Talk:Arbuthnot (schooner)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Early Modern / American Revolution SIA‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

SIA

This article has been rated as SIA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

Speculation

It is speculated that this ship was named after Admiral Mariot Arbuthnot who bought his rank in the Navy. Possibly by providing this ship - against which he would have expected to be rewarded with a share of the plunder captured. There seems to be no way of corroborating this speculation. An expert on the period might be able to say whether it sounds likely. - Kittybrewster 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a cite request, since it appears that this speculation has found its way into the article. Will Beback talk 23:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and sources removed

[1] Kittybrewster ☎ 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sites aren't considered reliable sources. Is there a reliable source for this material? Will Beback talk 00:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Gazette is not self-published. ditto The Diary of Simeon Perkins vol 1, 1766-1780, pub. 1948. etc Kittybrewster ☎ 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Gazette is most definitely a WP:RS, and the Diary of Simeon Perkins would also seem to meet the criteria as in cannot have been self-published. Samuel Pepys diary is a RS, is it not? The website referred to seems reliable enough too. Mjroots (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the sources then they should be cited directly rather than the website, though a "convenience link" may be added to it. Will Beback talk 04:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that book sources should be quoted using {{cite book}} if that is where the info is taken from. Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original "No. 12286". The London Gazette. 9 April 1782., the original source seems to have misdated the notice. David Underdown (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]