Jump to content

Talk:Mahogany Ship

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

Title

[edit]

Should this article be moved to The Mahogany Ship? A curate's egg 10:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er, I'm not sure - not familiar enough with wikipedia best policies yet Lisa 02:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Facts vs Opinion

[edit]

I am concerned that a lot of the information surrounding the Mahogany Ship is more opinion or "folklore" rather than proven facts with corrobated evidence.

I have contacted the Mahogany Ship symposium and made them aware of the article here and that they can edit it themselves. Hopefully this will make Wikipedia a central place for all information about the Ship but keep the facts clear of opinion.

Two things I immediately corrected on the advice of the Symposium Committee Chair are:

1. The information about the reward offered by Victorian state government (apparently it was only offered in 1992/93 and is not still current); and
2. The information about the "first sighting" as Brookie put it (it seems that this is unproven - or rather no evidence exists that the sighting ever took place, and is considered part of Victorian folklore rather than history).

Let's be careful to make sure future edits keep clear which parts are fact and which are folklore (or those which might be either).

Cheers! Lisa 07:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well done Lisa - agree with all that! By the very nature of this article - most is opinion rather than facts isn't it? :) A curate's egg 11:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

copy

[edit]

definatly the first versions of this page are a straight copy from [1]. looking at cleaning up & adding to this article now. Agnte 20:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?

[edit]

How would "The location of a real Mahogany Ship... alter Australian history" ? The author seems to assume a great deal here, given it hasn't been seen since 1880!--Nickm57 11:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beefart says: I understand your contention and I accept it. Perhaps the wording of the article can be improved. The point being made in the article is that, if somebody were to unearth the remains of a very early ship, then it would prove that the Dutch were not the first foreigners here. But your comment has set off a chain of thoughts in my mind and I have realized that the the whole thing degenerates into a tautology. If the earliest ship was Portuguese, or Chinese, or from Switzerland, then so what? The crew all died and their ship became, at best, a curiosity. The effect on Australian history amounts to "so what"?.... Burke and Wills spoke English, not Mandarin. We need to work on a rewrite. But not tonight; I'm too pissed......

Yes. Having made that point, I think this is otherwise a very good article on a hard topic - it's really well documented and nicely balanced. It inspired me to contribute elsewhere, anyway. One final observation - I think the wreck was generally called an "ancient wreck" or "the spanish wreck" in the C19th? I think Portuguese wreck is a post 1977 Kenneth McIntyre title. Hope you're feeling better Beefart...--Nickm57 10:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement

[edit]

I was just tidying up the inconsistent references to Kenneth McIntyre when it occurred to me that this article would be improved by cutting the third and fourth paras (For over a century...)and inserting them into section "Portuguese origin" or "Today". The actual sightings and records of the wreck, which are outlined under "Popular History & the reports of sightings" ought to take pride of place. These are quite well documented and from a number of different sources, even if the accounts vary somewhat.

Also, the part-sentence "After lobbying by the local Museum curator in Warnambool, a Government-funded search of the area was carried out in 1890..." is quite misleading. The letters in the SW TAFE library make it clear some correspondants wanted a search and at least one by interested locals took place in mid 1890. But the approach to the colonial Government came to nothing.

I think J.F.Archibald should get a mention too - he was so important in fostering interest in the 1890s.--Nickm57 13:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1992 the State Government of Victoria offered a reward of AUD$250,000" of the article, can be given a reference "$250,000 reward to find the Mahogany Ship" The Age Nov 6th, 1992 by Lyn Dunlevy.

Deletion

[edit]

I took the following sentence out of Para One under "Overview" as I think its awkward in that spot. "The episode, according to its proponents, faded into the flow of time and had no subsequent influence on the history of Australia"--Nickm57 03:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish and French origins

[edit]

I have made a few additions, to the origins section section particularly. --Nickm57 (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overview and Reported sightings

[edit]

I have made some of the changes I suggested in July 2007, also included new links to the most recent work on Hugh Donnelly. --Nickm57 (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to rewrite to include Murray Johns work

[edit]

Having reread this article recently, I propose rewriting it to include the recent and very thorough survey of the topic by Dr Murray Johns at the 3rd Mahogany Ship Symposium, and the research on Hugh Donnelly's role by Jenny Fawcett. Im also not sure the prominent use of some primary sources (and references to rabbits!) helps clarity. Any thoughts? Nickm57 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So... what I'm proposing to do is

  • Minimise rabbit and other irrelevant references (eg para "Any search for buried timbers or artefacts will always be fraught with difficulties..")
  • Minimise "eyewitness" accounts inc Captain Mason's, but include Dunderdale's 1870 second hand account - which appears to be the first in print.
  • include the recent work done on Hugh Donnelly and recent work by Murray Johns. Any comments? Nickm57 (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+++

I agree that Dr Johns’ hypothesis of convict construction should be included. His and others work on there being several local wrecks associated with the MS Legend should be included. Jenny Fawcett's work on the reliability of Hugh Donnelly's claims could also be expanded. Yes, the quoted primary sources should go.
Note that Dunderdale’s book is considered by Carroll to have been published in 1898 (Carroll, J. R. 1977, 'The two shepherds: The reliability of George Dunderdale, Senior', The Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 48, no. 190, pp. 263). The earliest known print reference to the MS is 'A wreck', Portland Guardian 29 October 1847, p. 3c.
Some thoughts on additional content.
  • Add descriptions of major and recent searches.
  • Include reference to the 1890s Aboriginal tradition of the wreck.
  • Add Frank Coningham’s British government cover-up claim.
https://secretvisitors.wordpress.com/category/advocates/john-coningham/
  • Add Jenny Fawcett’s latest published research
http://www.flagstaffhill.com/history-queries/legend-of-the-mahogany-ship/was-the-mahogany-ship-ever-seen/
  • Revise the “strangeness” attributes of the second paragraph to include the distance inland.
ARI2012 (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great feedback - thanks and much that I had in mind. You have thrown me a little on the 1898 date for Dunderdale though!!!Nickm57 (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have now tried to do - as well as removing dead links, refs to the Loch Ness Monster and some weaselly bits. I dont have access to Jack Powlings 1980s survey though.Nickm57 (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have made a major improvement to the article. I will have a look in more detail over the next few days and possibly provide some suggestions that you may like to consider.
I don’t understand your reference to Powling. He didn’t do any searching that I know of. (ARI2012 (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks! Re Powling, I meant his 2003 book "The Mahogany ship : a survey of the evidence" ISBN 0959257632 Nickm57 (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of Powling 2003, can I check any information for you? (ARI2012 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

+++

Some comments for your consideration.
Para 1. There is a more recent article by Murray Johns that you may not be aware of. Johns, M. W. 2011, 'Facts, speculation and fibs in the 'Mahogany Ship' story 1835-2010: A reassessment and new hypothesis', Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 59-85.
Para. 8. “Joseph …”
Archibald’s work continued past 1891. He was writing to the Warrnambool Standard at least until 1896 and he published another journal article in 1897. (Archibald, J. 1896, 'Correspondence; The Mahogany Ship', Warrnambool Standard 21 December 1896, p. 3b.; Archibald, J. 1897, 'The Ancient Wreck at Warrnambool', Austral Light, vol. March, pp. 182-184.)
Para. 15. “In the novel …”
There is a more recent article, Johns, M. W. 2012, 'Thomas Clark's painting The Mahogany Ship: Wreck of the Sally Ann at Portland', Victorian Historical Journal, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 56-73.
You could add Mulready, P. 2011, Cross the Vatican Line, Peter Mulready, Buderim, Qld. His website, http://www.crossthevaticanline.com/
Para. 17. “In 1992…”
I suggest this paragraph be absorbed into para. 9. Details of a more recent published search could be used to illustrate that searching continues. http://www.flagstaffhill.com/history-queries/legend-of-the-mahogany-ship/latest-new-mahogany-ship-searches/
Para. 19. “A replica …”
Add “inspired by the MS” to provide a link. There is a Wikipedia entry for it. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Notorious_%28ship%29

(ARI2012 (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi - ARI2012 those are all good suggestions for improvement in my opinion. However, I dont have several of the texts your refer to. Why dont you give it a go yourself!? I will post a welcome on your page too. CheersNickm57 (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First

[edit]

It was Capt Mills first suggested the ship was made of a very hard timber (mahogney?), when in 1836 he tried to cut a splinter of wood from it but his penknife "glanced off as if encountering iron". Also, the ship it was thought the wreck may have been was the Santa Isabel not the Santa Ysabel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.117.64 (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's pretty well documented that Mills never wrote about the wreck himself. The account you are referring to is someone else's story about Mills. Nickm57 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Mahogany Ship in Fiction

[edit]

I added a bit in this section minutes ago on my father's book "Cross the Vatican Line" which is a heavily researched fiction he has been working on for ten years. It was launched at the Port Fairy Festival of words in 2011 and you will find it on Amazon and in a selection of Australian bookstores including some in Warrnambool and Port Fairy, The Warrnambool Maritime Museum, and a number of Libraries. You can read more about it at www.crossthevaticanline.com

I just saw now it's deleted already. Surely it deserves a place here as it is solely about the wreck and the portuguese theory of it's origin. I imagine it's more relevant than then murder mystery featuring a wreck inspired by the Mahogany Ship which is included.

Siobhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.36.78 (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been me who removed it. Both of the other books are by authors that meet our criteria for notability at WP:AUTHOR and have linked articles. I'm afraid neither your father nor his book meet our criteria, which is why I removed it. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mahogany Ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mahogany Ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mahogany Ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahogany_Ship&oldid=1208709212"