to be scientific in order to deceive. BullRangifer countered that it did not matter if what he was inserting into Wikipedia was not true. He said Wikipedia is not about WP:Truth; it is about WP:Verifiability. BullRangifer noted that the assertion about the belief in ghosts came from a publication of the National Science Foundation. As the NSF is a reliable source, BullRangifer said he was entitled to state wherever he pleased that a belief in ghosts is pseudoscience.

A few weeks passed as editors tried to persuade BullRangifer that he was mistaken about Wikipedia's policy. Editors tried to tell BullRangifer that Wikipedia is not a place for eccentric opinions or whimsy, and that the source of such opinions or whimsy is irrelevant. User:Hans Adler pointed out that "Ultimately, Wikipedia is about truth," but BullRangifer refused to be persuaded. (The dispute may be found at Talk:Ghost/pseudoscience and at Talk:Ghost).

In early April, as the result of a Request for Comment, editors formed a consensus which might be summarized as this: Hans Adler is right; BullRangifer is wrong. Editors removed the statements by BullRangifer from the articles in which he had put them.

Editors, please study what happened at Talk:Ghost. Do not make the same mistake that BullRangifer made. PYRRHON  talk   15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Was it really, really necessary to link User:BullRangifer's name 12(!) times? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from the Uninvolved

It's somewhat difficult to tell from the above specifically what the contention is, considering the large amount of personal needling going on. It would seem intuitive that if there is so much speculation on Hudson's origins, a section should exist detailing the notable theories in a neutral manner (e.g., indicating that they are nothing more than speculation, and sometimes self-serving speculation). Encyclopaedia Britannica is certainly a notable source, and given that many people (particular those educated before the time of the internet) will have learned much of what they know about small topics like this from famous print encyclopedias, it should certainly be included. Simply putting forward this factoid as the accepted story (i.e., as it appears in the current version) does not seem appropriate, however.

In short, I think what is appropriate would be a subsection dedicated to this very question, discussing all notable theories regarding his origins, and their relative merits. That these are extant theories is verifiable, that they are notable should also be verifiable for the ones that are, in fact, notable, and finally that they are little more than speculation is also verifiable. If I have mischaracterized the contention here, please let me know and I will reanalyze the situation and reframe my response appropriately. siafu (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea at all what all of that about Ghosts is. I have no concern with the overall shape of this article or Henry Hudson's origins. ALl I know is that the Encyclopedia Brittanica is a reliable subject. Thus, deleting it as a source for the date is wrong. You can include other sources as well showing different dates, as long as they are reliable. The section described by User:siafu is fine, so long as EB is a part of that section.Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm not going to read the discussion about ghosts, but Wikipedia is explicitly not about truth. See the very first sentence of the 5th of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia: WP:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Qwyrxian (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@siafu and @Jack of Oz: The article is not about a topic in science. There are no notable theories here. Every assertion about Henry Hudson's origins is speculation, which is to say guesswork and whimsy. Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of assertion. Wikipedia is a place for fact.

@Qwyrxian: I have already summarized Talk:Ghost for you. I have invited you to read Talk:Ghost/pseudoscience. If you prefer to speak from ignorance, I do not see that I can do more to help you understand that Jonas Poole has the better opinion here. PYRRHON  talk   22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that what happened at another page is irrelevant. Policy is extremely clear here. If you want to debate whether or not EB is a reliable source, we can take that discussion to the reliable sources discussion board. If you do no accept EB as a reliable source, than the date is a legitimate inclusion. Again, you are welcome to include other sources as well to show that the date is debated among scholars--that's a great addition to an article when reliable sources can show it. But I feel like you're instead starting from the "fact" there is no reliable origin information, then proceeding to the conclusion that EB must be unreliable because the give such information. That's just not acceptable. We start from sources, not from "facts." Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a notable theory in this case, since notability is divorced from validity. Crazy theories, if sufficiently well-known, can be notable. I'm not an expert on Henry Hudson in particular, much less the surrounding historiography but it certainly seems intuitive that some of the theories mentioned would fall under this categorization. siafu (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make this into an edit war. You cannot remove sourced material from reliable sources from the article. Policy is unbelievably clear on this point. Please provide evidence that EB is unreliable. Until you have addressed this point, you have no justification for removing that date. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just reverted myself, because I don't want to be accused of WP:3RR. However, I fully expect that you will explain your reversion, and not with an analogy or an appeal to "the truth." Right now, as it stands, I am attempting to include/support another editor's inclusion of clearly sourced material from a source that is widely considered reliable. I haven't heard yet your argument explaining how EB is unreliable. Please address this issue, or we will continue to have problems on this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The essence of this matter was stated by Hans Adler at Talk:Ghost and was accepted by the consensus of editors there:

"Verifiability is the threshold that something needs to cross before it can be included. It doesn't follow that we have to mention everything that is "verifiable" in our technical sense. Especially if it's neither notable nor correct, as in this case, we simply leave it out. It's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to spread non-notable misinformation."

PYRRHON  talk   16:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But it is notable. And it is correct to report what reliable sources say (that his birth and death dates are both uncertain to some degree). So your point above is irrelevant. Uncertainty is a matter of degree, not a black and white thing. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) To Pyrrhon8: I have managed to find time to briefly look over Talk:Ghost/pseudoscience. It seems to bear on our problem here, but ultimately gives us no answers. The problem at that page revolved around the fact that one user had taken a document written by a group (the NSB) broadly associated with the NSF (the reliable source in question), taken out a few lines, and argued that this justified his position, because a "reliable source" "verified" his claim. However, as everyone else pointed out, the reliable source he was referring to never made such a statement, and that, whoever it was that made the statement, they did so in passing, and thus that statement could not be relied on. In order to apply that logic here, you would need to show that this particular claim in EB (a source known to be generally reliable) is, shall we say, not up to snuff, in the light of other documents on the subject. I see several problems with this argument. One is that we don't have the same type of division between bodies (NSF vs. NSB) that Ghost had--we just have the one encyclopedia editing staff. The other is that this source doesn't even broadly disagree with other sources. Some people might even argue that "c. 1565" means approximately the same thing as "probably some time in the 1560s" or "some time around 1570." So...that leaves me back at the proposal I made below. Given the sources Jonas has presented, it certainly does seem to me that there is dispute about the date. However, several reliable sources make at least approximations for the date. It seems appropriate for us to include that all of that information (or, at least as much as we can without running into WP:WEIGHT problems). I've even offered in my proposal below to have the infobox explicitly state that the exact date is unknown. However, I firmly object to the refusal to allow EB to be one of the reliable sources we use, especially since it's information is not substantially different from that in other sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I don't think Hans Adler got any sort of consensus at all that at its core Wikipedia really is about the truth. I mean, that's a fine opinion to hold, but it doesn't match policy at all, so it still holds no weight. But I don't think that really matters for this discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re birth date

I propose that "c. 1565" be replaced in all instances by "birth date unknown". Such replacement would cause the article to state only what is true. Wikipedia should state only what is true. PYRRHON  talk   22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

First, re: Ghost: What a certain editor determined on a certain article and the consensus reached there have only marginal impact on our discussion here--it's interesting, but not at all binding (really, if you want to change how we determine what to include in articles in general, you need to propose changes at a much higher level, like on Talk:Verifiability.

Second, your proposal (and that implied by your summary of that other article's discussion) is 1) contrary to policy (Wikipedia as far as I can read the policies and guidelines, has only a tangential interest in truth); and 2) Simply unworkable. Let's assume we followed your principle and that we should state only what is "true" here. That's fine. I hereby declare, then, that it is true that Henry Hudson was born in February 1566. That's true. Trust me. Oh wait, you can't, can you? In the same way, I can't trust your declaration of truth either. I, mean, I trust your statement a little more than mine because I assume you believe in good faith that the birth date is unknown, whereas I'm just making stuff up. But I only trust your statement a very small amount more. And I most certainly trust your declaration of "truth" about seventeen thousand times less than I trust EB's. This is the problem with trying to fall back on "truth"--reasonable Wikipedia editors will disagree about what the truth is about any given fact (or even in general--I, for example, don't even believe in truth the way you mean it). However, it's a lot easier to agree on what is verifiable, because that's just a matter of looking at what's written/said somewhere. As long as we can agree that a certain source is reliable (and I haven't yet seen an argument from you explaining why EB isn't reliable), then it's (relatively) easy to determine what to include. I am going to offer an alternate proposal, but I need to do a few other things first today. I'll post it when it's coherent. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal for Date of Birth

As an alternative to the above proposal, I propose that the following multi-pronged approach:

• The opening paragraph of "Life and career" will be expanded to include more information about his various possible birth years using a reasonable (e.g., non-excessive) number of reliable sources. This will be phrased to highlight the fact that there is no consensus on his year of birth. It would be ideal if we had a scholarly source that explicitly stated that there is a lack of evidence about his early years that we could cite. As with all Wikipedia articles, our criteria for including any given source will be based on that source's reliabilty, not based upon any preconceived ideas any of us have about what is or isn't "true." One caveat to this is that we will need to take care that this section does not run too long, because we don't want to make it appear that there is a raging debate about his date of birth that has much significance in analyzing his life (i.e., don't violate WP:UNDUE).
• As soon as such a section is added with reliable sources, we will change the "Born" part of the infobox to read "Disputed--see below." Alternatively, if all of our reliable sources places fall into a nice range, it can read "c. 15xx - c. 15xx--see below."
• Until such time as others sources are found, we will maintain the page as is ("c.1565"), since right now we have one reliable source with one approximate (circa) date. As with all cases of adding/restoring info to Wikipedia, the burden of providing verification falls on those who wish to add information.

I believe that this proposal more accurately reflects general Wikipedia editing principles as well as Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially WP:V and WP:NOR. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Into a nice range? All sources are blindly going to say the same thing, that he was born c. 1565-70 because no one wants to do any damn research but just copy one another and be lazy idiots. At least Mancall, Fatal Journey (2009), can sometimes think for himself: "The date and place of his birth remain uncertain... He was probably born in the 1560s..." (p. 43). And Sandler, in his terribly boring and pointless Henry Hudson: Dreams and Obsession (2007): "Without any documents or certainty, many historians believe Hudson was born about 1570... " (p. 26). So are we going to put: um, probably born 1560s or 1570s? err, we don't really know. we just like filling in spaces with nonsense. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If it means we can reach consensus, I'm more than happy to just use "Disputed--see below," as long as we add several sources and explanation into the first paragraph of "Life and career." For example, we can make the first paragraph read as follows:

"The exact birth date of Hudson is unknown. Some sources have identified Hudson as having been born circa 1565,<EncycBrit reference>, while others place it around 1570.<Sandler reference>. Other historians assert even less certainty; Mancall, for instance, states that '[Hudson] was probably born in the 1560s.'<Mancall reference>"

One or two other reliable sources could be incorporated as well. If it really matters, I think there's even a way to phrase it with the least certain (Mancall) info first. This seems reasonable to me, as it maintains a variety of disagreeing reliable sources (note that you still haven't provided me any reason to doubt the widely held consensus that EB is generally reliable), and having the infobox explicitly point to the dispute ("see below") helps point to the fact that scholars have guesses but not certainties. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In fairness (and to support my case), I should point out that this proposal is approximately what siafu proposed and Jack of Oz supported above. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I approximately support it as well, although I would've retained Chadwick as a source (his discussion of Hudson's birthdate was quite nuanced: WP:SPS are barred for BLPs, which this isn't).--Michael C. Price ^talk 06:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

After looking more closely at WP:SPS, I see that it's a little more complex than I initially thought; however, if you don't mind, I'd prefer to hold that issue until after we settle on the overall issue of how to handle the dates. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Qwyrxian wants to do, as along as it is exactly as he proposes it to be. Otherwise, no bueno. Jonas Poole (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Commentary

I'd have to disagree on Chadwick though. I don't think you should be able to use a source created by someone borderline retarded (an established fact, for Chadwick as well as Farley Mowat). Jonas Poole (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Your "borderline retarded" assessment just shows how unqualified you are to assess sources. --Michael C. Price talk 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Unqualified? This coming from a certified computer program. At least I have original thoughts, unlike certain programs that can only compute: "WP guidelines this, WP guidelines that. I have no soul." Hey, MCP. Go fuck yourself? That should be easy seeing as how you have both sex organs. Strange a computer program should even have sex organs, but what do I know? Jonas Poole (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Qwyrxian wants to do. PYRRHON  talk   16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pennington indicates the lifetime of Hudson by using "(? - 1611)". Pennington says, "Nothing is known of the birth or early life of Hudson." Butts says, "No record of his birth has ever been found, but it has been estimated that he was probably born about 1570." (Citations are in wikitext.) PYRRHON  talk   22:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears like we may actually have consensus. Okay, I'm going to add the information as discussed, trying to incorporate the Pennington and Butts as well. After I'm done, I'll leave an "underconstruction" tag in that section. Whenever you have a chance, Jonas, please go in and add the references for Mancall and Sandler, then remove the tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Added! Also, Jonas, I request that you redact your comments above about the mental fitness of Chadwick and other researchers. While it is not clear to me if the WP:BLP rules apply to article talk spaces, it seems to me that such blatant attacks are not helpful to our discussions. Let's try to be WP:CIVIL, okay? I'll open a new section below about Chadwick. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fresh start

I think it's time to step back and ask ourselves if it is really sensible for the infobox and lead say his birth date is disputed without giving a summarising estimate. All other articles just acknowledge uncertainty with a "c." or "?", and we should just follow standard practice. Any objections to "c.1560/70s"? --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it troublesome that you chose now to make this change, given that the primary opponent of using either of those approaches is unable to respond. I'm worried that this is just going to further his ire and cause an edit war when he returns. Can you at least provide examples of your claim that "All other articles just acknowledge uncertainty with a 'c.' or '?'?" I don't usually follow pages for which this is an issue.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Troublesome? The cause of the trouble is presently blocked for his outrageous behaviour and probably heading for a permaban if he continues (which I expect he will). However editing WP articles is not about trying to compromise with individuals who won't compromise but just abuse others with a stream of 4-letter invectives, it is about applying uniform standards and practices. One practice here (and in the wider literature) is to denote uncertainty in dates with "circa". It's just common sense, for Pete's sake, do you really need an example? Okay, well try the encyclopedia britannia ref. It is stated explicitly at circa. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I meant examples of Wikipedia pages of people who have disputed birth/death/etc. dates. EB's date labelling practices are not binding here. Now, having said that, I looked at a few other pages of historical people whom I guessed were similar in our current lack of knowledge of their birth dates, and I see that they do usually use the "c" or "circa." Personally, I have no problem with the way you changed the infobox--it seems sufficiently vague for me. On the other hand, I also didn't mind the way I had it before. My goal here is just to try to find a compromise that will prevent edit wars. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens; my hope is that, should Jonas return here, he'll find the current vagueness acceptable. I doubt that any scholars seriously believe he was born outside of that time period, because that's introducing a lot of uncertainty, but, again, I'm not a Hudson scholar. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ian Chadwick as a source?

User:Michael C Price has proposed now and previously to use Ian Chadwick's website as a source for this article. I think we can all agree that this website definitely falls under the category of Self Published Sources. WP:V states that while in general SPS should not be used, "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Thus, if M.Price wants to include the material, the burden is on him to show us 1) Chadwick is an "established expert" on Henry Hudson, and 2) There is no non-SPS that contains Chadwick's ideas/words that we can't use more appropriately. As the one proposing to add him, the burden lies on you, Michael; absent such a showing, I definitely think said website should not be used as a source. Personally, reading Chadwick's biography on his own site, I don't see how he qualifies, but I am certainly no expert on either biographers in general or Chadwick in specific.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ian Chadwick's biography of Henry Hudson is referenced in the Hudson literature.

1. Judith Edwards in Henry Hudson and His Voyages of Exploration in World History, page 125
2. Spooky New York: Tales of Hauntings, Strange Happenings, and Other Local Lore by S. E. Schlosser, Paul G Hoffman, page 224
3. Henry Hudson: in search of the Northwest Passage by Steven Otfinoski, page 75
4. Origins: Canadian history to Confederation by R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, Donald B. Smith, page 135

--Michael C. Price ^talk 06:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So why is it that we can't just cite those sources instead of Chadwick's blog? What is the specific advantage of his blog (which we have to debate to include it) rather than using these easily agreed upon RS?Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Online convenience for editors (and readers). --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing OR & POV in 1607 & 1608 section

I pulled out a whole paragraph and significant parts of a second in this section. On the first, if subsequent research has shown those early claims to be patently false, we don't need to include the info here. If we do, it should done in a different way (say, in a section on historical scholarship of Hudson--see, for example, the way the Age of the Earth page is laid out).

On the second paragraph, I removed the extremely OR reference note that said "Many uncritical authors have blindly stated the above." Then I rephrased the second part. It was very close to OR, because it was relying entirely on primary sources. We need to rely primarily on secondary sources that have interpreted the primary sources, not our own analysis of the primary sources. I still don't like this paragraph, because it (along with the birth date paragraph) reads like WP:HOWEVER, so I'd love another editors take to fix that problem.

When I have time, I'm going to look more closely at the rest of the article for similar problems. Again, Wikipedia must reflect what reliable secondary sources have said about the topic, not our own research or opinions on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

On my talk page, Jonas posted the following:

I can't tell you how many times I've come across a source (books, websites, papers, etc.) that blindly state that Hudson discovered Jan Mayen. Some even try to rationalize why he didn't mention the discovery himself! I think its very important that this myth be dispelled. That's why it needs to be included on the Henry Hudson page as well as the Jan Mayen page.

I moved the content portion of his comment here so that all editors can discuss. I have two problems with including the Jan Mayen info. The first is that the only example you have of scholars including the misinformation is Edge. I don't know when he published, but it's obviously before 1922 (since you have Wordie responding to him in the footnote). If scholars already decided 80 years ago that this was false information, we should not be including it here; instead it belongs in a section on "historical beliefs/scholarship about Hudson." Second, your "proof" that Jayen discovered the island is not from a reliable source--it's from the original, primary, 1625 Purchas. In order to include the "fact" that Poole discovered the island, you need reliable secondary sources. If such sources do not exist, this is original research. I have no problem with Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, including information specifically to dispell commonly held beliefs (a good example of this I found recently is vomitorium). But it can only do so through the mouth of other, reliable sources. We cannot use Wikipedia to advance our own theories just because we believe common perception to be wrong. For the moment, all I'm going to do is add a citation needed tag at the end of that paragraph. As long as we can attribute that "correction" to a reliable source, and we can make sure we're not giving undue weight to what may be a "dead" issue, then the info can stay. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I do appreciate that you've left out the more extremely POV language from that section, especially the footnote. I'm still concerned it's a little bit POV: I am concerned that the article now seems to declare with certainty that it was not Hudson's reports that led to whaling. Is that the current consensus among scholars today? If not, the article needs to reflect current historian's thinking (i.e., it needs to say there's two opinions, not say that one is right and one is wrong). Can someone with access the actual sources and the greater debate confirm what the current analysis of Hudson's role in whaling is? If it's in dispute, the article should definitely reflect that. If it's really "decided" now that he was not the one responsible, then we should cast that theory as "old"/"dated" and the currently accepted theory as it being the effect of others.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Many modern authors have stated that Hudson discovered Jan Mayen (Butts, Hunter, Sandler, and just about every other author who has ever written about him). Hunter was the one (see the Jan Mayen page) who thought his crew might have mutinied at this time, which would have been the reason (in his backward logic, anyhow) why Hudson didn't mention the discovery. This, as is stated on the Jan Mayen page, is pure speculation.

Poole didn't discover the island, he merely was searching for Hudson's Hold with Hope. Fotherby was merely the first confirmed English expedition to reach the island. The Dutch and (possibly) the French found the island the previous year. And I don't understand your logic for Purchas? He is the source for Fotherby's 1615 voyage. So why can't we use the primary source for his info on his voyage if every other secondary source would simply use him in the first place???

My "theories"? There's only one guy on earth (Louwrens Hacquebord) who possibly knows more about this subject (the Spitsbergen and Jan Mayen whaling dispute, which would include their early exploration and cartography), and once I'm fluent in Dutch I'll know more than him. The only other two people who knew more than me (Conway and Dalgard) are dead, so I'm first or second place by default. I have a better grasp of this subject than any of the "historians" who write about it. So don't get me started with "theories". I'm merely presenting the facts. Jonas Poole (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And it is a fact that Hudson's reports didn't lead to the establishment of the English whaling trade. It is specifically stated (as I've already said multiple times!) that it was the direct result of Poole's 1610 report of a "great store of whales" that led to a whaling expedition (of which he was the pilot!) being sent the following year. Hudson has blindly been stated by lazy authors who can ony cite other secondary sources because they're too incompetent to do their own research that it was his 1607 voyage that led to English whaling expeditions being sent to Spitsbergen. Had the Muscovy Company been spurred by Hudson's reports they would have sent expeditions there in 1608 and 1609, but they didn't. It was Poole's hunting and exploratory expedition in 1610, as stated above, that led to the trade being established in England. The end. Jonas Poole (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to focus in on your paragraph that start with "My theories?" This confirms what I had thought--that you are a real world expert on Henry Hudson. I think it's great that you're contributing to the article--it's rare for Wikipedia to have access to true experts. The problem with a lot of this article is that you're writing from primary sources. Now, of course, that's exactly what an academic should do. However, Wikipedia has to rely on referring primarily to secondary sources. This is because we have no way, through the internet to verify that any given editor is an expert on any given subject matter. Furthermore, we have no way to verify that said expert's opinion represents the consensus in the field. For example, by official Wikipedia policy, even if your theories (and, btw, all academic positions are theories/arguments; no academic has incontrovertible claim to truth) are "true"/"correct," if they are not the consensus theory shared by most academics, they cannot be the only or even the main theory put forward here. There are countless other venues where academics can present their latest research findings to the public and their academic peers. Wikipedia, however, is not one of them. Wikipedia policy is extraordinarily clear on this: 1) Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and 2) Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, primarily via reference to secondary (not primary) evidence/texts. Now, if you add secondary sources to this article (journal articles, books, etc.), we will all assume good faith on your part that those texts represent consensus positions (unless some one else with access to other journals has competing arguments). But we cannot and should not take you at your word that you have interpreted the primary texts correctly while countless other have not. This issue comes up over and over again in academic articles across Wikipedia. In some cases, the experts are pushing theories that they can prove with sources are the consensus within their peers. In other cases, the experts are actually pushing fringe theories that no one else accepts. Wikipedia makes it fairly easy for us to avoid having to decide which expert is right--we don't argue about the "truth," we argue about verifiability.

tl;dr: WP:OR requires secondary sources, not original research. Put those sources in instead of telling me/us on the talk page that you're obviously right, and the disagreement is solved. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks to Jonas for adding in that source--it definitely fixes the OR concern. I'll look at the Chadwick below when I get the time, but my gut reaction is that I'd rather use Chadwick's "reliable" sources rather than the blog (with a possibility that the blog could go into external links, but I'll need to look up WP:EL policy). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen?

What are these references to Spitsbergen? That's by Norway, not Greenland. What do these bays and so on have to do with Hudson's explorations? I would delete them. Alandeus (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's actually about an equal distance to both. Also, I would say one of the first regions he explored and named on his first voyage is pretty relevant considering this is the first time he definitively appears in the historical record. Baily'sMacomb (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Checking other history books, I found that Hudson did indeed wind up by Spitzbergen after sailing up Greenland. Made this clear with an edit on Aug. 13th: "After turning east, they sighted "Newland" (i.e Spitsbergen)..." Alandeus (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

First voyage Dutch ?

Wasn't Henry contracted and paid for the first voyage by the WIC ?

Seems English speaking countries try to claim all history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.41.45 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is henry hudson so famous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.194.148.14 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

In "Birth and early life", there is a citation needed ("Hudson is thought [by whom?] to have spent many years at sea..."

The idea is discussed in Fatal Journey by Mancall on page 44: "Presumably Hudson had been involved with earlier ventures in exploration, because it is virtually impossible that an inexperienced sailor could have otherwise obtained the financing to captain such an expedition." (1607's expedition on the Hopewell). 184.174.142.47 (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Done --Mdann52talk to me! 15:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014

no 163.153.38.6 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2015

Henry Hudson was a *Dutch* sea explorer. 108.49.114.216 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)hi i am henry hudson

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.meamemg (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Henry Hudson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141010041822/https://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090613/888/twl-did-henry-hudson-s-crew-murder-him-i.html to http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090613/888/twl-did-henry-hudson-s-crew-murder-him-i.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Henry Hudson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110628030233/http://www.halfmoon.mus.ny.us:80/Juets-modified.pdf to http://www.halfmoon.mus.ny.us/Juets-modified.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170329051646/http://canadiancoinnews.com/thomas-button-searches-for-remains-of-henry-hudson/ to http://canadiancoinnews.com/thomas-button-searches-for-remains-of-henry-hudson/

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) 05:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHenry_Hudson&preload=Template%3ASubmit+an+edit+request%2Fpreload&action=edit&section=new&editintro=Template%3AEdit+semi-protected%2Feditintro&preloadtitle=Semi-protected+edit+request+on+14+February+2018&preloadparams%5B%5D=edit+semi-protected&preloadparams%5B%5D=Henry+Hudson

Is not trusted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.131.75.42 (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

199.172.235.202 (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC) he died in 1612 I am a history teacher

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. aboideau^talk 13:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

H.B.C.

"Besides numerous geographical features, Hudson is also the namesake of Hudson's Bay Company, known for its exploration..."

Obviously incorrect. H.B.C. is obviously named for the Bay, not the man. 2603:3005:611A:0:ECEC:9F87:D14A:72B1 (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Hudson's landing at Manhattan Island (later to become New York City) in 1609. This seems fairly important, yet it is not mentioned in the current version of the article. More information

173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

The Hudson Mutiny (2015), a documentary film about the English explorer Henry Hudson and his search for a route to the Indies across the poles and through the Northwest Passage directed by Nicholas Kinsey and produced by Cinegrafica Films on Reelhouse.com (https://www.reelhouse.org/cinegrafica/the-hudson-mutiny) Mrzef123 (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

The Hudson Mutiny (2015), a documentary film about the English explorer Henry Hudson and his search for a route to the Indies across the poles and through the Northwest Passage. His final voyage ended in disaster when he was set adrift in an open boat with his young son and several crew members in Hudson Bay in the Canadian Arctic and never seen again. The film is directed by Nicholas Kinsey and produced by Cinegrafica Films. ; Mrzef123 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The film and director are both not notable; see WP:WTAF. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

it go ree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.174.54 (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)