Talk:Meermin slave mutiny/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

On this day…

It occurs to me that this article might be suitable for an upcoming entry in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries: it looks to me to fit the criteria, being a GA, and having the start date of the relevant, bolded event – the mutiny – fixed as 18 February 1766. The "moderate to great historical significance" might be that "Rulings made in this case in the VOC's Council of Justice represented a 'huge step in the recognition of oppressed people as free-thinking individuals.'" Interesting, too late, or just a crap idea...? Nortonius (talk)

Interesting - go for it! Pesky (talk…stalk!) 19:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OoorlRIGHT then! How about this:

• 1766 – A mutiny at sea by captive Madagascans on the slave ship Meermin led to the ship's destruction, and subsequent rulings in the Dutch East India Company's Council of Justice were a "huge step in the recognition of oppressed people as free-thinking individuals."

Gotta keep it short… For once there is a bit of a deadline, so I might be bold and just add it to the list if I start getting antsy, but if it looks wrong by all means tweak or shout! Nortonius (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There – I gave it all of half an hour, and decided to be bold! I believe it's still open to tweaking… Fingers crossed eh?! :os Nortonius (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me; but then pretty much everything I've seen you do looks pretty much OK! You're a good 'un. Pesky (talk…stalk!) 07:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You're too kind! [blushes] I try, anyway...! Fingers crossed, and, judging by the edit history of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 18, "our" entry's still tweakable if it needs improving…! Nortonius (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

…and I just tweaked it. Nortonius (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Errr… I suspect that "subsequent" should be "consequent", but it might be unnecessary precision – thoughts? Nortonius (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "subsequent" is OK. Pesky (talk…stalk!) 16:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ta – me too. :o) Nortonius (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well done, you two! Wish I'd seen the blurb earlier - the correct term for the people is "Malagasy", while Madagascan can only be used to describe inanimate objects - but hey, your hard work is raising people's awareness of this historic mutiny and that's what it's all about. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nearly 11,000! Wheeeee!

Thanks Lemurbaby! :D People, did you see the article got nearly 11,000 hits when it was on the Main Page?! [1] Understood about the narrow meaning of "Madagascan", Lemurbaby, soz; that is narrower than e.g. the definitions here, which I checked when writing the blurb. But I don't doubt your word on it! I can well imagine that, despite those definitions, "Madagascan" is perhaps no longer used of people, and might well be considered – ahem – "inappropriate"…? Thing is, the blurb originally had Madagascan wikilinked to Malagasy people, there was already pressure on the blurb's length, and I thought I'd get away with that use of "Madagascan"; but then Howcheng unilaterally (no discussion, nothing) changed the blurb, without due regard to its sense, while it was on the main page and was beyond my editing rights to revert! I have to say, (Howcheng take note) that deeply pissed me off. Howcheng did react after a comment from me and before the blurb was off the main page, but IMHO the reaction was slow and inadequate. I've calmed down a bit a lot now; it's over, and the blurb is better than after Howcheng's first edit; but it's still not right, IMHO, and I've drawn Howcheng's attention to this discussion. We had our day though, right? :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Lemurbaby did you see this, above…? Nortonius (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It's probably a very good thing that I didn't look at it while it was being edited, then ... Pesky (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Aye – I might've have been apoplectic, as I'd been keeping an eye on things, watching for edits constructive or otherwise(!); fortunately I had a mate over with BEER, and was checking between episodes of The Shield on DVD, so I had other amusements to engage with… Nortonius (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Time to archive…?

This page is getting pretty long, I'll set up searchable archiving…? (presumably the GA review needs to stay) Nortonius (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done – hope I dun it rite, tho! Nortonius (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. I gave the GA review an arbitrary 10 years from the time it was completed to when it gets archived, but for all I know there's a "proper" way…?

Tonnage (continued from this discussion)

As requested above, I would confirm that burthen tonnage was a measurement of the volumetric capacity of a sailing ship, and nothing to do with measurements of weight. The existing article on Builder's Old Measurement was completely misleading, apparently written by someone who confused burthen tonnage with displacement. Displacement is a measurement of weight, based on the weight of water displaced by the ship in either empty condition ("light displacement") or when loaded. Burthen tonnage is caluclated on the cubic capacity of a ship, derived from its (keel) length, its breadth and (in some varieties of these calculations) the depth of the hold.

I have made some urgent and essential changes to that article, but it needs further revision to detail the development of ships' measurement over a long period, from medieval through Tudor times and into the Seventeenth century, during which there were further revisions to arrive at the final formula which then lasted throughout the 18th century and until the end of the Age of Sail (i.e. about mid 19th century). Rif Winfield (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, good! :o) Nortonius (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If we know it is burthen (which is very likely) we should just use that, with a link to burthen. No conversions are possible. (I recall a FAC mentioning an Arctic exploration vessel where conversions were attempted to weight tons from gross register tons, which, like burthen, cannot be done as GRT is a measure of volume.) If we do not know it is burthen, we should just give the number and add [[tonnage|tons]]. It will not suffer at FAC if we do that, as the reasons can be explained. This is an article about an event, not the vessel; we do not need tangential information on the ship but should ensure the data we give go only as far as the sources allow. Kablammo (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan – the source says Laadvermogen (this=burthen). I'd recommend that solution. Nortonius (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's volumetric capacity, Meermin was significantly bigger than the usual 80 x 20 hoekers, so this would still leave her with a bigger figure than average for a hoeker. I'll see if I can check on the figures for a few other smaller hoekers, somewhere. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, taken direct from the original plans, Meermin's keel-to-beam ratio is 10:3, so 110 voet length gives her 33 voet beam. Any help?

Applying the Builder's Old Measurement formula, that would give her a "tonnage" of 263.0608 if voet = feet. Now that's clearly nowhere near either the 450 or 480 "tons" we have as alternatives, so what they're talking about there is not her burthen tonnage. It must be her actual weight.

See also where Nortonius and I fried our collective brain on this issue on my talk! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the ship, in which such obscure meanderings may be relevant. The only relevant statistic for this article is the space allocated to the slaves. Malleus Fatuorum 07:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken it straight back to the simple 480 tons which we had originally; "tons" is the way the sources (mostly) describe her. I've also managed to edit the ship infobox and fill in a few of her other dimensions in that. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm – I think it's useful to know the size of the ship; "tonnage" is needed for the infobox, but otherwise not (I foresee FAC reviewers asking, "Oi, wot's the tonnage?" ;op ); we don't know exactly how many slaves Malagasy were on board, but I'm happy with "about 140" per sources, and given the crew's own, hidden trade. Any use? Pesky, about "keel-to-beam" ratio etc., have you done something very clever about those plans…? The "web" description of the plans has "110 x 32 voet", but says 0 (that I've seen lol!) about t' ratio…? And, gentle reader, remember that Meermin was built in Amsterdam in 1759: an 18th century, Amsterdam voet isn't the same as a "Cape foot", or a foot Imperial, if Dutch units of measurement is to be believed – that makes said voet to be just over 11 inches Imperial, significantly shorter than a Cape foot. Likewise a Rijnlandse roede, on which the Cape foot was based per this source, was apparently longer than an Amsterdamse roede – I'll stop here, my brain's screaming, "Let someone else do the sums!" Nortonius (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Pasting from the Dutch units of measurement:

The Rijnland foot which had been in use since 1621 was most commonly used voet in the both Netherlands and in parts of Germany. In 1807, de Gelder measured the copy of the Rijnland foot in the Leiden observatory to be 0.3139465 m while Eytelwien found that the master copy that was in use in Germany was 0.313853543 m - a difference of 0.03%. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Dutch settlers took the Rijnland foot to the Cape Colony. In 1859, by which time the colony had passed into British control, the Cape foot was calibrated against the English foot and legally defined as 1.033 English feet (0.314858 m).

So, basically, the Rijnland voet was the one most commonly in use at the time, which was pretty much identical to the Cape Foot. I enlarged the plans sufficiently to get an accurate ratio just by measuring :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did there! lol Hmm, I still suspect that a ship built at the VOC's Amsterdam yard in 1759 might well have been described using Amsterdam voet – despite what the quotation says, isn't the point that there were varying measurements in the 18th-century Netherlands, depending on where you were…? Obviously I'll defer to consensus, ;op and to "expert opinion", which would be much appreciated… Maybe I feel another email coming on, to the Scheepsvaart Museum! (they might even let us have a decent copy of the plans, copyrighted or otherwise that would be super-cool, no?! :o() ) Nortonius (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. Message sent! :os

Brave, very brave! Bearing in mind that the plans are dated 1760 or thereabouts, I would imagine that they'd be PD by now ;P If all that's done is scanning them, I don't believe that creates any new copyright in them. If we get a higher res. version of them, I can clean them up with my usual magic wand. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Separate article for ship?

It may be better practice to separate this article about an event, from a short article about the vessel. The latter can contain the infobox and the detail about the ship's dimensions and characteristics (of primary interest to the ship aficiando); the former can focus on the event. That is a convention followed in other cases, and would avoid interruping the compelling story of this event with arcana about the vessel. Kablammo (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a plan; though, as you've seen, info on this ship's tonnage (in whatever form!) is a bit sketchy still…? I think basic info for the ship's type, size and sail plan could usefully remain here for context. Can you point to examples of articles which follow this convention? I'd be interested to see. Thanks. :o) (I wonder, would we need another infobox for this article, or is there even one suitable? I know next to 0 about these things.) Nortonius (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Costa Concordia and Costa Concordia disaster may be the most recent. La Amistad and Amistad (1841) deal respectively with the vessel and the court case arising out of the mutiny. There are separate articles for Titanic and its sinking.

As for infoboxes, I don't think one is needed here. In article such as this an infobox will only convey what should be in the first few paragraphs, but without the nuance. Kablammo (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Anyone else in…? I'd be bold but it's been a tiring and tiresome day for me IRL, I'd be bound to mess up…! Thoughts for an article title for the ship? Meermin (VOC ship)? Nortonius (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I can help also, but not for next few days. Perhaps next weekend. Kablammo (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok! Well, if something gets cooked up between now and then I'm sure it'd be useful to have someone with ship article experience, erm, on board? Soz… Thanks for stopping by again. Nortonius (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just dumped the current version of this article into a sandbox in my user space here, minus GA tag and cats, for possible development of a "ship" article. Anyone I'm on speaking terms with (e.g. from here, or, er, anyone I think! ;op ) is welcome to fiddle with it in my user space there – anyone new, it would be nice if you talk to me first, or at least say hello as well as edit. I'm not trying to "own" this: of course, anyone can go ahead and create said article themselves, but I don't want this to be a complete waste of time…! Thanks. :o) Nortonius (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done – obv! ;op Nortonius (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, cool! Gotta be another easy GA in there ;P Pesky (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you ma'am – welcome aboard! ;o) Yes, a possible GA indeed, what have I let myself in for now?! lol Nortonius (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Meermin (VOC ship)

Blimey – I've just been very bold (for me!) and created this article! Hope that's ok with everyone… Probably lots to do still! :os Nortonius (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the new ship article has survived unmolested for about a day (except by me! ;op ) – any help appreciated! Talking of which, is it time to remove the infobox from this (mutiny) article, as suggested above by Kablammo? The Groenewegen 1789 hoeker image can probably stay pretty much where it is...? I'll look around to see how it's done elsewhere, unless someone saves me from the effort or yells NO! ;op Nortonius (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm: a quick look at the first few entries in Category:Mutinies suggests that more developed articles can have infoboxes, but e.g. 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing is a FA of 2008 vintage, it haz no infobox, and the first image appears under the first section heading… Nortonius (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Zapped the infobox; kept the pic. Pesky (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, cool by me! Pleased you stepped up to do that, tbh – I've caused enough trouble as it is! ;op Nortonius (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ship archaeology

Per this, perhaps it's time to trim the archaeology section in this article? As a starting point, how about adding a "main article" tag to the section, pointing to the ship article, and then changing the content of the section to this:

On 24 September 1998 – South Africa's Heritage Day – the building housing the South Africa Cultural History Museum, a branch of Iziko Museums, was renamed the Old Slave Lodge,^ref commemorating its accommodation of about 9,000 government-owned slaves between the 17th and early 19th centuries.^{ref nb #} In 2004, Iziko Museums started a maritime archaeology project associated with the Old Slave Lodge museum, to find and salvage the wreck of the Meermin; supporting historical and archaeological research was also commissioned, funded by the South African National Lottery.^ref Jaco Boshoff of Iziko Museums, who is in charge of the research, retrieved the Meermin's plans from the Netherlands, to help identify this wreck among the numerous ships reputed to have run aground in the Struisbaai area.^ref In 2011, the Iziko Museums' travelling exhibition "Finding Meermin" included updates on the progress of Jaco Boshoff's work with the archaeological research team; as of 2012, the search for the Meermin continues.^ref

Obviously that's just a suggestion, play with it or supply another by all means... (and note that the quote box with a quotation from J Boshoff has gone from there, but it still exists, in the ship article) :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done – tho, it can always be undone! :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Topmost illustration not loading

The first illustration is only loading part way. Not sure what's causing the glitch. Cloveapple (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, just loaded fine for me, sorry no idea! Thanks for the tip though. Nortonius (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It will be replaced, soon - but it loads OK for me at the mo! Pesky (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm on tenterhoeks! ;op Nortonius (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop Press!

Jaco Boshoff has emailed a certain WP editor, saying briefly that he's busy but has seen "several small errors" and needs more time! :D Unfortunately the Meermin's plans remain out of bounds, however: in short, the museum let him have the plans only with special permission. Anyone know how to get a Wikigrant to buy a licence for this?! 'T'ain't cheap… Nortonius (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I shall ask ... Pesky (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I have asked. :D Pesky (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool! These plans really ought to be in the PD by now – as I understand it the museum's copyright is in a copy(!), not the plans per se, as they're even older than, er, my dad. lol Even museums have to turn a bob or two these days, sadly… Fingers crossed, eh?! :o) Nortonius (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts for death of "overall ringleader"

The sections "Truces and Betrayals" and "Final Stages" both contain descriptions of separate events supposedly resulting in the death of the "overall ringleader".

"Local officials had ordered local Dutch farmers and burghers to form an impromptu militia; fourteen of the Malagasy were shot dead, including the overall ringleader"

"Six Malagasy and another crew member also left the Meermin in a canoe, but a unit of the militia immediately surrounded the party when they landed. One Malagasy, identified by a crew member as the mutiny's overall ringleader, was shot dead, and three others taken prisoner"

???

Good catch! I've checked the sources and made suitable changes. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Source" added 5 November 2013

A new "source" was added to the article in this edit, though the markup was a bit off so I fixed it with this edit. I'm moving it here with this edit because prima facie this looks to me to be an advert:

• Sleigh, D.; Westra, P. (2013), The Taking of the Slaver Meermin, 1766, Africana Publishers, ISBN 978-0-620-58141-7

The book's so new that, at the time of writing, I couldn't find it via the ISBN, or for sale online. However, I did find this reference to what appears to be an Afrikaans edition of the same book, the cover of which bears the same image currently used for this article. So I'm even wondering if the book isn't cobbled together from this article. On the other hand, apparently a Dutch edition of the book has been reviewed at Historiek.net: that site asks for donations, and I can't make out any affiliations to a recognised publisher or institution, so it might be little more than a glorified blog. About the book's authors, the Dutch publisher's blurb claims that "Dan Sleigh (1938) is [a] South African historian, poet and writer, specialized [sic] in … Dutch colonial history [and] Piet Westra (1937) was the director of the South African Library and is the publisher of historical books at Africana Publishers [of Cape Town]." This could all be pukka, hopefully time will tell. In the meantime, the book isn't used as a source in the article, so does it belong? Nortonius (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal names in italics?

Is there a reason why the names of the Malagasy Massavana and Koesaaij are italicized throughout the article? It seems rather odd to italicize the names of individuals (even if they might be Dutchifications of their original names). Tom (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, yes, italicisation of those two names was arrived at after some discussion: the names aren't just Dutchifications, their original forms are also uncertain, although some headway was made in working out what they might have been.[2] At the time of that discussion the sticking point was the lack of reliable sources for what these two men's names actually were – obviously if that changes (or has changed?) those names could be given instead, without italics and with suitable references. HTH. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have prompted me to tinker with the article where these names are concerned, hopefully it's a slight improvement. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath Incomplete

What happened to the slaves who were not ringleaders? 71.171.89.90 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As it says in the article, immediately preceding the "Aftermath" section, "three wagons took them to Cape Town on 12 March. Of the 140 or so Malagasy who had been shipped, 112 reached the Cape Colony as slaves". This ended the mutiny. While the actual number shipped is uncertain, we know that some died during the mutiny or were lost, and that disease had been present among the slaves and the crew, so strictly speaking some slaves are unaccounted for. Otherwise it's all there in the article, and that is all we know: it would be nice to have some detailed accounts of what happened to the individuals – for example, presumably some modern South Africans are descendants of these people; but if any such information is available in the sort of reliable source that can be used in this article, I for one haven't seen it, and would be delighted to use it if it were found. Also bear in mind that the "Aftermath" section is concerned with the impact of the mutiny once it was over – hence the title – rather than the immediate outcome, in which 112 Malagasy reached the Cape Colony as slaves. HTH. Nortonius (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)