Talk:Mutiny on the Bounty/Archive 1

Earlier Comments

What's wrong with this talk page's ToC? I've added a directive to revive at least this partial one.
--Jerzy•t 22:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMAV=

can anyone add something explaining why the Bounty was an HMAV and not an HMS? cos I'd like to know :)

nick 21:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Likely because it was such a small vessel, only four guns if I remember correctly... HMS may have been reserved for men-of-war. Bounty was essentially an armed merchantman. -Kasreyn 11:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty and Mutiny on the Bounty

I think there should be two pages, one fot the ship and another for the mutiny. 133.68.126.131 03:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.... I think the merge was very poor decision. I said so on the other talk page.

So far as I am concerned there should be a disambiguation page for HMS Bounty that pointers to articles for the historical Bounty, and to each of the reconstructions, which really deserve pages of their own.

The MGM 1962 reproduction of the Bounty, in particular, has a career of its own, having served as a sail training vessel for a couple of decades, that has practically nothing to do with the Mutiny. Her maintenance has been expensive, and she lost her USCG license, for a time. She was damaged, and almost sank at her moorings. This has practically nothing to do with the Mutiny almost 200 years ago!

See Talk:HMS Bounty. The merge sounds like it was a premature mess. Talk pages disappearing? That sucks. Talk pages record the discussion, and, um scholarship, that show how articles evolve. -- Geo Swan 17:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1 The Bounty. The last 3 lines read "Bligh received the appointment because he was considered an exceptionally capable naval officer — an evaluation that would prove to be correct — and because of his experience and familiarity with navigation in the area and local customs. A picture of flying fish carved from oak and made from the wreckage of the Bounty." The last sentence "A picture of flying fish carved from oak and made from the wreckage of the Bounty." appears to make no sence, is it not a tag for a missing image?

Christian influance

It is a matter of historical fact that the last member of the mutenany converted to Christianity after reading the entire Bible. After which he reformed his entire mediate sphere of influence from the principles he learned.

Your edits have been reverted: If this is a "matter of fact" then I am sure you can find a reputable source. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HMAV not HMS

The Bounty was a converted merchant vessel as opposed to ships commissioned by the Royal Navy and the Crown to be built from the ground up to serve as Naval vessels.

Because the Bounty was a converted vessel there was not much they could do to add to the size of her, only outfit her for a specific purpose, to serve a specific role in the RN. Commissioned ships such as HMS Endeavor were planned on paper before the first timbers were ever felled, and were usually only intended for expansion of the British Empire or naval warfare, or both.

Thus, the Bounty was destined to only ever fill the role of a vessel that would carry out minor, non-warlike duties such as their 'breadfruit' expedition (but still fitted with armaments for self-defense and to deter piracy).

Hence the term 'His/Her Majesty's Armed Vessel' as opposed to 'His/Her Majesty's Ship'.

All commissioned RN warships are referred to as ‘HMS’, regardless of their size, function, origin, or anything else. Bounty is no exception. Usually minor vessels, which fell outside the rating system, were given a description (or designation) which best suited their role, e.g. Fireship, bomb, Picket, Survey vessel etc., or just by their rig, e.g. Brig, Sloop, Cutter and so on. Even so, a few fell outside even this system and were just described as Armed Vessels. To quote two examples, HMS PETEREL, a mercantile sloop, purchased in 1777 and converted to a survey vessel, was known as HMS PETEREL, not HMSV PETEREL. HMS REDOUBT, a mercantile vessel, purchased in 1793 and converted to a Floating Battery was known as HMS REDOUBT, not HMFB REDOUBT. Therefore, it is HMS BOUNTY (an armed vessel of four guns (4x4 short plus 10 swivels), not HMAV BOUNTY. ‘HMS’ is a distinguishing prefix, not actually an integral part of the ship’s name, used to identify RN from non-RN vessels. When a RN warship is named, the phrase “I name this ship NONSUCH ...” is used, not ‘HMS NONSUCH’. --Fredbloggins 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty was not a commissioned RN "warship". Nowhere in the sources that I have read (discounting, of course, popular fiction and non-historical accounts) have I seen the Bounty referred to as HMS rather than HMAV. Kasreyn 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

The Naval Historical Branch say that the Bounty was a commissioned Royal Navy vessel. Hence the RN crew and the subsequent Admiralty Courts Martial.

Consider HMS RESOLUTION (1771) and HMS ADVENTURE (1771), both purchased colliers and commissioned for a specific task (exploration). So let's not split hairs.

--Fredbloggins 10:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warrant Officers/Petty Officers

Most of the men listed as Warrant Officers sound like Petty Officers to me. The Surgeon, Boatswain, Gunner and Carpenter would be WOs, but the others? I've never heard of most of them ever being rated as WOs, even on a large ship. -- Necrothesp 12:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are not. For example, Robert Lamb was rated as a WO on this list, but he was flogged for allowing his cleaver to be stolen; by law, warrant officers could not be flogged. I've adjusted the list. Also, Michale Byrne, who was half-blind, was mustered as an able seaman, although he served a dual role as the ship's fiddler. He seems to have been insignificant and lightly regarded at every point in the bounty saga, and calling him an officer, even a petty officer, is far-fetched. Scimitar 02:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge of the "HMS Bounty" and "Mutiny on the Bounty" articles was a disaster, and should be reverted...

Just because the Mutiny was notable does not mean that the original veseel, and its reproduction, don't each merit articles of their own. Current situation is a disaster.

I know some wikipedians are big fans of merging related articles. Doing so represents an effort to impose a single organization on the corpus of human knowledge. We aren't bound by the limits of paper documents anymore. Constellations of smaller, more focussed article serve us much better than larger monolithic articles. It gives more autonomy to the reader, and lets them traverse the network of knowledge in their own order, choosing to skip the nodes that don't interest them.

Further, a link to a smaller more focussed article is, in and of itself, more useful to the reader. A link to a small focussed article is less likely to confuse the reader. Frequently one article will link to some merged omnibus article, and it will leave me wondering why the heck someone thought the omnibus was related. Or, I can see some small section might be related, but it is going to be too much trouble to find that small section. -- Geo Swan 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree. Though I groan at the thought of all the work required to disentangle the two articles now. -Kasreyn 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, two separate articles (but of course at HMAV Bounty. There is probably a halfway decent article in the history of the H.M.S. Bounty article which could be resurrected. I've stepped indelicately into WikiProject Ships before, though, so don't look at me to start that process ... --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard, then ;) Kasreyn 05:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are two many loosely connected parts in this article. --Dumarest 15:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lots more should have been done(178.111.163.150 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Circumnavigation?

The article claims without citation that Bligh's intention of completing the voyage as circumnavigation caused dread among the crew, this being a possible contributing factor to the mutiny. This seems unlikely to me since the mutiny occurred very near the island of Tofua, which is 1300 miles west of Tahiti. If Bligh was headed for Cape Horn, the necessary route if he intended to directly return to the Atlantic, why would he have sailed 1300 miles in the wrong direction? ENScroggs 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard anything about circumnavigation causing dread among the crew, but had Bligh been able to round Cape Horn outward bound, as was first intended, then it would have been a circumnavigation. He spent almost a month trying, but the weather defeated him. James Galloway (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who was hanged?

Good article. One question: the list of crewmen indicates those acquitted or pardoned, but not those hanged. Does anyone know? John Moore 309 17:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I will find & consult my copy of Caroline Alexander's "The Bounty" and reply back. Kasreyn 19:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back. All in all, the charges were "found proved" against six men. Three were hanged: Thomas Burkett (Able Seaman), John Millward (Able Seaman), and Thomas Ellison (Able Seaman). Also sentenced to death but later reprieved was William Muspratt (Cook's Assistant). James Morrison (Boatswain's Mate) and Peter Heywood (Midshipman) were also among the convicted, but received the King's pardon, which is not the same as a reprieve.

Burkett, Millward, and Ellison were taken aboard HMS Brunswick and kept in its brig. There, they continued to profess their innocence, though Millward confusingly also proclaimed his belief in the justice of their sentences. James Morrison, their pardoned shipmate and apparently a devout man, administered the last rites to them.

At 11:26 AM on October 29th, 1792, Burkett, Millward, and Ellison were hanged to death aboard the Brunswick. Muspratt had not yet been reprieved at that point, and on February 11, 1793, he was also granted a royal pardon, bringing the number of pardons to three.

Source: "The Bounty", Caroline Alexander.

-Kasreyn 20:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've added the official positions of each of the six convicted. This is also taken from "The Bounty" by Caroline Alexander. It's not appropriate to include the following speculation in the article, but I'd like to note here that of the Bounty Mutineers, it generally appears that social class and connections seem to have played a significant role in determining guilt. As far as I can tell from what I've read, Burkett, Millward, and the young Ellison did not escape death was because unlike the others they had no powerful friends or rich or noble relatives. Kasreyn 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kasreyn. I have taken the liberty of updating the text of the article accordingly.

Best regards,

John Moore 309 20:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious folk etymology

Removed:

The voyage of HMS Pandora in search of the mutineers is said to have given rise to the expression "bounty-hunting," which refers to searching for a fugitive to obtain a reward (bounty) of some sort.

This seems to ignore the longstanding meaning of the English word "bounty" and why it was chosen as the name for a ship of exploration. That said, there are numerous historical uses of the term "bounty" such as "bounty lands", "bounty grants", so it makes perfect sense to use the word without reference to the story of the ship. Additionally, the history of scalp bounties of American Indians is well-documented and much more obviously connected to the origin of the term. Thus, this shouldn't go back in without a good citation. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated when I originally added the claim, it was taken from "The Bounty" by Caroline Alexander. It's been some time since I've read my copy, so I'm having a hard time finding where in the book it is. When I find it, I can provide sourcing with page number. As to whether Ms. Alexander is correct, I don't know. I could cite the source she cites from her bibliography, but most of her sources are from very old periodicals which almost certainly don't exist online. I suppose a reader in the UK could try to check up on them physically. Kasreyn 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just looks like bad research on Alexander's part. Scalp bounties, from my poking around, were offered as early as the Pequot War in the early 17th century, and were widely used across the future US, Canada and Mexico as the frontier progressed. [1] This predates the Mutiny by as much as a century and a half. Also, it's primarily an American term, so a derivation from English history seems unlikely as well.
--Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bounty" (Latin root "bon-", meaning "good") is a word for "liberality in giving" (where the giving is often metaphorical); "bountiful" is derived from it, and the secondary meaning "reward" also flows naturally from it. Contemporaneous records can't tell you whether modern usage derives from the event they describe; the most persuasive thing you could hope for would be a remark that couldn't be distinguished from someone noting, with slightly jocular wording, a coincidence between the ship's name and a pre-existing concept of "bounty" payments.

In any case, the proper authority on this far-fetched theory is the OED, which will list the first known use of the word in the sense of "reward". IMO, it should be consulted: i have repented myself of my poorly informed blossoming contempt for Ms. Alexander's researching skills, after examining "Foolscap and Favored Sons" (free registration or US$5 fee probably required; small extract), and i now favor according her the consideration due established scholars, of a presumption of accuracy that must be overcome with OED-grade evidence before calling her wrong. But if it says what i expect, i'll consider the article incomplete if it neglects to both attribute the bad etymology to her and contradict her.
--Jerzy•t 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Reproductions

A few years back, I went on a (very short) excursion on the Bounty that's in Darling Harbor. The crew of the ship said that this *was* the ship built for the Anthony Hopkins / Mel Gibson movie. Could it be possible that only 2 reproductions were built? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.33.79.4 (talk • contribs)

You're correct, there is no evidence I could find of a third. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation

Old text:

what caused the mutiny to occur

New text:

why the men mutinied

I think there's an important distinction between saying that the mutiny "occurred" and that the men chose to commit mutiny. Correct me if I'm wrong, but natural phenomena like volcano eruptions are not the same as human actions. In the natural world, things happen. In the human world, people make decisions and take action. --Uncle Ed 20:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Causes of the Mutiny" or "Reasons for the Mutiny"? They seem a bit more clinical and less involved. Kasreyn 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. ENScroggs 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there nothing about motivation for this mutiny?

Dubious facts about the fate of the mutineers

The section on The Fate of the Mutineers is loaded with assumptions, which are not appropriate for Wikipedia.

This is the worst offender: Five of the mutineers, including Fletcher Christian, had been murdered by Tahitians on Pitcairn Island; one died after a drunken fall; one was killed by the other two survivors after he attacked them; and one died of natural causes. All six of the Taihitian men were killed during the fighting.

It is true that Adams (who for some time - and throughout the Bounty's journey - referred to himself as Smith) claimed all of the above.

However, ever seeking an audience, he also claimed that Fletcher Christian had:

- been killed by the Tahitian men along with five other mutineers in a single night;

- been killed by the Tahitian men along with five other mutineers over the course of several years;

- been murdered in his sleep by his Tahitian wife (who was dead or alive depending on who spoke to Adams);

- been driven mad and took his own life by pistol shot;

- been driven mad and took his own life by jumping from the clifftops;

- grew sicked and died;

- died of old age; or even

- was shot by the Tahitians while tilling his garden.

And, of course, there were the persisting romantic - but totally unsubstantiated - and popular rumours in England at the time that Fletcher Christian had either escaped Pitcairn somehow and was still roaming the seas or that Adams was actually Fletcher Christian in disguise.

Therefore, I feel this section should be changed to read, at the very least, that the fate of the mutineers that reached Pitcairn is unknown but there are many inconsistent and contradictory stories about them.

--Stu-Rat 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, on the Pitcairn mutineers. Adams's story kept changing throughout his life and he cannot be considered a reliable source. The fate of the mutineers who returned to Britain, however, is well-sourced. Kasreyn 08:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved material from Talk:HMS Bounty

I don't know quite what happened, but this talk page was a redir. Anyway, while I can understand the rationale for splitting out the mutiny, things are kind of a hash now - for one thing, this article doesn't even link to the "Mutiny on the Bounty" article! I'd like to hear more about the theory of this organization before trying to fix the mess. Stan 04:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My fault, Stan. The talk redir is the default result of a move; the alternative was to leave the old Bounty talk with this article. In view of the existing talk being about the mutiny rather than the ship, the redir was the right choice, and overwriting it as you did was good.

I engaged in a holding action, which you saw, and went off to watch some TV. Hopefully what i've done since is a big improvement.

The rationale you speak of is only half the story: what we had was not just the ship and the mutiny mixed together, but also

the fictional version of the mutiny monopolizing Mutiny on the Bounty, without it being obvious (to me at least) that
HMS Bounty and William Bligh were the place to look for pieces of the true version.

I considered HMS Bounty and her mutiny, but decided it was un-Wiki-like. So the whole suite is:

Mutiny on the Bounty (dab)
Mutiny on the Bounty (fiction) (describes book and movies)
Mutiny on the Bounty (history) (the real mutiny w/ its backstory, & the everyone's subsequent fates)
HMS Bounty (the ship, its travels, mention of its commanders, and its wreckage)
William Bligh (his life including his open-boat cruise following the mutiny)

(I suppose Fletcher Christian should be, instead of red link, a redir to ... hmm, maybe even to the dab.)
Bligh's launch voyage could avoid the redundancy i left between William Bligh and Mutiny on the Bounty (history), by having them both give the bare bones and a link to that new article.

(Hopefully i caught all of the confusions i got into along the way, but at the moment, i can't bear to go back for a final review of the whole suite!)

Confusions or not, tho, a fresh eye would do any article and especially the whole suite a lot of good, IMO. In particular, i probably left out some links among them; e.g., i don't remember doing anything but the dab re the fiction article. --Jerzy (t) 07:20, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have this profusion of articles, Mutiny on the Bounty (fiction) should be merged into HMS Bounty. Mintguy (T) 15:22, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for multiple articles is there are multiple topics, corresponding to multiple patterns of interest of various readers. Profusion is not a problem: readers generally are not leafing thru trying to find the right article, they are linking to the right article, or are grateful to be linking to a wrong one (that will link them to the right one a little less directly) instead of looking in the wrong place and finding a dead end.

Profusion can only become a problem when it manifests as articles needing dab, but merging articles (rather than improving naming and dab) worsens that problem, by dumping together relevant and irrelevant info.

There may indeed be articles in this "suite" that should be merged, but it needs more thought than is reflected in the proposal above! The content of HMS Bounty is far less relevant to Mutiny on the Bounty (fiction) than either of them is to Mutiny on the Bounty (history). There are 344 words in HMS Bounty; nearly 200 of those are likely to be seen as mere distractions from the real versions of the events in the plot. I can't imagine the fiction fans caring a bit about her earlier history or her statistics, unless they also care about what really happened enough to refer to Mutiny on the Bounty (history) first.

What is your real goal? Is it to reduce the distraction, for those interested in "Mutiny on the Bounty", from senses other than (probably) the usual, namely the fictional works? (I got the edit done, boldly, rather than agonizing any longer over how to name the article currently named Mutiny on the Bounty (history).) If so, IMO you should be arguing for something like this:

Give Mutiny on the Bounty (instead of it being a pure dab) the current content of Mutiny on the Bounty (fiction), plus something at the top like

This article concerns works of fiction named "Mutiny on the Bounty" (and those with other titles and the same inspiration). For the corresponding historical event, see Mutiny on the Bounty (disambiguation).

or

... see HMS Bounty mutiny

or

... see HMS Bounty mutineers

and moving Mutiny on the Bounty (history) to whichever of those new article titles is eventually settled on.

--Jerzy (t) 06:33, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Moved material from Talk:Mutiny on the Bounty (history)

Is there any information about those forced to remain on-board the Bounty ? The novel describes their fate at length through the fictional character of Byam. Can anyone provide any real facts about Ellison, Morrison, Muspratt etc etc who supposedly remained in Tahiti beofre enduring a trip back to England in chains, to be court-martialled.

Also the novel suggests that Bligh went on to be Governor of New South Wales and have further problems with "lack of tact". I will have to check this one out. Julianp 04:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see that this is true Julianp 04:07, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of the 44 men on board, 11 joined Christian in mutiny while 31 remained loyal to Bligh.

That doesn't add up. Josh Cherry 20:29, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think I wrote that. What I meant was, 11 + 31 + Bligh + Christian == 44. I'll try to make that clearer. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:01, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

8 remained on Pitcairne with Christian, 3 found guilty and hanged in Britain, 2 found guilty and pardoned - therefore at least 13 men participated in the mutiny. Besides, there were 4 who died on Pandora, 1 who was released on legal technicality, and 2 who remained on Taiti (16 went ashore, but only 14 arrested). Therefore, between 13 and 20 people participated in the mutiny.

Hello. The article is looking pretty good! I wonder if we can make the statements about the numbers of mutineers and loyal crew match the list that was recently added. I added the stuff about some men voluntarily joining Bligh in the launch and the other men who were forced to man the ship with the mutineers. I was working from an article in New Yorker magazine -- they have high standards of writing but it's entirely possible I misunderstood something. In particular, were there really only 11 mutineers to begin with? Presumably it will be easy to get all the numbers to add up, and I do think it's important to know just who was involved in different episodes of the story. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Otaheite

Otaheite is not an unnecessary link. Otaheite is an island; a specific island of Tahiti. More needs to be added to it. Please do not remove that link.

Yes, Otaheite is a name of an island. But Tahiti is a modern name of the same island. The archipelago it is located in is called Society Islands. (See, for example, MSN Encarta.) -- Mike Rosoft 20:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but natives on the islands - or descendants of the natives - might like to preserve the cultural and historical reference. Writing it out of history does not seem reasonable. -- TaranRampersad 21:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You are right. After all, I just removed the link (and created a redirect from Otaheite to Tahiti instead), I wasn't trying to remove mentions of Otaheite from this or any other article. (Sorry if I seemed impolite.) - Mike Rosoft 08:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HMS Bounty or HMAV Bounty?

Which is the correct appelation of the ship Bounty? (HMS Bounty has almost 34000 hits on Google, compared to less than 1000 for HMAV Bounty.) -- Mike Rosoft 15:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the books, it's HMAV. Check the references.
It's HMAV. It's in the historical references. His Majesty's Armed Vessel.
- Thanks, I'll edit the rest of articles. - Mike Rosoft 08:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to the Royal Naval Museum Portsmouth, based on HM Naval Base Portsmouth, they list it as HMS Bounty, I'd personally consider the Historical branch of the Royal Navy to be more accurate than the books. [2] I work for the Portsmouth Historic Dockyards, so will see if I can find out a proper answer for this. I would suggest the above unsigned comments about it definitely being HMAV in the historical references should be disregarded unless a proper source is given for the statement... JonEastham 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bligh wrote his own account of the mutiny in 1790. The title names the vessel as His Majesy's Ship Bounty. If you wish to read it for yourself it's available online here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20337/20337-h/20337-h.htm ENScroggs 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crew

The listed status of many of the crew seems wrong. Bligh was, as far as I know, the only commissioned officer on board. The Sailing Master and Master's Mates, and also the Surgeon who is listed here with the WOs, were Warrant Officers of Wardroom Rank - treated as officers but not holding a commission. The list of warrant officers seems too long. People like the Boatswain, Gunner and Carpenter were certainly WOs, but I would have thought that most of the rest of the specialists were actually Petty Officers. Warrant Officers were the privileged few, not the majority of the crew. -- Necrothesp 17:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This point is very important and is germane to the question of the causes of the mutiny. Because of her small displacement Bounty was rated as a cutter by the Royal Navy, which dictated that only one commissioned officer, namely the lieutenant commanding, was authorized. All the other subordinate posts were to be filled by warrant officers, petty officers or midshipmen. No detachment of marines was authorized for a cutter. Thus Bligh, a very competent navigator and sailor yet without much experience of independent command, was faced with a very long voyage without a brother officer to back him up. ENScroggs 23:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't HMS Bounty deserve a page of its own

Currently HMS Bounty is redirected to Mutiny on the Bounty. Shouldn't there be an article devoted exclusively to the vessel. Actually I think a case can be made that the original Bounty, and the two existing reconstructions all deserve article of their own. Geo Swan 18:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In view of my role in the previous article of that name, i may be biased. That version (conceived to provide a continuous chronology for the ship, rather than requiring readers with that interest to read the start of the Bligh article, then jump into the history of the mutiny) may have duplicated too much material [shrug]. But in any case, be sensitive to what went before; it may be worth limiting boldness to save effort. --Jerzy (t) 01:23, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Linklater/Linkletter

The article lists Peter Linkletter while Linklater gives his dates and the different spelling Peter Linklater, perhaps based on Find-a-Grave (which is perhaps like WP w/o admins?).
--Jerzy•t 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A page on a potentially valuable site supports the Dab's spelling.
--Jerzy•t 22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Connie Kalitta

I'm not expert in RN law, but as I understand USN law, refusal to obey an order isn't mutiny (tho popularly believed to be). Does it bear correction here? Trekphiler (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just sayin'

That whoever wrote the sentence "Unfortunately, the slaves on Jamaica refused to eat the breadfruit plant, so the main purpose of the expedition was ultimately fruitless." is a bad person with an even worse sense of humour :-P 124.254.97.127 17:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is HMAV completely spurious?

I have been unable to find any verifiable source for the origin of this abbreviation. The fully worded phrase is in the National Archives manuscripts and in Bligh's book. So who first made it into four letters? I suspect that the idea that it is the "true" name of the ship is an urban legend and dates to no later that about 1970. Can anyone tell me of any datable publication in which it can be found? Please! verifiable sources, not assertions, theories, opinions etc.

Petecarney (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is not quite. I have since found some early use of this abbreviation in colonial records not relating to the Bounty. The earliest use relating to the Bounty which I have found so far is 1945. The present popularity of this form surely derives from the film "The Bounty". Petecarney (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split this article: separate ship and mutiny

In the near future I'm going to split this article to create separate articles for the ship and the mutiny. Petecarney (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of scandal?

I am curious as to why there is no reference whatsoever to the fate of the current inhabitants of Pitcairn Island, direct decendants of the crew The 2008 book Lost Paradise [3]tells that there has been an enduring legacy of rape and incest since christian et al set foot there. The court case was failry high profile for a while, so it seems strange that there is no mention in this article. 213.202.179.108 (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bligh was not a captain

I have removed "the captain" from the introductory paragraph, and substituted "commanding officer". As the article's text indicates shortly afterwards, Bligh was a commanding lieutenant at the time of the mutiny, and did not have the rank of captain. Bounty was a small ship and did not require a captain. He became well-known later as Captain Bligh and, with the assistance of Hollywood, this has led to the erroneous description of him as Captain Bligh of the Bounty. Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are technically correct though Bligh as commanding officer would have received the courtesy title of captain when being referred to, and would have been known as 'the captain of the Bounty', though he did not hold the rank of post-captain. 'Commanding officer' seems reasonable to avoid any confusion though. Benea (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Stewart's status

The table showing crew and status shows an inconsistency in regard this man's status. He is listed as Mutineer yet detained against will on Bounty in the notes. All others detained against will are shown to be loyal, as one would expect. I am changing to loyal. does anyone know where this anomoly came from? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New map

A new map of the Bounty's last voyage is available - it is used in Peter Heywood with a key in the caption, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Norton executed?

In the article it states that natives stoned John Norton to death, but there is no source listed after this so I did not want to try sifting through it all to find it. But there is a big difference between him dying because of a stone to the head or a throw and him actually being stoned to death. The latter would indicate that he was basically executed or otherwise fatally "banished" by the natives for some reason. Considering the previous sentence about Murderer's Cove it would seem that it could have been an attack by the natives which resulted in a fatality that involved a stone rather than being stoned to death in order to carry out a sentence of justice. Can anyone clarify this?97.88.242.162 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bligh never a Commander

I reverted Bligh's titled to "Commanding Lieutenant" since the Bounty as a Lieutenant command billet. Bligh was never issued a commission as a Commander and made several remarks in later years that, if he had been, he might have had a larger ship with marines who could have prevented the mutiny. -OberRanks (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery of wreck

Surely the wreck was discovered before 1957? It was shown in the 1935 documentary "Pitcairn Island Today". (92.10.135.84 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Problems/notes

There's a problem with the paragraphs immediately around the "Aftermath of the mutiny/Bligh's epic voyage" section:

Of the 42 men on board aside from Bligh and Christian, 18 joined the mutiny, two were passive, and 22 remained loyal to Bligh.

The mutineers ordered Bligh, the ship's master, two midshipmen, the surgeon's mate (Ledward) and the ship's clerk into Bounty's launch. Several more men voluntarily joined Bligh rather than remaining aboard, as they knew that those who remained on board would be considered de jure mutineers under the Articles of War.

In all, 18 of the loyal crew were in the launch with Bligh; 4 other loyalists were forced to stay with the 18 mutineers and 2 passive crew.

The line "several more men joined" is vague and, after discussing the alignment of forces rather than physical disposition, even somewhat confusing. Maybe: "Thirteen more men voluntarily joined Bligh on the launch rather than remaining aboard."

Also, if her complement was "46 officers and men" (mentioned in the "1787 breadfruit expedition" section) then there should have been "[44] men on board aside from Bligh and Christian" or her complement should have been "[44] officers and men".

Either way, the entire article should likely take a consistent approach toward including or excluding Bligh and Christian in the counts.

The narrative is also disjointed. The article keeps making you do mental math without all the rationale. We are first told "twelve" and "four" remain in Tahiti after leaving Tubai due to attacks and that "two" die there, making you wonder if nine died in Tubai attacks. Then "four" and "ten" are brought aboard Pandora (in other words, all the surviving members on Tahiti). Then later we finally find that the missing nine went to Pitcairn

Incidentally, I'm not sure "Bligh's epic voyage" should be called that. Not that it wasn't "epic" but that carries connotations of approval that seem unencyclopedic. Maybe: "Bligh's return to England via Timor". (The phrase is also used in the "Recreation of the voyage" section.)

Similarly, Fletcher Christian became the established leader of the community, and followed a policy of fairness and moderation toward all. He wanted the Polynesians to have an equal say in community affairs, and was supported in this by several of the Britons and likely all of the Polynesians. (in the "Mutineers on Pitcairn Island" section) doesn't sound right. I'd drop the glowing abstract nouns and retain the concrete postions: "Fletcher Christian became the established leader of the community, and wanted the Polynesians to have an equal say in community affairs. He was supported in this by several of the Britons and likely all of the Polynesians."

Later, "Despite Fletcher Christian's efforts to maintain peace, the Polynesian men revolted against their British oppressors" seems overdone when talking about a handful of people. Again, concrete positions would be better. "The Polynesian men fought the British men who tried to take their wives." That whole section is questionable (particularly on Adams), really.)

The first six paragraphs of "Crew list" are way too long and detailed and not made particularly relevant to the article. There should be information of this sort elsewhere on the wikipedia with a simple link.

"The Bounty on postage stamps"? Seriously?

-74.162.155.129 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hough

There are a few references quoting a page in Hough but there is no detail of the book given in the article. Keith D (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found my way here for the same reason. Maybe if we keep at it it will get someone's attention.HowardJWilk (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's presumably Richard Hough's Captain Bligh & Mr. Christian. But without knowing which edition corresponds to those page numbers, it's hard to fill in the reference. I'm not with my copy right now, but when I am, I could compare and rewrite the numbers as the facts appear in mine, and fill in the reference. Benea (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crew List

John Fryer was never demoted from Sailing Master, nor was Fletcher Christian promoted to Sailing Master. In a letter to Joseph Banks from Batavia, October 3, 1789, Bligh lists those who came away in the boat, and at the top of the list is "John Fryer Master." Banks Letter. Christian was named acting lieutenant on March 2, 1788, before the Bounty had even reached Cape Horn Bounty Logbook, after Bligh had put the ship on three watches and given Christian charge of the third Bounty Logbook. James Galloway (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvements

I have just transferred a "new version" of this article from userspace (diff). Brianboulton and I will be working on this article quite a bit over the next few weeks with the goal of improving it to featured standard. All contributions would be welcome. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, will you be in good enough shape for an appearance on the Main Page via Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 28? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 07:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Howcheng: I see no reason why it couldn't run more or less as is (there aren't issues regarding citations etc), but presumably this would mean taking the "under construction" template down at least temporarily. It would be nice to get this back on the main page for the anniversary as it has been six years since it last appeared. — Cliftonian (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Let's put it up then. —howcheng {chat} 12:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can of Worms?

(1) Problems with enumeration of the crew

From the section titled Crew: "Bounty's complement was 46 men ..."

From the section titled Seizure: "There were 19 men and their possessions stowed on board the launch, leaving it dangerously low in the water with only seven inches of freeboard. The 25 men remaining on Bounty included ..."

Some readers of Wikipedia (not many admittedly!) have sufficient arithmetical skills to work out that 19 + 25 < 46!

The difference, of course, is due to the deaths of AB James Valentine and the ship's surgeon, Thomas Huggan, prior to the mutiny occurring. But unless that is specifically stated (meaning WRT Valentine; there already exists a paragraph discussing Huggan's death) so that the body count bookkeeping remains copacetic, readers will leave the article with the impression that it is just another half-assed Wikipedia effort where the numbers don't even add up. I realize that these two characters (particularly Valentine) are minor WRT the events being documented by the article, however all the "i"s need to be dotted and all the "t"s crossed if you wish this to ever be a featured article (in actual quality rather than in name).

I agree and we should clarify this anomaly by rephrasing to something along the lines of "Of the 44 men aboard Bounty before the mutiny, 19 were on board the launch ..." — Cliftonian (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you also need to establish how 46 actually became 44 ... NOT just remind the reader of a number (44) who's derivation he is most likely unaware (otherwise he wouldn't be reading the article in the first place, would he?) just prior to discussing the 25 (on board ship) versus 19 (in the launch) split. Which is why Valentine's death needs to be addressed as well, despite his total unimportance WRT the mutiny and everything that followed. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point. We say in the body of the article that "a sick seaman" (Valentine) and Huggan had died between Bounty's departure from England and the mutiny. Therefore someone reading the article will know that two of the 46 had died. Simply reminding him that there were 44 left is in my view enough. — Cliftonian (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed you do. My bad. Though, of course, I don't agree with what you say about Valentine's death as per my comments in (2) below. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is now resolved. I went ahead and made the edit along the lines you suggested. If you have a problem with it, please do not revert without first discussing it here. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Mischaracterization of Valentine's Death

From the section titled Cape to Pacific: "There was also trouble with the surgeon Huggan who, having through misdiagnosis probably hastened the death of a sick seaman, caused havoc by raising a false scare that members of the crew were suffering from scurvy."

It is my understanding that Valentine died because he had an ailment (I'm not sure exactly what) that the ship's surgeon had decided to treat by bleeding him. Valentine subsequently died from a delirium brought on by an infection resulting from this blood-letting. In today's world the surgeon would have been sued for malpractice (granted that blood-letting would not be a valid medical technique today; but if it was, performing it in so careless a fashion that the patient became infected and died in such a demented manner would almost certainly result in the doctor being struck off). Causing the young seaman's death by the unhygienic administration of blood-letting is a much more serious criticism of the surgeon's medical expertise and competence than his misdiagnosing what was actually ailing Valentine and subsequently failing to prevent its progress.

Back in the late 18th century blood-letting was used by surgeons as a cure-all for almost any disease (from acne, indigestion and jaundice to scurvy, gangrene, pneumonia and cholera!). It was the equivalent cure-all treatment back then as perhaps prescribing a pain-killer or antibiotic is for today's medical profession. Doctors tend to resort to cure-all treatments especially when they are not exactly sure what the root problem really is. In the context of late 18th century medicine the fact that Huggan resorted to bleeding the patient would not be considered a "misdiagnosis" since it was considered a valid treatment for almost anything! However, because blood-lettings were used so frequently and thus such standard practice, administering one in such an unhygienic fashion as to cause a fatal infection to set in would most definitely be frowned upon by Huggan's fellow surgeons. Depending on what was wrong with Valentine (e.g., it may only have been migraine, constipation, VD, herpes, whatever), Huggan's blood-letting probably didn't "hasten" his death but, in fact, caused it!

So I would seriously question the validity of that whole "having through misdiagnosis probably hastened the death of a sick seaman" phraseology and it needs rewording. I would have done the rewrite edit myself except I don't know what Valentine was suffering from. If it was cancer or tuberculosis then Huggan's badly administered blood-letting treatment possibly only hastened his death (as currently stated). Nevertheless, the blood-letting cure was not the result of a "misdiagnosis" - at worst, it was simply the result of no diagnosis. Back in those days some people even went to their doctors for a regular blood-letting despite being in perfectly good health - just as someone might go to a doctor for a flu shot today. A good bleeding was considered therapeutic and preventative medicine as well as being a possible cure for whatever ailed you.

Since this text needs a little rework anyway this would also be a good place in which to address the awry arithmetic regarding the Bounty's true complement of men at the time of the mutiny - as explained in (1) above. The much bigger and more important trouble with the surgeon Huggan (than causing havoc by raising an unnecessary scurvy scare) is that he single-handedly accounts for the two corpses that make the arithmetic all wrong. Not only did his own unhygienic methods almost certainly cause (rather than hasten) the death of Valentine, but his own death was brought on (according to Bligh?) by his own indolence and lethargy, which together with his alcoholism, caused his untimely demise. It's all there in Bligh's dispatches(?); he complains that his surgeon Huggan was an "indolent, unhygienic drunkard" - not exactly three words of description that any self-respecting doctor would really desire to be applied to them!

I do not possess the books so I will leave this one for Brian, who has the sources. — Cliftonian (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. Nor have I seen nor read them. What prompted me to access this article is that after having had a copy of the Bounty trilogy on my bookshelves for the last 30 years or so I have finally just got around to reading Mutiny on the Bounty. Having finished it I wanted to see how much the novel departed from historical fact. I suspect that the vast majority of people that read this article will come to it for a similar reason. The novel does a very good job of sticking to real events and chronology; it merely changes the character's motivations for what they do, etc. One thing that it sticks fairly rigorously to is the actual crew of the Bounty and their historical ranks/roles. It takes some literary license - such as replacing the midshipman Peter Heywood with an almost identical midshipmen Roger Byam, because he is the hero and first person narrator of the story, and it is mostly his perspective on events that the authors tweak to give the story the masterful evil Bligh versus personable Christian twist that they desired. However, the fact that the novel clearly lists out the dramatis personae (namely all the members of the ship's crew) on its first page so you know exactly who is who right down to the most insignificant AB, while this article waffles around in generalities when it comes to describing the crew (so that it raises more questions than it answers, as I've tried to demonstrate) that I find most disturbing. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is now closed. Having done some further research I believe that Valentine had consulted the ship's surgeon as a result of an asthma attack. So I went ahead and made the edit. If you have a problem with it, please do not revert without first discussing it here. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for you to decide when an issue is closed. If you continue to make inaccurate or badly sourced edits, they will be challenged. Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have instead written "closed from my perspective." No matter. I closed this item (and others) because you did not respond in a constructive manner to it/them. You decided instead to respond to my initial comments here with what was effectively a disingenuous and condescending pontification (which you called "a few general observations"). You stated that you were not ready to deal with the points raised because you claimed that you had only got as far as expanding the article up to the Seizure section. This was a completely bogus excuse for dismissing out of hand the points I had raised since all of my comments - other than issue (3) - applied to the Crew or Cape to Pacific sections of the article; all of which precede the Seizure section. It is pretty obvious to anyone reading your "observations" that you had simply presented them as a lame excuse in order to avoid addressing any of my raised points.

Once I had read your initial refusal to discuss I realized I was now dealing with an "article ownership" problem, so I decided I needed to take a different approach to my edits since my initial courteous approach had been rejected out of hand. Since you had chosen NOT to discuss my input at this time, I was perfectly within my rights to go ahead and do my edit(s) as I probably should have done them in the first instance. Once you had stated your reluctance to discuss and I had done my edit there was no longer an issue - so I closed it. Besides, the issue was MINE, not YOURS - you clearly didn't have any issue with the text as it was - and I had now resolved it.

However, you, or anyone else, is perfectly free to re-open it, and that is what I assumed Cliftonian had done with his initial ping comment. Which is why I duly moved that and all his and your subsequent text back up here - to acknowledge his re-opening of the discussion.

As for your, "If you continue to make inaccurate or badly sourced edits, they will be challenged," remark that was quite an unnecessary personal attack. First off, I have not made any inaccurate or badly sourced edits, so your statement is blatantly false. Secondly, YOU are not the arbiter of truth and accuracy nor of the quality of sources for this or any other article. You may challenge the truth and accuracy of edits done by others, just as others (such as myself) may challenge the truth and accuracy of edits done by you. Ditto for the quality of sources. But YOU do not determine the outcome. That is determined by a consensus arrived at by a process of discussion - a discussion that so far you have opted NOT to participate in. All you have done since Cliftonian re-opened this discussion has been to completely avoid my challenge of the veracity / appropriateness of your own text, and instead used this Talk topic primarily to personally abuse me and attack my integrity. I would advise you not to continue any further in that vein. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@66.16.144.18: please provide a source for your assertion that Valentine died of septicemia. In the meantime I am returning the article to the previous version. Thanks, — Cliftonian (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to if you already agree that Valentine died of a blood infection! The two terms are effectively synonymous; I just used the more correct medical term. Perhaps you need to invest in a dictionary.

Sarcasm is no substitute for proper argument. The whole point is that it is not clear, from a range of sources, what Valentine actually died of. They agree that his arm was infected as a result of Huggan's mistreatment, and that this may have hastened his death. Hough believes that he may have died from a pulmonary embolism, Alexander speculates about an asthma attack. For that reason the wording has to remain general. Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor, as just stated above, is personal abuse a substitute for proper argument, so right back at you, and then some. Would that be a full range of sources we are discussing here or just a range of sources that you have predetermined as the self-appointed arbiter of all that is good and true? As the article itself states, there have been over 2000 books written about the mutiny. Does your range of sources encompass all of them? Or just your own personal favorites? I certainly haven't read them all, but I have read enough over the last fifty years to feel that what I've added with my edits isn't bogus - because, if I did feel that way, I would not have added it. However, that still doesn't mean I'm correct - because I wasn't there at the time and can't possibly know for certain. Likewise, I'm sure you feel exactly the same about the way the article text was originally worded; but likewise, that still doesn't mean you are correct either. We are both reliant on conflicting sources, many of which neither of us has read, and possible a few of which neither of us have read in common. What to do, eh? Which is why I tried to open a discussion on the topic - silly old me for trying to go that route. But what I do know for certain is that you are not correct by default.

"For that reason the wording has to remain general." Not so. I strongly disagree, both with your stated approach and particularly so with the way you have excuted your "keep it general" approach. First off, here's the problem I have with your overall approach. People refer to encyclopedias for information. They want hard facts not generic waffle and theory (even if the hardness is only a semblance of such). Your approach results in generic verbage that runs counter to what they are seeking. If it's a spade then call it a spade; don't hedge and say it's an agricultural implement lest you might possibly upset somebody WRT their strict definition of what exactly is and isn't a spade. You cannot keep everybody happy all of the time - so don't even try.

Here's the problem I have with your particular execution of the "keep it general" approach. In this instance, your attempt at reconciling all of the conflicting sources down to the most generically common element creates a resultant nonsense that is way more false and misleading than any potential falacy you were trying to avoid introducing by keeping things general in the first place. I fully recognize there exists lots of conflicting material regarding what Valentine was originally suffering from; what Huggan did to try and cure him; what Valentine subsequently died from; and what Huggan then told Bligh was the cause of his death in order to cover his ass (because Bligh was surprised by the death and extremely angry at losing one of his crew as it reflected badly on him as a captain). However, the way you had the text written according to your "let's keep it general" approach resulted in: (1) the scurvy scare appearing to be a completely separate incident totally unrelated to Valentine's death; (2) no mention being made of blood-letting by Huggan (which is reasonably well documented); (3) the cause of Valentine's death being falsely described as being due to a "misdiagnosis"; (4) no clear causal connection being established between Valentine's death and Huggan's careless treatment due to inebriation and lack of hygiene; (5) no clear separation of the cause of Valentine's death from his original ailment; and (6) despite your possibly true claim that Huggan's actions had "probably hastened" Valentine's death, your actual choice of that particular phraseology is extremely misleading - if I were to shoot you in the head someone might remark that I was "probably hastening your inevitable demise"; but most normal people would simply call it "murder" or "aggravated assault" or whatever my action was really considered to have been. Huggan didn't "hasten" Valentine's death; he "caused" it. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence as amended by the IP now reads: "There was also trouble with the ship's surgeon, Thomas Huggan, whose incompetent blood-letting of seaman James Valentine's asthma symptoms led to the latter's death from a blood infection." Well, that's not quite what the sources say, and "blood-letting of seaman James Valentine's asthma symptoms" doesn't make sense – you can't blood-let symptoms. From the sources, it seems that the asthma symptoms developed after the bloodletting – that's the problem with trying to construct edits without reading the sources. However, enough is enough: I suggest we replace "blood-letting" with "treatment", and let the revised sentence stand. This is a trivial point that has absolutely no bearing on the mutiny itself, and has had too much time spent on it already. @Cliftonian:, will you agree to the revision I suggest? Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. — Cliftonian (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before I respond to the content of your comment above, I wish to raise 2 points. First, I saw that you had posted a Talk comment but couldn't immediately find it, and then by the time I did and had responded to it, my response input was blocked due to a cross-posting because you had now added your second comment to the text I had started my edit with. I don't have the time to keep rewriting my comments and edits due to simultaneous postings. The same thing happened to me with the article. I was constructing my second edit while you were reverting my first one, so once again I lost it and had to redo it. Wikipedia does not handle simultaneous online editing and communication with any aplomb; it's not a chat facility. If it appears like I took a long time to respond to you ... that is how much lost time your quick back to back edits this evening have cost me. The faster I try and respond to you the more likely it becomes that I will get another edit conflict. So please bear that in mind when you wish to quickly add to a comment you've already posted and you know the other person is probably also online trying to respond to it. Thanks.

Second, I moved all of your recent comments here where they more correctly belong. Because this is the spot where I did you and Brian the courtesy of starting a discussion on this topic BEFORE I made any edits related to this area of the article so as to avoid the sort of petty edit-warring you just indulged in. If you had any objections to my pointing out that Huggan was incompetent or that Valentine died as a result of the therapeutic phlebotomy that Huggan performed on him then you or Brian should have voiced them here in response to my own courtesy to you both (as you yourself did indeed do on some of my other points) and NOT waited until I made the edit and then changed or reverted it. Neither of you appear to understand how Wikipedia works. Articles are open to be edited by ANYONE. This article is not OWNED by you or Brian as you both appear to think it is. If someone opens a Talk page discussion on a topic seeking consensus then you need to participate in that discussion and NOT sit hovering over your keyboard waiting to revert anything that editor does 10 seconds afterwards. As for good faith ... please try showing me some!

OK, as to your comments ... I agree, you can't blood-let symptoms. I will fix it. That SNAFU occurred because I had to rework that edit a second time and when you do something over, and against the clock, you get a bit careless - that's another problem with trying to edit in "real time".

"That's not quite what the sources say" - which sources? You don't know what sources I'm using. You and Brian do not have a monopoly on sources nor can you dictate to others what sources they must use. That's not how Wikipedia works.

You appear to be relying on your fictional source, as you were in the Elphinstone debacle. If not, why don't you tell us what your source is? Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, a source - not the only one but one that suffices - had already been added on 03:57 (10 May) before you even wrote that comment. So I really don't understand the purpose of your question - other than possibly to try and score some kind of juvenile point. In which case, you need to grow up. Second, someone recently said to me, "Sarcasm is no substitute for proper argument." Which renders your whole comment somewhat ironic. Or is "hypocritical" the correct word I should have used there? 66.16.144.18 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"That's the problem with trying to construct edits without reading the sources" - who is trying to do that? It is clear to anyone reading this that you just reverted an edit that you don't yourself have a contrary source for when you should have voiced any objection here. So what gives you the right to nix an edit done by someone else whose veracity you yourself are clueless about?

I've no idea what you mean here. Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the way both you and Cliftonian cross-posted while I was trying to construct my response to his initial request for a source for my assertion of septicemia, my initial short "I don't need to ..." reply received an edit conflict due to the subsequent addition of your text while I was writing it. Because your text ended with a ping of Cliftonian I misinterpreted that ping as being the post's signature (note that in the Edit Conflict screen the text is not in the usual Wikipedia font but uses instead a Times Roman or Elite or some such font which is much harder to follow thereby increasing the liklihood of such errors) and thus I was then under the impression that it was additional text from Cliftonian. I readjusted for my original edit conflict and started to add my responses to your post into my newly constructed reply, but my words are addressed to Cliftonian (to whom I thought I was responding) and use phrasing such as "Brian and you" etc. You need to read those words as meaning "Cliftonian and you" instead - or better still, just ignore the 2nd person plural and read my responses as being directly to you. Just understand that when I wrote them I thought I was responding to Cliftonian. I could possibly go back and edit my original words so they are addressed to the right person in each case but at this juncture that might only compound the confusion!

Consequently, my original understanding of the, "That's the problem with trying to construct edits without reading the sources" comment is that it was Cliftonian accusing me of trying to construct edits without reading "the sources" - when in fact it was you making that absurd accusation. However, since Cliftonian had already posted a number of times here that he himself "did not possess the books" his accusation seemed somewhat hypocritical. To my mind, the stance he was taking with his comment was that I should not make edits to the article because I have not read / don't possess "the sources"; yet it is OK for him to make edits to the article (such as to revert my edit), despite the fact that he had stated multiple times that he hasn't read / doesn't possess those same "sources" either, so my comment was pointing out to him his double-standard - viz. he can do edits without the "sources" but no one else is permitted to do so. Since it was you who made the comments that I was responding to (not him) my comment is now moot, and without knowing that I am addressing him (not you) for comments you made (not him) my response would indeed make little sense.

Note also that I subsequently received a second edit conflict when trying to post my longer response to both of your comments because Cliftonian had added and posted his "I agree" response to your ping to the text with which I had started my second much longer edit where I wasa also trying to move all the new text. This was my third edit conflict on the night as I had also got one in the actual article as a result of Cliftonian reverting my reversion while I was trying to do my follow on edit. Hence the first of the two points I raised in the response I did finally get to post successfully. I had assumed my edit conflicts had mostly been caused by Cliftonian making a number of back-to-back posts, but it was actually the two of you simply posting back and forth to each other - he pinged me to ask me for a source; you added your comment and pinged him; he replied that he agreed. I begain editing each of my responses in between each of those three events. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I suggest we replace 'blood-letting' with 'treatment'" - why? It is well documented that it was a blood-letting. Stop trying to insert your own opinions into the article. I was also about to go on and add some sourcing info. for that whole sentence when you caused me to jump through hoops with your cross-posted reversion. The time to have objected about 'blood-letting' was when I originally posted this point (2) - not after I have done the edit.

"This is a trivial point that has absolutely no bearing on the mutiny itself, and has had too much time spent on it already." It is only costing you so much energy because Brian and you are putting way too much energy into your cabal trying to stop other people from editing the article as if it belonged solely to you. With all due respect, may I suggest that you go research the philosophy of open access behind Wikipedia, and in the mean time chill-out and show other editors some basic courtesy, and possibly even adopt some good faith regarding that they might actually know what they are doing. Thanks.

That is so preposterous a summary of the situation that it deserves little further comment. I will only say that Cliftonian is one of the politest editors that I have met in many years of editing. He has answered your various points, however truculently put ("No no no no!" etc), with courtesy and patience. Neither of us are in need of lectures from you about how to behave on Wikipedia; a willingness to discuss is not the same as a willingness to submit to your bluster, and we will continue to protect the article from any ill-considered interventions. Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly preposterous - see my further comments below. Regarding Cliftonian, no one has claimed that he isn't/wasn't polite. He did indeed post pretty quick responses to each of my five raised issues / discussion points, but he most certainly didn't "answer them"! In most cases he posted only to state that he couldn't address them and deferred in almost every instance to you. The one exception was the interchange regarding Elphinstone's correct rank where he successfully made and won his point, and I conceded as much to him at the time. I apologize for the "no, no, no, no" phraseology but it wasn't intended to convey truculence - becausse that was not what I was feeling. Someone who is behaving truculantly doesn't take time out to explain naval ranks to another person (that task was undertaken mostly in response to Cliftonian's "I must admit I am fairly confused by the various ranks and positions used here" comment, although his comment actually referred to the petty officers) and end his posting with, "I hope that helps." Nor does someone who wishes to be truculent post back with an update that adds further detail to his own admission of being wrong.

What IS preposterous is your maliciously reading truculance into my response to Cliftonian and your attempt to put words into my mouth (keyboard) that I never even thought let alone said (typed) - such as calling him impolite, discourteous and impatient. Once again you merely demonstrate your own "bad faith" to others and you need to desist from that dysfunctional behavior right now. Any bluster here is coming SOLELY from you. As for your claim that you will "continue to protect the article from any ill-considered interventions" that merely translates as: "I will continue to revert anything that is added to the article with which I personally disagree." I'm afraid such an outrageously arrogant and confrontational approach to editing will ultimately get you banned from Wikipedia if you persist with it. Which is why you are indeed in need of "lectures" (your word, not mine; my choice of phraseology would be "a spot of friendly advice") from me about how to behave on Wikipedia. Other editors have as equally much right to remove any ill-considered drivel as "having through misdiagnosis probably hastened the death of a sick seaman" from the article as you had to insert it in the first place. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

66.16.144.18 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Denial of Cross-Examination Rights is NOT a "Legal Technicality"

From the section titled Court martial: "William Muspratt, the only other of the accused to employ legal counsel, was reprieved on a legal technicality and pardoned in February 1793." Legal technicality my foot! He was prevented from calling witnesses to testify in his defense. Presumably because those witnesses were fellow defendants and the Court suspected that any such testimony would simply be a complete fabrication which all of the defendants had had plenty of time and opportunity to concoct while sequestered together awaiting their court martial. In which case the Court had the option of permitting their testimony but attaching little weight to words provided by fellow convicted mutineers. But to simply deny the possibility of such witness testimonies was legal suicide - it wouldn't have stood up in a British civilian court of law in 1792 anymore than it would not stand up in almost any judicial system in the world today. The very essence of the judicial process is to allow an accused defendant an opportunity to defend himself against his accusers. To prevent that defense from occurring by forbidding the testimony of all witnesses supportive of the defendant's claim of innocence runs completely contrary to the whole intended process of justice being seen to be served. Why even bother to have a trial if you are going to impose such restrictions? The Court had no option but to anul its decision and grant a pardon in Muspratt's case lest it be perceived as a kangaroo court. That is hardly a "legal technicality"!

(Note: If anybody should have been hung for mutiny it was Muspratt - he and Millward (who was hung) had deserted along with Churchill upon the Bounty's arrival in Tahiti, so there was prior documented history of his true mindset WRT his duty to the crown. Unlike the other two crew members that received royal pardons, Muspratt was most likely pardoned to save the Admiralty's judicial face and NOT because of the inherent merits of his particular case.)

Again, I do not have the books so I will leave this; perhaps Brian can look in the sources and see what they say about this. — Cliftonian (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Unclear which of the Bounty's officers were Warrant Officers and which were Petty Officers

From the section titled Crew: "Two master's mates and two midshipmen were rated as petty officers." My own understanding of the rankings of the crew aboard the Bounty is that there was only one master's mate aboard, that being the berth of Fletcher Christian. I believe that the midshipman George Stewart was later promoted by Bligh to the role of "acting master's mate"; but that was because he had also just promoted Christian to the rank of "acting lieutenant" (thus making him his second-in-command) - so there would still only be one master's mate aboard (if you ignore the "acting" qualifier). If you are going to write text like that in the article you must be specific and name names. Who was the other master's mate? Also, which of the six midshipmen were considered petty officers? Three of the midshipmen (Heywood, Hallett and Tinkler) were all too young (all mere boys around the age of 15) to be considered petty officers, but the other three (Young, Stewart and Hayward) were conversely all old enough (all around the ages of 20 or 21). So which two was it and why?

You answered my query re the second Master's Mate (as per all the rest that follows in this section) but omitted to tell me which 2 of the 6 midshipmen were also rated as (presumably senior) petty officers. I still wish to know that. Also, wasn't the surgeon's assistant, Thomas Ledwood, also considered a senior petty officer? 66.16.144.18 (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second master's mate was none of these people—there was a second master's mate called William Elphinstone (see here. Regarding the petty officers I am not sure; I must admit I am fairly confused by the various ranks and positions used here. — Cliftonian (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no! William Elphinstone was a Master-at-Arms' Mate not a Master's Mate. Big difference! A Master's Mate is a naval rank just below Junior Wardroom Officer status but above Senior Petty Officer, while a Master-at-Arms' Mate is a Petty Officer rank on a par with Quartermaster or Sailmaker. In fact, the rank is more frequently referred to as Corporal. Elphinstone was thus two or three ranks below Christian (when Christian was still a Master's Mate, that is). The only rank on a par with Master's Mate is Surgeon's Mate (or Surgeon's Assistant - same difference) which is why I listed Thomas Ledwood in (5) below.

FYI: After the mutiny, once Bligh had reached Batavia, he sent a list containing a description of each of the 25 men that had remained on the Bounty to Lord Cornwallis, then Governor-General of India, at Calcutta; a copy of this list to Governor Philips at New South Wales; and a third copy was given to the Governor-General of the Dutch Possessions in India residing right there in Batavia. In this list he refers to Charles Churchill as a ship's corporal which is normally the rank of a Master-at-Arms' Mate. If Churchill was a corporal then Elphinstone, as his mate, had an even lower rank. Or, more likely, Churchill had been demoted in rank to corporal as a consequence of his earlier desertion. I hope that helps. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I do not think this is a modern error as you assert as the classic sources and Bligh himself describe him as such. Bligh's letters describe Elphinstone as a master's mate (see here) as do his Narrative of the Mutiny (see here) and his account in A Voyage to the South Seas (see here). Sir John Barrow's 1831 study does as well (see here). Christian and Elphinstone were both master's mates (crew summary from Caroline Alexander's 2003 study here). Can you provide any documentary evidence for your assertion that Elphinstone was actually a master-at-arms' mate? — Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked more closely at the initial references you linked me to (before even glancing at the latest ones) I now realize that they are multiple and all say the same thing, so I've redacted what I had originally said about it possibly being a typo - one or two typos are possible, consistently being wrong multiple times is not. All I can state is that the novel has Elphinstone as the rank I stated, but most likely that was a literary tweak in order to make Christian the only Master's Mate. I'm certainly not going to claim the fictional variant is correct and all the non-fictional versions are wrong! Now that I look at Elphinstone's and Churchill's ages, Elphinstone (at 36) is 8 years older than Churchill (at 28) so it is unlikely, but by no means impossible, that Elphinstone was junior in rank to Churchill.

Update: As far as I can determine the novel is self-contradictory over Elphinstone's true rank. My copy of the book is an omnibus Bounty Trilogy edition in which the publishers have inserted the Bounty's crew list just before Nordoff and Hall's 1940 Preface to the combined works edition where it can easily be referenced no matter which of the 3 novels one is reading (see [just after the Wyeth prints]). Essentially the same list (in a slightly different format) also occurs in the first novel between Chapters II and III, which I'm assuming is where the list that was created by the authors was originally located (but note that this somewhat redundant repetition of the list had either been removed in the source 1946 Wyeth trilogy edition text used for the PGA version, or the PGA editors themselves decided to remove it since it occurs less than two dozen pages from the one now at the start of the omnibus text - which is "virtually adjacent" within the context of a single screen of scrollable text).

A third list (of a sort) occurs within the text at the start of [Chapter X] where it is used to define which 19 men were cast adrift in the launch with Bligh and which 25 men remained behind on the Bounty (plus which of these 25 were mutineers as opposed to loyalists prevented from going with the launch). In the first two lists just mentioned Elphinstone is identified as a "Master-at-Arms's Mate" while in the third list, describing the situation post-mutiny, he is now listed as being a "Master's Mate" (a couple of ranks higher). I share this update here simply in order to put this excursus completely to bed. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get sidetracked by this (now) non-issue. I had asked you who the other Master's Mate was and you told me. My prior response to your reply (plus latest update) is now a bit of a digression, I'm afraid, but hopefully an informative one. Let's move on. Granted that Elphinstone is indeed a Master's Mate, the number of crew not berthed in the forecastle in point (5) below is now 15 not 14, which is still greater than 13. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Enumeration of which crew members slept where does not tally correctly

From the section Crew: "The other ranks, 33 men altogether, had their quarters in the forecastle"

A complement of 46 men less 33 = 13 men.

Bligh + 5 WOs (Fryer, Huggan, Cole, Purcell, Peckover) + 6 "young gentlemen" whatever their actual ranks (Young, Stewart, Hayward, Heywood, Hallet, Tinkler) + Christian (master's mate) + Ledwood (surgeon's mate) totals 14 men in all. That's 1 too many. If you also add the mysterious second master's mate then that is 2 too many. Once again the numbers implied by the text just don't add up!

This issue is now resolved. No one disagreed with my list of cabin, gunroom and cockpit berthed personnel above so, with the true status of Elphinstone now sorted out, the change of 33 to 31 became duck soup. If you have a problem with it, please do not revert without first discussing it here. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

66.16.144.18 (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, what do the sources say here? — Cliftonian (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ready to deal in detail with the points raised here at this moment, although they will be addressed. For now, the article is under development and it will continue to be so for a couple more weeks. I have only got as far as expanding the article up to the Seizure section, and haven't even looked at the rest of the stuff. For the time being I'll make a few general observations:

And which is why I raised these issues as general comments here so that you can both take them on board and address them at your leisure since I understood the updating of the article was currently in progress. I wasn't going to waste my time chasing around and editing a moving target. I've got better things to do. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have to produce an article of around 8–9000 words from literally millions of words across a wide variety of sources. Points that are of little relevance to the mutiny, such as Huggan's botched treatment of Valentine, have necessarily to be dealt with briefly. I think the present wording does that adequately, but will be happy with any rewording that is consistent with the sources and does not involve the magnification of this marginal issue.

If you still think that your present wording deals with the treatment adequately having read my comments then you have either not understood them or have chosen to ignore them. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitably, some details will be missing from the article. Our job is to ensure that the essential facts are presented, in accordance with the sources.and are not subject to our personal analysis
Making sure that the various numbers add up will be an essential part of the tidying-up process when the draft is complete. Clifonian and I have discussed the need for a crew table, showing exactly who was who on the Bounty. I found a similar table in Caroline Alexander's book to be helpful, and I am sure that a similar chart will be equally useful here.

Well, I was going to suggest the addition of a full crew table. Reading the comments earlier in this Talk page it appears the article used to contain such a table, which means that it has since been removed. May I suggest you make it a collapsible table at the end of the "Crew" section. That way readers can open it up only if they are interested in specific details - such as what was the actual rank and age of William Elphinstone? Many readers won't be interested and can pass right over the collapsed table. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the novel in question, but would counsel against using a work of fiction as a guideline as to whether this article is an accurate account. For example, in the case of Muspratt, "legal technicality" is the precise wording used in the source (Hough). The fictional account may well be tidier, and more satisfying – the author's imagination can fill inconvenient gaps whereas we are left with untidy loose ends and sometimes contradictory accounts. We have to try to worry out the truth, or as close to it as we can get.

Please don't patronize me and also see my earlier interchanges with Cliftonian. My earlier point was that, like it or not, without a crew table (or some equivalent alternative) your article will appear as lacking important details relative to even a fictional work. When the reader perceives an encyclopedic article as lacking substance relative to a mere work of fiction you have a problem. Also, bear in mind who your readers actually are and why they are now reading the article. They are most likely people that have just read the novel or seen one of the five movie versions based on it and who now want to get at the real story on which they are based. You minimally have to address the same facts that the fictional works throw out. Just take that input on board.

WRT Hough, your description of him as "the source" is very troublesome. He is merely one source out of many, possibly more definitive on certain historic details than many other sources. This is meant to be an encyclopedic article about the mutiny not a precis of Hough's book. Hough, nor any other historian or author, is NOT gospel. For instance, he may well not be the best source for the legal implications that led to the pardon of Muspratt. That may well be a lawyer who better understands the British naval jurisprudence of the late 18th century. Nevertheless, anyone with an I.Q. higher than ambient room temperature can see it was not a "legal technicality" no matter what Hough wrote. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be provoked into bandying words with you. Any sensible points raised on this page will be dealt with in the article as the draft proceeds. Brianboulton (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one was trying to provoke you into doing anything. Your refusing to respond to issues raised in a Talk page discussion by attempting to dismiss all of the points raised there as merely an attempt to "provoke you into bandying words" with the editor seeking consensus required either a large amount of guile or a great deal of paranoia on your part - perhaps both. Either way, in posting such a ridiculous claim you have once more demonstrated absolutely none of the "good faith" Wikipedia expects you to show to other editors. And your implication that your refusal to discuss the issues I raised is because you considered them not to be sensible points only compounds your other arrogantly dismissive insult(s). 66.16.144.18 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We welcome any positive discussion concerning the article, and will endeavour to see that the points you raise are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most readers of the above solicitation will find it very difficult to reconcile those words with your earlier contradictory, "I am not ready to deal in detail with the points raised here at this moment." Thus it comes across as being completely disingenuous. The two comments taken in conjunction effectively imply the following interpretation: "I/we welcome any positive discussion but if I/we don't wish to deal with it then I/we will ignore it until some later time (possibly forever)." This is NOT your article (it has existed since at least 2004) and the editing of it is NOT subject to your own personal schedule. Any Wikipedia article can be edited by anyone at any time. To refuse to partake in a Talk page discussion - for whatever reason - merely relinquishes your right to state your side of an argument WRT any contentious issues. Refusing to discuss simply means that consensus will be obtained without your participation. If you don't like that consequence then you need to willingly participate in any discussion when someone invites you to do so (as I did) and at the time they do so - not at some unspecified time in the future that only you determine. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@66.16.144.18 Yes, neither Brian, Cliff, you, nor myself OWN the article. However, when an editor or two, especially two as highly decorated and respected on here as Brian and Cliff, indicate that they expanding an article to FA standard, they usually know what they are doing. If I'd been editing an article and either of them said they wanted to develop it all the way to FA I'd jump at the chance for them to edit it. I really don't see what your concern is here. They can most certainly be trusted with researching it and getting it right. Why not take a breather for a while and create an account and contribute some article work elsewhere and just let them see what they can do with it and before they nom for FA you can give it a read and see if you still have a problem with it. I think you'll find most producers of content here would certainly like to see this promoted and trust Brian and Cliff 100% to take it all the way there, and produce a top rate article in doing so. Don't you want to see that? So, yes, you do have to take a leap of good faith here and just assume the article is going to get better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]