Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mutiny on the Bounty/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2015 [1].

Mutiny on the Bounty

Nominator(s): Brianboulton, —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll take my chance against the law. You'll take yours against the sea." So says Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable) to Lieutenant William Bligh (Charles Laughton) in Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), the best-known of the five film versions, as the mutineers turn their captain and 18 others adrift in a small open boat in the south Pacific Ocean. The basic story is no doubt familiar to many of you from the movies and/or books: Captain Bligh is a tyrannical sadist in charge of a "hell ship"; Fletcher Christian proclaims "We'll be men again if we hang for it" and heroically leads the men to freedom. What resemblance has this to the historical events? Not very much. The records show that Bligh actually gave out an exceptionally low number of floggings for the time, though he was given to thunderous rages and humiliating put-downs. His harsh treatment of his former favourite Christian, whom he had made second-in-command during the outward voyage, combined with other psychological stressors to bring the younger man to a state of brooding, suicidal desperation that boiled over into mutiny on the morning of 28 April 1789. The rest, as they say, is history.

This account of the real life Mutiny on the Bounty has been a collaborative effort between the esteemed Brianboulton and myself over the past couple of months. It has undergone a peer review over the past week from an all-star selection of FAC regulars and received very positive feedback. We hope you enjoy the article and look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have. All comments are welcome. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I could find very little wrong with it at the peer review to the point that I felt useless reviewing it! An excellent account which clearly meets FA criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doctor for your help at PR and for your very kind words. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another peer reviewer checking in. I was impressed then and am impressed again at a second reading. A fine piece of work that meets all the FA criteria for the text. I am glad to learn the facts of the case after a lifetime vaguely believing the myths. I don't usually comment on images, Wikipedia's arcane rules being beyond me, but I thought this article particularly well illustrated. – Tim riley talk 08:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help and the extremely kind words, Tim. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support could find little to criticise at the PR. I have some knowledge of the Bounty saga, having read several of the books on it, though not recently, and having been to several of the relevant sites. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Gary for your help at PR and the kind words here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I echo my colleague's thanks to the above, and my appreciation for the parts they played in raising the quality of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This is certainly one of the best articles I have read over the last few years. In fact, I liked it so much, I supported it twice 😉 CassiantoTalk 19:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the help and the kind words Cassianto. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. RE: "many of the men lived ashore and formed sexual attachments with native Polynesians". This is twee and wrong. Sex was heterosexual. The sailors screwed the local girls and had girlfriends. The phrase "sexual attachments" is silly.
  • Yes, the word "relationships" works. You could also talk about "bonds". And trust me, the phrase "sexual attachments" is twee.
  • 2 RE: "descendants of the mutineers and their Tahitian consorts would live on Pitcairn into the 21st century". The word "consorts" is wrong.
  • No it isn't. The word is defined in the Oxford dictionary as "a wife, husband or companion" which seems to fit the bill exactly.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, this is a silly argument. You know perfectly well that lots of words have multiple meanings, some of which are archaic or applicable to certain contexts only. Drop the word "consort" and use either "partner" or "girlfriend". The current wording is wrong.
  • You cannot say the Oxford Dictionary definition is "wrong" or that accepting it is silly. You can suggest alternative words which you think are better. The two you have suggested have a rather contemporary feel, and I'm not convinced that either is an improvement. If other reviewers wish to support your choices, I will of course accept the consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the word "consorts" was well-chosen. They were, after all, the lords of Pitcairn. And given the isolation and bleakness that they chose, the word "consorts" works in an ironic sense too. As for the Tahitians, I have never seen anything that suggested that the liaisons were all female. I think caution is the best path, given one thing and another.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. RE: "Mutineers divided" and the phrase 'Others, such as Stewart and Heywood, settled into quiet domesticity with their "wives"'. Why put quotation marks around the word "wives"? I really don't get all this old-fashioned prudishness. A bunch of English sailors met some girls, fucked them, established pair bonds, settled down and started families. Words and phrases such as "sexual attachments" and "consorts" seem horribly inappropriate.
  • This seems a somewhat contrived effort to get a four-letter word into your argument, such as it is. The quote marks around "wives" merely indicate that they were not necessarily the legal spouses of the sailors with whom they cohabited. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh God! Did you notice I didn't use the term "fuck buddy"? What is a "legal spouse"? Do you believe a non-legal spouse is somehow inferior to a legal spouse and thus warrants quotation marks? Try to drop your Anglocentric view of what is right and what is wrong. Try to to understand that many marriages around the globe are sanctioned by religious authorities and cultural norms rather than faceless legal entities.
  • 4. The word "loyalists" appears five times in the article. I really think this is the wrong word. I know what you're trying to say, but the word has unintended connotations. Some readers may feel that the "loyalists" were somehow morally superior to those who weren't "loyal". This kind of black and white portrayal of events is unacceptable in a Wiki article and raises question re: neutrality. Let's put things another way: what would readers think if we described those loyal to Captain Bligh as scum and the mutineers as Fletcher Christian's loyalists?
  • All on board Bounty signed up under naval regulations which bound them in obedience to their captain. "Loyalist" is the description used throughout the sources to describe those who followed Bligh in accordance with their duty under these regulations. Those that chose to follow Christian were legally mutineers. There is no question of any breach of neutrality in these descriptions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept your arguments, but disagree with your terminology. In my opinion, the word "loyalist" has connotations which are inapplicable to this context. I suspect that many of those who joined Bligh did so out of fear of the consequences rather than any particular loyalty to crown and country; I suspect too that those who sided with Christian were motivated by their hatred of Bligh rather than anti-British sentiments. I also suspect that pussy may have been a motivating factor, but I shan't pursue this point as I don't wish to offend your Victorian sensibilities.

Conclusion. I've just looked through the article again. In the section Towards home I see that Mr Brian Boulton discusses Captain Bligh's "social intercourse". At this point it's time to call it a day. The article is very obviously the work of an "instant Google expert" rather than someone who's lived with the subject matter for an extended period and has a proper, academic understanding of the cultural and historical nuances; the prose is just stupid.

And now -- if you'll excuse me -- I shall take my leave and drive my consort to a local restaurant. I look forward to a well-cooked steak and some engaging social intercourse. Singora (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Brian. Unfortunately steak was off the menu so my consort and I ordered fish instead. Social intercourse was fine, however. Good luck with your nomination! Singora (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that, Singora, but I have to say your phrasing above is crude to say the least, and your description of Brian and me as "instant Google experts" with no actual knowledge of the mutiny is frankly very offensive. If the article is as terrible as you seem to think it is I am mystified as to why it has garnered so much support from staid FAC regulars above. My co-nominator Brian has authored the third-highest number of FAs of any Wikipedian; the FA reviewers here supporting the article's promotion are the all-time FA leader, Wehwalt, and five others—Tim riley, Cassianto, Dr. Blofeld, Dank and SchroCat—who have authored at least 10 FAs each. I am bemused and disappointed by your decision to conduct yourself in this manner and hope for your sake that this is the exception rather than the norm. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A brief comment, if I may. I won't pretend to be an expert on the Bounty saga. I've read a fair amount of the nonfiction as well as the classic trilogy. I don't come to the subject cold. I saw nothing unexpected or apparently wrong. This article represents hard work, uncompensated but for the satisfaction. Over the years, I've learned there are productive ways to approach reviewing, and unproductive ways. To avoid landing one in Column B, it's best have evidence something is wrong, rather than just words. I'm not sure whether the claim that the Tahitian liaisons were all female is based on actual evidence, assumption, or something else. More to the point, no one does. Please don't bring words to an evidence fight.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it ad rem to mention that User:Singora has a history of, to put it kindly, inexplicable interventions at FAC: see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Playboy/archive1 Tim riley talk 18:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A few minor tweaks undertaken here, all per the MoS. An excellent and extremely well-put together article that I have no hesitation supporting. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the tweaks and the support, SchroCat. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I copyedited this for PR. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this help and support, Dan. Hope you're well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks added to SchroCat and Dan for their support, most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Impressive work but a few remarks :

  • Bligh's open-boat voyage : "Strains were showing within the party; following a heated disagreement with Purcell, Bligh grabbed a cutlass and challenged the carpenter to fight. Fryer told Cole to arrest their captain, but backed down after Bligh threatened to kill him if he interfered." What happened next ? Has there been a duel between Bligh and Purcell or did the captain regained his composure ?
  • Keep in mind they were all so weak each of them could barely lift a sword. Purcell showed no inclination of wanting to fight, Bligh shouted a bit more and eventually he threw his cutlass down and the crisis was over. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a contradiction between this article and Complement of HMS Bounty : In the first, Thomas Hall and Robert Lamb died in Batavia whereas they returned safely in England in the second.
  • Mutineers divided : "One group, led by Morrison and Tom McIntosh, began building a schooner" Did they succeeded in their enterprise ?
  • Actually, they did complete it. It was requisitioned by Pandora, which used it as a tender. During Edwards's search for mutineers in the vicinity of Samoa, the schooner and its scratch crew was separated from Pandora in a storm, and believed lost. Amazingly, the crew managed to sail it to Batavia, where Captain Edwards presented it to the Governor of Timor as a keepsake. This little story isn't really part of the Bounty mutiny, but since it has been raised here, I will fashion a footnote with the bare details. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • HMS Pandora : "When Edwards gave the order to abandon ship, the armourer began to remove the prisoners' shackles, but the ship sank before he had finished." Is the armourer Joseph Coleman ? If so, why was he not also shackled ?

Les3corbiers (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Corbiers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The opening sentence of the lede ought to be worded differently, as it's tautologous currently. Perhaps: "On 28 April 1789 a mutiny occurred aboard the Royal Navy ship HMS Bounty", or "A mutiny aboard the Royal Navy ship HMS Bounty occurred on 28 April 1789"? This is the wording of, for instance, the article Sinking of the RMS Titanic.
  • Is there a particular reason why the article is not named "Mutiny on the HMS Bounty?" (again thinking of the example of the RMS Titanic above).

Excellent article, great work both of you. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MasterOfHisOwnDomain, thanks for this. I'm glad you like the article. First of all, please excuse my presumptuousness for moving your comments up, but I thought it better not to have them under the "source review" header.
Regarding the first point about the opening sentence: per WP:BEGIN, the subject of the opening sentence should be the title if this is possible. The article you linked to, "Sinking of the RMS Titanic", seems to me to follow this guideline and to closely mirror the opening sentence we already have for this Bounty article. So I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point here.
  • Currently the first sentence says that the mutiny on the Bounty occurred aboard the Bounty. If the articles were the same then the other would have to be worded "The sinking of the Titanic occurred to the RMS Titanic". Does that help show the difference? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone reading about the subject for the first time might not know that the Bounty in the title is a Royal Navy warship called HMS Bounty (indeed they might not even know Bounty was a ship). The Titanic article says from the off that this is the "sinking of the RMS Titanic" so there isn't the same necessity in my opinion to clarify. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your second point: "RMS" requires "the" before it while "HMS" does not. This is because "RMS" stands for "Royal Mail Ship"—"the Royal Mail Ship Titanic"—while "HMS" stands for "His/Her Majesty's Ship". "The HMS Bounty" or "the His Majesty's Ship Bounty" is wrong. In any case, we go by the WP:COMMONNAME for article titles, which, because of the popular novel and film accounts, is undoubtedly "Mutiny on the Bounty". Thanks and I hope this is all okay. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cliftonian is correct in his reasoning, but looking at the current first sentence I find myself agreeing that the wording is not altogether satisfactory. Currently it reads: "The Mutiny on the Bounty occurred aboard the Royal Navy ship HMS Bounty in the south Pacific, on 28 April 1789". Per WP:LEAD, we don't have to work the article title into the first line when the title describes an event, and I think a smoother version might be: "The mutiny on the Royal Naval vessel HMS Bounty occurred in the south Pacific, on 28 April 1789". I would not wish to change the article's title, as the event described in the article is universally known as the "Mutiny on the Bounty". Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. How about "The mutiny on the Royal Navy vessel HMS Bounty occurred in the south Pacific on 28 April 1789."? I've gone ahead and made this change provisionally to make it easier to gauge in context. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks OK to me (Naval → Navy no real difference) Brianboulton (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation box

  • The unlinked added notes are for the benefit of readers who, unaware of WP template protocols, may wonder why, if there were 22 "loyalists" and 21 "mutineers", only 5 and 9 names respectively are shown. An alternative presentation might be to remove the unlinked notes and precede the lists of names with the word "including". I would have no problem with that. The important factor is that the navbox shouldn't mislead or raise questions in readers' minds, which simple removal of the notes might do. Brianboulton (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers should be removed altogether, so readers wouldn't then be counting. Also, the years of the novels and films should be removed, except for disambiguation. I'd also like to see the HMS Bounty link removed from the left side (maybe to the title), giving that over to just the "Complement..." link. THIS would be my suggestion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this version, the crew count and the years of the novels are recent additions anyway. And The Eventful History of the Mutiny and Piratical Seizure of HMS Bounty seems to have been inexplicably removed at some point. The removal of the animations seems valid though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could Quaff distillery and Bounty Day be worth adding too? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You see, this is what Brian and I mean. Looking at your proposed version here one gets the hugely misleading impression that there were less than 20 men aboard Bounty and that most of them were mutineers. The Eventful History of the Mutiny and Piratical Seizure of HMS Bounty was removed because having it there seemed to imply it was the only book on the Mutiny, which it obviously isn't (I added a couple more with links to the authors, but TonyTheTiger protested so I removed the whole section). I'm not sure why you think it is better to remove context by taking all the years out—the titles are all so similar it really helps to have the years given for everything. Bounty Day is worth mentioning, so I have added it—good catch. Quaff distillery appears to be a hoax and as such I've nominated it for deletion here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, and good work on the article! It doesn't matter what impression we give with a navbox - the numbers of crew (and their loyalties, fates, etc, etc) can all be found at the Complement of the HMS Bounty article. The navbox only exists for navigation between existing articles, not encyclopedic information. The removal of the The Eventful History of the Mutiny and Piratical Seizure of HMS Bounty sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and illustrates the previous point - just because it is the only article doesn't mean it's the only book (authors shouldn't be linked though, as they are only tangentially related to the topic of the navbox). With the books and films presented in chronological order, in my opinion there is no need for the years - this is actually the subject of an ongoing debate elsewhere though, but it's the navigation vs information point, and quite frankly it looks a lot more pleasing without the plain text years present. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree, and I realise you are trying to be helpful, but I think it does matter what impression we give with the navbox, which is an inherent part of the article page and will be seen by many readers who are not au fait with what navboxes are supposed to do or not do. These readers, as Cliftonian argues, will be misled unless we give them a slight helping hand, and for this purpose I think it's perfectly acceptable to bend the rules slightly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're adamant, as a compromise I'd suggest removing the numbers and adding a simple "among others" at the end. We don't need to quantify, that's what articles are for. Note that in bibliographies, discographies and the like we'd include the notable books and records (per WP:EXISTING) without this annotation, without worrying whether the reader would think that was all the books and records made by the author/artist, so I still maintain this is unnecessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made some changes, so now it is at THIS version. I've left the years in, although I'm personally against them, but I think it's a bit tidier. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will go along with this version, and if Cliftonian is likewise happy we'll leave it at that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rob, for this compromise. I would prefer to see "and 17 others" and "and 12 others" stay instead of "among others", but I will accept this version. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyTheTiger has just removed the "among others" text again on the grounds that the crewmen without articles are supposedly "not notable". —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted him. He does not have the authority to override discussions in this way just because he disagrees with the outcome. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The source links for this image are broken. Neelix (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the "Online Map Creation" software at http://www.aquarius.geomar.de was broken, but the actual source information was okay. I've fixed the broken links anyway—thanks for this David. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tubuai.jpg - Fine, though apparently the "Conditions of Use of Astronaut Photographs" link is dead.
  • File:Bounty stone Venus Beach.jpg - What's the freedom of panorama law like in Tahiti? When was this monument established? If French Polynesia is under French copyright law, then there is no freedom of panorama, and this is likely a derivative work of a non-free subject.
  • Are there any monuments in the UK? There's freedom of panorama there for both buildings and statues (and I'd expect the monuments to be quite a bit older, and thus possibly out of copyright anyways). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:HMS Pandora.jpg - Needs a US PD tag (PD-100 works, though you need to fix the link to the artist, and I'd provide his YOD on the information template as well).
Great. Thank you for all of this Chris, you've been very helpful. It seems the only issue is regarding the Bounty stone at Tahiti, which presumably comes under French law regarding freedom of panorama, unfortunately. Is there anything that can be done, you think? —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, I have withdrawn the image of the memorial stone. If it is later shown to be PD within the scope of these tortuous panorama regulations, then we can always reinstate it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review spot check

This is an impressive and extensive article written by two well-established editors. There has been plenty of support for its promotion to featured status already, so I thought my time might best be spent by performing a source review. I do not have much experience performing source reviews for articles with which I have not had any involvement, so I would be glad for help if I am not performing the review as required. I have done a spot check of five citations that reference sources that are available online, as I do not have access to the offline sources. Of these five citations, four matched up perfectly and one only partially. Citation 29 sources the following statements:

  • "Living space on the ship was allocated on the basis of rank. Bligh, having yielded the great cabin, occupied private sleeping quarters with an adjacent dining area or pantry on the starboard side of the ship, and Fryer a small cabin on the opposite side. Huggan the surgeon, the other warrant officers and Nelson the botanist had tiny cabins on the lower deck"

The portions of this passage that are in bold are the portions that I did not find on the page indicated in the citation. I do not doubt that the information is accurate or that it is provided in somewhere in the sources used in this article. For example, the fact that Bligh had yielded the great cabin appears to be sourced earlier in the article to the McKinney book; perhaps that citation could be added here as well. I hope this spot check his helpful; I would be glad to see this article up on the main page. Neelix (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put an inline reference to McKinney in after "having yielded the great cabin" and expanded the Dening ref at the end here. I think it's evident from the wording and the diagrams on the pages immediately following how small these cabins were. Thank you for this David, this has been helpful. A source review usually includes a look at the formatting and consistency of the footnotes, bibliography, etc—do you think you could find a minute or two to have a look at that too? I'm fairly sure it's all okay but another set of eyes couldn't hurt. I'm glad you like the article. Cheers and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing that concern. The footnotes and bibliography all seem to be formatted consistently and correctly. Thanks for inviting me to participate in this FAC! I hope you are well also. Neelix (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I add my thanks to Cliftonian's for your sources review. Please feel welcome to participate in any future FAC nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mutiny_on_the_Bounty/archive1&oldid=1138467384"