Jump to content

Talk:Mary Rose/Archive 1

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

10 August 1512

The comment about the battle on 10 August 1512 is wrong. No french ships were captured, and the english fleet should be 25, at least 25 warships anyway. After the battle the English scoured the nearby coastline and captured a few dozen ships, raided ashore etc. i think they later came back and repeated the process, but this wasn't during the battle, and the ships captured were likely small merchant vessels. SpookyMulder 12:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Length

Now that this is a pretty long and thorough article, shouldn't the request for expansion be removed? Hyperman 42 18:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Guns

Can someone more knowledgeable on the subject please clarify how a ship can have 91 guns and 30 gunners? TDIPete 09:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question - I thought at first the answer was going to be that the numbers of crew came from before the refit that increased her guns, but the 30 gunners comes from the Mary Rose official website and is apparently the figure recorded in 1545. Presumably the answer is that each gunner was in charge of more than one gun team. Viv Hamilton 09:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's more likely that the answer is that both sides of the ship didn't have to be manned at the same time. The Mary Rose was built in a time of broadside gunnery and sailing vessels that were extremely slow in maneuvering. Unless she was actually surrounded, there would be no point in manning all 91 guns at the same time. Also, guns of the time had a very slow rate of fire and needed to cool off between shots so they wouldn't blow up on its gun crew. For comparison, the maximum rate of fire of the 24-pounders of Vasa was a mere 10 shots/hour.
Peter Isotalo 08:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Improvement ideas

The article on the Vasa recently made Featured Article status, so editors looking to improve this article may want to look to it for ideas. Johntex\talk 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from elsewhere

Can you encorporate any of this? --Secisek (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant article?

From the Toronto Star, Aug. 2 2008 - "New theory emerges on Mary Rose sinking: B.C. criminologist says teeth, bones of sailors point to Spanish crew aboard English warship" 86.136.248.48 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting theory, but a very new one (and a few flaws in it as it's reported are immediately obvious - being of Spanish origin does not unnecessarily mean that a sailor could not understand English, or even that this was the cause of the gun ports being left open). According to the article, this theory is due to be published in a journal, where it will presumably be reviewed by experts in the field, and will qualify as a Reliable source. I'd suggest waiting for this to happen, so we can see how best to incorporate any new information, rather than jumping a gun and being seen to promote controversial or potentially flawed new theories. Benea (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes there was a programme on TV about this the other day - typically for a TV programme it was promoted as being the true explanation but it can't be given too much weight until there are several other pieces of information that could point to the same conclusion. Once it is published though I do think it merits inclusion as one possible explanation of what occurred. Martocticvs (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible info box

History
The Royal Arms of Henry VIIIEnglish Navy
NameMary Rose
NamesakeThe sister of Henry VIII
Launched1510
HomeportPortsmouth, England
General characteristics in the English navy
Displacement500 tons (700 after 1536)
Length89 feet
Beam39 feet
Propulsionsail
Crew200 sailors, 185 soldiers, and 30 gunners
Armament78 guns (91 after an upgrade in 1536)

Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not bad - I reduced the flag size to something more consistent, though it isn't really the best one to use - I might knock up a more appropriate Tudor ensign at some point. What is your source for the information? Martocticvs (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sunk by French cannonfire?

A new theory: BBC News | Mary Rose 'sunk by French cannon' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.149.42 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Added. — Aldaron • T/C 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Update assistance

I've been working on a major update of this article for a few months now and I have been tinkering with it at a sub-page of mine that can be found at user:Peter Isotalo/novelties. The reason for my not doing the editing in article space is because I've wanted to submit it as a DYK. There's also the matter of waiting for a possible image donation from the Mary Rose Trust that is in the works. Anticipating that the update will be realized within a few weeks, I'm inviting anyone who's interested in improving the quality of the update (and to share DYK credits) to freely edit the above mentioned draft.

Peter Isotalo 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The principle DYK update has now been implemented. A request will soon be placed at T:TDYK to have this article featured either on January 3 or 4 (not decided which is best yet) to coincide with a press release about an image donation from the Mary Rose Trust. The images themselves will be uploaded just before the press release on January 3 and will be inserted into this and other articles just after. For more info and discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Scheduling a DYK date.
And help with improving the article in time for the press release is of course greatly appreciated.
Peter Isotalo 13:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought an article had to be of featured status before main-page exposure. Perhaps they make exceptions. Tony (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
It's going to be featured on the main page rather than Featured. The article's undergone a five-fold expansion so will be in the DYK section. Unfortunately, I don't see a way of getting the article through FAC in time for 4 January. Nev1 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Dablinks tool shows currently 22 links from this article to disambiguation pages. --Una Smith (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. Only divider and pontoon remain, and I'm not entirely sure what to do with them. Neither has dedicated articles to the meanings referred to here.
Peter Isotalo 23:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Those two now dealt with. --Una Smith (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He he

(*Channels Beavis and Butt-head* He he, bollock dagger, he he.) No, seriously, what a fantastic article. I've gone through and made a few edits, mostly for British English spelling. Very impressed indeed: well done all. 86.148.48.248 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(*Uhuhuhuhuh! Pansy...*) Thank you very much for the compliment, anon.
Peter Isotalo 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, uh, who would be more gratified by you two, uh, young men: Beavis or Butt-head. Heheheheh. --Una Smith (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Information about why things were the way they were on ships of her date

The Mary Rose is one ship of her date about which the most is known. Often the wreck of Mary Rose is the source of information on ships of her date, etc. It therefore makes good sense to have explanation why things were the way they were in the article on this ship.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is about the reversion of my shortening of the intro to "Armament". The problem is that I've noticed that the text is extremely long for a very narrow topic. Currently, the article is longer than either Han dynasty or World War II, which isn't entirely reasonable. My cut was the one thing that wasn't directly related to the ship, which is why I thought it better to move it to naval tactics in the Age of Sail. That kind of info is relevant to all ships of this era, not just the Mary Rose, and none of it is actually a direct result of examinations of the Mary Rose itself. Is there really any reason to keep it all here?
Peter Isotalo 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

a few copy-edit queries

I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't quite sure what "broadside" meant. Know I know from having followed the link. While the link needs to be retained, it could have a brief glossing on the spot. Or not, since it might clutter what is otherwise a neat few sentences there. I don't know.

I removed "extant", but if it's desirable to stress the concept of the survival of that kind of knowledge (i.e., we're lucky, or it's rare), maybe reinstate.

I removed "precise" because of the repetition of ise ise, even though pronounced differently: "The precise cause of the demise". But I don't know whether it's necessary for the meaning.

Repetition needs to be watched; I know this only too well from my own writing. Why won't someone help to build a bot or script that flags close repetitions of non-grammatical words? I've asked. :-)

"In 1978, the newly formed Mary Rose Trust began the process of fully excavating and then raising the hull. In the last step of one of the most complex and expensive projects in the history of maritime archaeology the wreck of the Mary Rose was raised in October 1982." It seemed repetitive, so I removed "and then raising" (which was my wording anyway, to replace "followed by ...". I hope I haven't mangled it.

It's gotta be in BrEng, by the rules. I presume you prefer "ize", which is permissible but less common.

Not sure "musical instruments" deserves a link, unless there's a section-link that is more specific to ships, or a daughter article: "to the history of musical instruments". Musical instruments is a common term.

"Remained" and "remnant" are cognate; I'm trying to think of how to reword that to avoid the rep. Remnant is kind of nice.

Link to "Spain" is too common: I've made it more specific, which is acceptable: "Spain#Imperial_Spain".

"War had broken in 1508"—those few sentences don't make it clear who was at war with whom. The readers shouldn't have to hit the Cambria link to find out who was conspiring against Venice. If the League initilly included France, the ", but" is OK; if it didn't, "... and ..." is better.

"England had close economic ties with Spain through its possessions in the Low Countries and the young Henry" I guess "its" is clear enough.

I've taken out "the young" except on its first occurrence. Tony (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tony. Those all seemed like relevant points and I've tried to amend all of them. Let me know if anything still seems unclear.
Peter Isotalo 18:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Caption for first pic under conservation reads: "Between December 1985 and July 1985". I'm presuming this should be "December 1984" but I'll let someone who actually knows something about the topic address this. Phil wink (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.
Peter Isotalo 09:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible additions

Having finally found (well, excavated) Rule from my library (allright, my floor) I think I've found what it was I was hankering for during the article's FAC. The 2 main things are the reason for putting so much effort into the ship (because of its unique record) and raising the hull (because the removal of sediment exposed it to the ravages of the sea). So how about slightly tinkering with the 2nd paragraph of the Survey and excavation section to something like this:

By 1978 the initial excavation work had uncovered a complete and coherent site with an intact ship structure and the orientation of the hull had been positively identified as being on an almost straight northerly heading with a 60 degree heel to starboard and a slight downward tilt towards the bow. As no records of shipbuilding techniques used in vessels like the Mary Rose survive, excavation of the ship would allow for a detailed survey of her design and shed new light on the construction of ships of the era.(Rule (1983), p. 108.) A full excavation however, also meant removing the protective layers of silt that prevented the remaining ship structure from being destroyed through biological decay and the scouring of the currents; the operation had to be completed within a predetermined timespan of a few years or it risked irreversible damage. It was also considered desirable to recover and preserve the remains of the hull if possible. For the first time, the project was faced with the practical difficulties of actually raising, conserving and preparing the hull for public display. (Rule (1983), p. 72.)

Small change, but I think it helps. Any thoughts? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good improvement to me. Is "no records" really accurate, though? My memory fails me for accuracy and details here, but aren't there at least a few treatises on carracks from around that time preserved somewhere?
Peter Isotalo 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Peter, one matter which bothers me about this article, particularly as regards the ship's internal layout and armament, is the we are discussing two very different ships before and after the 1536 rebuilding (this was a rebuilding, and not a refit; one cannot turn a 500-ton ship into a 700-ton ship without taking her to pieces and extending her frame prior to rebuilding). Much of the discussion revolves around the data of the Mary Rose as she was post 1536 (understandably, after all, this is the material evidence most available); the original ship was significantly different in layout and armament. This needs to be clarified in the article. Ideally, the article should be sub-divided internally to separate the two differing identities. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Isn't this a matter of some dispute, though? That the ship was rebuilt to some degree in the 1530s appears to be generally accepted, but since no one knows exactly how and there are no records to prove what it consisted of, it would be rather difficult to discuss changes in detail. Considering how diffuse measurements of tonnage was in the 16th century, the 200-ton discrepancy appears very vague. (At least that was the impression I got from reading Marsden.) But I agree that some clarifications could probably be made. Peter Isotalo 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. I must confess I don't know the exact details of ship records, I'm just going with what Rule says on p108 - that "the earliest English ship plans are those of Matthew Baker, dating from around 1586 and there is no direct evidence of how ships of the Mary Rose type were designed. It was for this reason that the decision to totally excavate the Mary Rose was taken..." Ranger Steve (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That clears it up a bit; added the tweaks with the qualifier "English".
Peter Isotalo 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, nice bit of detail - good point! Looks good, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Peter, your reference to the 200-ton 'discrepancy' is somewhat misleading. Actually many analysts would now accept that the figures were somewhat more meaningful than your suggest, and the change from a 500-ton ship into a 700-ton ship was significant (as were the rebuildings of the Peter Pomegranate and the Henri Grace a Dieu under the same programme). One major change is that the acquisition of a full broadside battery for all three Great Ships was achived during this rebuilding - previously the ships as built had considerably fewer guns on the broadside (the large number of guns quoted in some contemporary sources were mostly smallish wrought-iron weapons, and few anti-ship bronze guns were mounted before the 1530s), and it is not even certain that their lower (gun) decks were continuous for the entire length of the ship until made so by the 1536/1539 rebuildings. Nicholas Rodger's The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain 660–1649 is quite helpful on naval ordnance developments at this period. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

They need to be done much more carefully. I gave this a cursory read when it was featured and found several spelling, punctuation and grammatic errors. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You corrected two minor typos. What do you want, a medal? Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates

I don't see the point of the use of {{coord}}, at least not with "display=title". Clicking on it I discover it's the co-ordinates of the Mary Rose Museum, which has its own article and its own coord. I expected the co-ordinates here to be of the wreck site. If co-ordinates are given, I suggest both (wreck site and museum site) should be given at the end, with appropriate explanation, rather than one being given at the start with no explanation. jnestorius(talk) 19:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its because the Mary Rose is still a ship (albeit rather worn, but complete enough to still be called a ship or remains of a ship by most). That ship is now at the museum in dry dock, and not at the wreck site. To me I think there's still enough solid matter to be followed from the sinking site to its present location. Co-ordinates to the wreck site would be a good idea if they aren't already present though. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I can follow your argument, but the mere fact that it needs such explication indicates that it's not sufficiently self-explanatory to be at the top of the article. jnestorius(talk) 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I also clicked on the coordinates hoping to learn exactly where in the Solent the wreck was found - and was disappointed to discover that the coords were for the museum. Aa77zz (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Wreck co-ordinates added inline. I would rather see them as "display-title", rather than those of the museum as shown at present. Check them on Bing Maps[1], not Google Earth, if you want accurate placing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I agree that the sinking co-ordinates should be in the article (I'm surprised to see that they don't appear to have been), but I think the co-ordinates above the infobox should remain as they are (ie. the drydock). This is common practice on wiki, as it gives the reader the actual location of the subject of the article. The wreck site is part of its history, but it isn't there anymore, so following a link to an open stretch of water will be just as confusing for many. I'll try and find time tomorrow to verify the current co-ordinates inserted with a couple of the refs listed in the article, unless Peter (who wrote this article) beats me to it Ranger Steve (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if you beat me to it, Steve. I've got too much quality vacationing to do. :-) One thing, though: am I the only one who thinks that placing a bunch of coordinates in text, in the lead looks, uhm, textually unharmonious? Couldn't we confine the full coordinates along with the link to the footnote?
Peter Isotalo 21:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That's one option. Another would be to have the exact co-ordinates in the main text in the sinking section. It is quite specific for the lead, and does appear to be slightly inharmonious (think that's the correct negative!). BTW Moonraker, I only assumed the co-ords might need checking based on your edit summary before I posted about the ref not necessarily being reliable. No offence intended! Anywhere nice for the hols Peter? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion: try it on Google Earth to see my problem. The point about too much detail in the lead (plus the ref) is valid. Easily solved by using title co-ordinates! --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(e/c again!) Or, another option would be to put both co-ords in the infobox in the fate section. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I heartily endorse that option. It may well be the case that an editor versed in wikipolicy knows that the co-ordinates floating at the top corner will be "current-location-of-largest-collection-of-remnants" but for the vast majority of users that will not be so. I am not suggesting putting the sinking-location there instead, I'm suggesting putting nothing there because neither location will be obvious enough to the average reader. jnestorius(talk) 23:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current wording in the infobox: "sank in battle now a museum ship" neatly lends itself to that solution. While there, does anyone have a view on the "Museum ship" link? That article doesn't appear to be about ships in museums. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that the Vasa Museum actually has several other vessels that are "museum ships" in the true sense of the term, but it still seems fair to say that Vasa is a museum ship. The major difference compared to Victory and various modern battleships is that she's simply too fragile to float or be entered by the general public.
Peter Isotalo 09:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The position of the wreck is given as 50°46′N 1°06′W. This is clearly to the nearest minute (where 1' in latitude = 1 nautical mile = 1854 m). Googling I found this site which includes a very detailed map of the wreck with coordinates. From the map it appears that the wreck was centred at 50°45.8' N 1°6.25' W – which is in agreement with the position given in the article. Based on this information (and using this link to calculate distances) I've changed the distance to the entrance to Portsmouth harbour to 3km (rather than 2.7km) but kept the same lat and long. Aa77zz (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservation

I decided to be bold and remove this: "PEG was sprayed over ship timbers for several years so that it would penetrate the wood and gradually replace the water. The years of PEG saturation were followed by a long period of controlled air drying." from the conservation section. Their function was unclear to me. At first glance they seemed to refer to the conservation proces of the Vasa, whitch isn't relevant for this article. Maybe they were meant to give more information about PEG. But that information is repeated in the description of the conservation of the Mary Rose. Also, since they weren't referenced I saw no harm in deleting them. No worries, Ineverheardofhim (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference consolidation

The article has more than a hundred reference entries, many of them to some dozen works. High time for the Rp template.

—Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to revert all that converting, but I'm not going to support this. Out of all the variants of references we have to choose from, this is probably the only one that I flat-out refuse to recognize as useful. It's difficult to read, virtually unknown outside Wikipedia and overall extremely tedious. It forces readers to basically scan a note twice, and it doesn't even do it consistently. Overall, I'm not even keen on any reference templates since I believe they only add unnecessary code which make article more difficult to edit for newbies.
Peter Isotalo 07:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a new medium, and calls for new styles. The thing is that having all the notes replicated for each page mentioned make it difficult to see which are the works cited, and make the reference section ugly and confusing; it does not do to carry over to web pages styles originally intended for footnotes, segregated by pages. Also, the reference templates actually make it easier to edit for newbies, because they are easier to understand and follow than the guidelines for manual formatting. As I see you have quite strong personal preferences, I hope you are not the one to have final say alone.
—Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The format you're suggesting is probably the least attractive reference system out there. In practice, it's a complicated mix of several standards where the type of notation varies depending on whether a reference is used multiple times or not. It requires the reader to first remember the page number and then click the link to see the specification of the article note. And that's just for those who actually understand the system at once. For those who don't, it's bound to be confusing, thereby lowering its usefulness drastically. And that's without even pointing out one of the strongest arguments: it's not familiar system to those who are actually used to notes. If there's actually a need to reinvent the wheel for Wikipedia, it has to be done by coming with a system that is actually intuitive and easier to handle than the old standards. This one is neither. The endnote system we use on Wikipedia, with its lack of multiple-page stucture, works just as fine as in any printed material (where endnotes are anything but a rarity). I've never seen anyone complain about that.
Peter Isotalo 15:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The combination of clickable and non-clickable didn't help usability at all. Clumsy and awkward. And I'm a fan of reference templates. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that flew right over my head.
— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that you've already been advised on this matter before. Please don't make such major alterations to articles - especially articles that have endured the rigours of an FA assessment - without discussion. I see no benefits to your preferred manner of referencing, nor any support for it here or anywhere else. Can you please link to the appropriate guideline? Ranger Steve Talk 15:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Leandro, as far as I understand, Moonraker was referring about the fact that the Rp-template provides an internal link to the expanded reference details right next to a page specification, which isn't clickable. At the same time the two look extremely similar. That's also my opinion. It's quite impractical in digital form and even moreso on print.
Peter Isotalo 11:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Space travel & Mary Rose

Mary Rose to be taken to space as Atlantis Space Shuttle crew borrow section of ship. Worthy of a mention? AshLin (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Same as with "Hatch". It needs an appropriate context, or it'll amount to "oh and did you know"-trivia.
Peter Isotalo 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reburial of bones

Back in '82 there was talk that the recovered mariners' bones would be reinterred after study and the Sarum Rite was suggested as the appropriate funeral service. The Mary Rose website seems to indicate that the bones are still being studied and preserved. Have any bones been reinterred and has there ever been a memorial service specifically for the sailors? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2013

Please change the final sentence in the article from ....

"In September 2009 the temporary Mary Rose display hall was finally closed to visitors to facilitate construction of the new £35 million museum building, which is expected to open to the public in 2012.[141]"

to ....

"In September 2009 the temporary Mary Rose display hall was finally closed to visitors to facilitate construction of the new £35 million museum building, which is expected to open to the public on the 31st May 2013.[141]"

because the Mary Rose museum is currently quoting this opening date on their web site as referenced by citation 141.

Thank you. T.shed (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2013

Someone with access to edit please correct this wording thanks, currently says" Analysis of oxygen isotopes in teeth indicates that some were also of southern European ancestry" Oxygen Isotopes don't reveal anything about ancestry, they indicate where the person was living during the time their adult teeth were forming. "Origin" would be a better word than "ancestry". Beelzebubbles1972 (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds sensible and logical, but unfortunately the sentence in question is supported by two citations: Gardiner (2005), p. 12 and Stirland (2000), p. 149. Both look to be authoritative, so any change needs to be done by someone with access to both books to check the wording. If you can provide an authoritative citation to support your case then the article could be changed, possible with a hidden note left for editors to check up on the quote. I'm sorry to put a damper on your first contribution to Wikipedia, it is valued, and I would hope it will be investigated in due course. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The source of this "quote" isn't available online, and it's unlikely anyone will ever look it up on paper, so this plainly-wrong wording will be up on Wikipedia forever because someone badly paraphrased an inaccessible source. Oh well, I tried, but if policy prefers to leave something up that everyone knows is wrong....meh. Beelzebubbles1972 (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The original poster has a good point, this does read as a mistaken paraphrasing. Oxygen isotopes are not connected with genealogical ancestry, and even if you use ancestry in possibly too broad a sense to mean the geographical location of the seamen's ancestors, this is wrong as well. The oxygen isotopes show where the seaman lived as a child, his ancestry may actually be from a completely different part of the world, but the isotopes will show where he personally happened to grow up. While I'm not able to access Gardiner or Stirland, Cheryl A. Fury's The Social History of English Seamen, 1485-1649, p. 73 and Roberta Gilchrist's Medieval Life: Archaeology and the Life Course, p. 55, both look at the oxygen isotope analysis of the Mary Rose seamen and relate the findings only to geographical origins of the individual seamen, and not to any putative ancestry. For interest, what oxygen isotopes can and can't tell us, and some of the problems of using this analysis to make definite statements about the migration patterns of individuals can be seen in this academic text. Benea (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Further to this point, the work on oxygen isotopes was carried out in a 2009 study by Lynne Bell of Simon Fraser University's School of Criminology. Bell's own account of her work is here. Note that she states that her results 'indicate that a significant proportion of the crew did not originate in Britain, but rather they came from warmer, more southerly, regions of Europe.' 'Originate', nothing about 'ancestry'. Her thesis was that these sailors had poor English skills, could not respond efficiently to orders in a sudden crisis, and this contributed to the loss of the ship. Her thesis was challenged by A. R. Millard of Durham University, and Hannes Shroeder at Oxford (their 2010 article in the Journal of Archaeological Science, '‘True British sailors’: a comment on the origin of the men of the Mary Rose' is downloadable online) which after studying other indicators besides oxygen isotopes, found that a far smaller proportion of the sample used by Bell could be said to have originated outside Britain. Note the wording in the text - 'origins of 18 men' and 'conclude that only one of the 18 sailors demonstrably spent his childhood outside the British Isles.' Nothing about ancestry of course. Benea (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! Thankyou very much for that, any objections routed in WP:NOR or WP:V are clearly overcome. To Beelzebubbles1972: please see your talk page. I'll make the change in a few moments. Oops, you beat me to it 1 :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Poorly written

Examples abound, but just in the intro: 1. She was discovered, not 'rediscovered'. 2. She most certainly was not 'one of the earliest examples of a purpose-built sailing warship' - these had existed for centuries. 3. The excavation and salvage WERE, not 'was' (does nobody understand the difference between the singular and the plural any more?).

The whole 'Modern theories' section would fail as a school essay due to its poor grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's time to unlock this article. It violates "wikipedian values".

The article was locked (indefinitely!) in March. The reason given was "persistent vandalism". By that reason, the whole of Wikipedia should be locked. If there really was "persistent vandalism", that's the fault of the vandal(s), not the article. Blocks are done as a matter of routine against vandals. The action should be against them, not against the article and other well meaning contributors. This "general warrant" of a lock is a violation of the fundamentals of how Wikipedia is supposed to operate.

Also, any lock like this needs to be more specific as to its reasons and limited in time (with the time set at the beginning of the lock). Blocks against vandals are done like that. Otherwise, it just becomes an unbalanced, indefinitely long game of begging an admin (probably the (biased) locking admin) to "please sir will you unlock this"?

This lock was misplaced to begin with. It needs to end.

108.7.0.7 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not just create an account? Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My point (above) would be the same whether I signed it as a logged-on or as an IP. Would you have come back with a comment like that if it was signed by a logged-on editor? Probably not, so there.  :-) Implying that any semi-protection can be "easily gotten around" so it doesn't matter isn't the point. It does matter. That's not the spirit of Wikipedia. It's Wikipedia policy to encourage participation by supporting IP's as perfectly valid editors. The lock needs to end for the reasons I gave initially above, yes. But now, I'm getting a whiff that the lock is also about discriminating against an underclass (an underclass that shouldn't be mistreated so as a matter of policy). That's another reason to end the lock.

So, let's all just pretend it was a logged-on editor who made the "end the lock" arguments above. Then, we can all address the points on merit instead of clouding the issue by judging the source.

108.7.0.7 (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I made an account and logged in (I'm AKA 108.7.07). I reassert the points I made above about the need to stop the lock. Do they seem more valid now?  :-) JenniferBerg (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer, your points do not seem more valid, but now that you are a registered editor they will be less important to you. Once you have been autoconfirmed then block will not apply to you, it is "semi-protected", not fully protected. It is a sad fact that some articles attract more than their fair share of vandalism, and that virtually all vandalism comes from unregistered users, often at educational institutions on a shared IP. In mentioning the spirit of Wikipedia due weight must also be given to the WP:RF policy, Wikipedian is here for the readers first, and for editors second. Persistant vandalism directly attacks the ordinary reader and the integrity of Wikipedia. Anyhow enough disagreement, you are on the side of the angels now, welcome. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

Under the 'causes of Sinking' section the word 'ordinaunce' is used. Wiktionary describes it as an obsolete form of the word ordinance, the Wiktionary page on the word ordinance describes 'ordinance' in a way that doesn't fit the context in which it was used in the original article but under usage notes it is thus stated: "This word is sometimes confused with ordnance, or military weaponry". This definition on the other hand suits the context in which it was used. This should mean the word ordinance has been used wrongly rather than ordnance, and Wiktionary should also be rectified to describe ordinaunce as an obsolete form of the word ordnance, not ordinance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ordinaunce https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ordinance#English

LeKingFahad (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a quote from 1548, as specified in the article text. Unless the writing is completely incomprehensible to modern readers, it's common practice to present quotes with the original spelling.
Peter Isotalo 18:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

LeKingFahad (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC) The question lies not in the quote but in want for clarification on the subject and is a subsequent bid to prevent further confusion. It's either the author of the quote made the mistake himself or Wikipedia made errors in it's attempt at describing the words in question and I simply desire clarification on the subject for the sake of authenticity, for the sake of knowledge.

"Ordinaunce" is clearly an obsolete form of both "ordinance" and "ordnance". I've updated the Wiktionary entry to that effect. However, everything here at Wikipedia is in order. If you feel there's a need for further clarification at Wiktionary, you need to bring up your concern over there. It's a separate project with separate goals and policies.
Peter Isotalo 21:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Poor writing

I noticed this. Per WP:SEASON we do not use season names as date markers, and per WP:EDITORIAL we use words like "however" with caution. If this article does not meet criteria, and good-faith attempts to improve it are reverted, it may be necessary to take it to Featured Article Review. I would be sad to have to go down this road. --John (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I simply don't agree with your very strict interpretation of WP:SEASON. Especially when it comes to edits when you replace "spring of <year>" with just "<year>". That's just removing things for the sake of removal, even when the time specification actually becomes less exact. To me it seems obvious that basic specificity trumps opinions regarding style.
Peter Isotalo 10:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Captain

There's no link for the captain, George Carew - is Op. Deo. working on this?--shtove 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC) jhhhΆάΈἃ80.229.197.1 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Shipwreck

The wreck was discovered, not "rediscovered". (217.42.28.107 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC))

World's Oldest Sea Dog & The Mary Rose

Recently, I learned from a podcast about "Hatch", the world's oldest sea dog, the remains of which have been found. Hatch's skeleton was recovered from the Mary Rose. The assembled skeleton, has been a very popular exhibit, has been on display in a prestigious dog show and also has been a motif for fund-raising. Imho, the dog needs to be mentioned somewhere in this FA.

Ref : Skeleton of world's oldest sea dog 'Hatch' found on the Mary Rose goes on display at Crufts.

AshLin (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is an article about the Mary Rose in general, and it doesn't seem as if "Hatch" has any worthwhile significance to the ship itself. The Daily Mail article certainly isn't telling us other than "old ratter dog skeleton" (aside from the speculation and fluff that is). Do you have a source that is more substantial?
Peter Isotalo 15:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, there are a few more reliable sources, though anything very "substantial" would probably not be forthcoming.
I think a single sentence about the dog appropriately placed and referenced would add to the article rather than dilute it.
AshLin (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I dunno. Looks like your basic museum marketing ploy to me. It's very obviously a case of taking advantage of the "look at the cute doggie"-factor. I'm not going to revert anything, but I don't favor a "Hatch the dog"-sentence unless it's included in info on other animal remains.
Peter Isotalo 17:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting take on "animal remains" - "Hatch" + "casks containing meat bones, both cattle and pig" (Life on Board the Mary Rose) + "skeletons of a rat and a frog" (10 things you might not know about the Mary Rose).
AshLin (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to resurrect a four year old thread, but I followed the above link and "thing 8" is maker's marks. What caught my eye was the name of John and Robert Owen who cast a bronze gun. I thought that the name rang a bell (pun!), and checked the list of founders at the Whitechapel Bell Foundry to see that in 1538 John Owen was recorded as the founder, possibly continuing as late as 1553. Given that bells are bronze and that Mary's dates are 1511-1545 is it possible that these were the same person? I have yet to find any details on the Owen brothers or any facts to substantiate this link, can other editors help? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested wording

Suggested wording for insertion into section "Finds" as a new last paragraph:

"Animal remains have been found in the wreck of the Mary Rose. These include the skeletons of a rat, a frog and a dog. The dog, a mongrel between eighteen months and two years in age, was found near the hatch to the ship's carpenter's cabin and is thought to have been brought aboard as a ratter. Nine barrels have been found to contain bones of cattle, indicating that they contained pieces of beef butchered and stored as ship's rations. In addition the bones of pigs and fish, stored in baskets, have also been found."

If the wording is agreed to, i'll add the refs later. Please feel free to improve. AshLin (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mary Rose. 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) 11:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Rose. 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) 21:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Quantity of wood and woodland

It is said in the article, that "One estimate for the number of trees is around 600 mostly large oaks, representing about 16 hectares (40 acres) of woodland". In the mature oak forest there are usually ca 100 large trees (average DBH > 50 cm, average tree volume > 3 m3) per hectare. So only ca 6 hectares of oak forest is needed for 600 trees. Volume of those trees is ca 2000 m3, this is pretty close to the volume of the ship. --194.126.101.134 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting point and I can't add much to it (despite being qualified in forestry) other than to say that in the 16th C some oak forests were specifically managed to produce timber needed for ship building and that the density in those times may have been different (with greater levels of thinning) so fewer trees per hectare at the time immediately prior to felling. As with everything Wikipedian, reliable sources are needed to support a particular view. I will have a search around. Tedmarynicz (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

100 trees per hectare appears to be the right ball-park. But it is also necessary to think about the very differnt types of wood needed for ship building, including the 'great' and 'compass' pieces, which are anything but straight. It seems these would not have come from woods but more likely from trees growing individually in hedgerows. So alotting a specific acreage to a number of trees needed to build a ship is not so simple. The nearest reference work I have been able to find is Robert G. Albion's 'Forests and Sea Power' of 1926 but which only covers the period 1652 - 1862. https://ia902300.us.archive.org/21/items/ForestsAndSeaPower/Forests%20and%20Sea%20Power.pdf - There is also Nelson's report of 1802/3 on the trees in the Forest of Dean. http://www.woodlandheritage.org/library/articles/item/194-nelson-and-the-forest-of-dean.html Tedmarynicz (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

recent edits

I edited this page to include a link to the associated National Heritage List for England (NHLE) record on behalf of Historic England who are responsible for the management of wrecks designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. The NHLE record includes further information related to the wreck.Phoebe MSDS (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Statutory protection

According to the English Heritage website (Historic England. "Details from listed building database (1000075)". National Heritage List for England.) the Mary Rose was listed by statutory instrument 1974/55 under the "Protection of Wrecks Act 1973" (1973 c. 33). However I can't find this on the UK legislation database. Can anyone supply a citation? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

NHLE inclusion

I have edited the lead to include reference to the NHLE entry for this wreck. Phoebe MSDS (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Rose/Archive_1&oldid=1212576025"