Talk:Line-crossing ceremony
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Technically...
Technically, all the pollywogs are "cleansed" from the ship before King Neptune allows it to continue. Consequently, the pollywogs do not become shellbacks. Once you are granted status as a shellback, it's assumed you've always been a shellback.
In fact, after spending the morning crawling around on their hands and knees, wogs appear before King Neptune's court where they answer charges for their wogness, always found guilty then led off to be "executed" in the stockade and "buried" in a wooden coffin filled with water. After a few moments in the watery grave, the executioner reopens the coffin and asks, "Who goes there?!" The proper response is, "An honorable shellback!" whereupon the executioner helps the (new) shellback out of the coffin saying something along the lines of, "Well, what the Hell are you doing in there?!?" The wog is dead and a shellback magically appears where the wog once was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1311 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 April 2007
[edit] Crossing the line at the Prime Meridian
Note that this page currently calls sailors who cross at the point where the equator meets the Prime Meridian "Royal Diamond Shellbacks" whereas the page Equator calls them "Emerald Shellbacks". Possibly both are correct. Could someone who knows about these titles edit either or both pages to show either the correct or both names. :-)
Stelio 21:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Request
Hey, I'm a bit new to editing (although I've been avidly reading for a couple months now). I spotted Baptism on the Line and this article today, and thought it would make more sense if Baptism was merged into this one, but I thought I'd defer to any older editors who may be watching this page.
Feel free to offer your $0.02, or (I wish) do it for me. User:CelestialRender
Got no objections on either page or my talk page, so I went through with the change. In the process, I put in section headings, since that seemed the most logical way to incorporate the other article. CelestialRender 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BBC Article
The beginning line of the controversy page and the last paragraph of the "line-corssing ceremony" section of the following BBC article are strikingly similar... is that allowed? In any case, the similarity is just quite interesting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/equator/5264326.stm
[edit] Clarity Issue
On New Year's Eve, 1999, USS TOPEKA (SSN 754), an American fast attack submarine, crossed the equator at the international date line exactly at midnight, making the crew of 120 men "Golden Millennium Shellbacks" - a feat that cannot be repeated until the year 3000.
Is the the above actually relevant? Should it be moved to what would amount to a Trivia section about such ceremonies? Z1311 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article from NSRC
DreamGuy (talk · contribs) wrote: rm section by editor who added this citing his/her own magazine, The rituals etc. mentioned here aren't necessarily line-crossing ones, so mention is misplaced and self-serving
- That article centers around the background and social implications of the Shellbacking Ceremony. As for the "citing his/her own magazine" portion of your objection, I can see potential for a conflict of interests, but I do not see any actual abuse here. The magazine referenced is an academic journal, published by an accredited university; while the contributer admits to working there, the journal is not that user's "own magazine". I agree that the paragraph you deleted was a bit out of sequence. However, the reference was valid, and the points expressed in that paragraph support the remainder of the Line-crossing ceremony#Controversy section. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other tradtions
I once saw a documentary about crossing the equator that said sailors would drink their own vomit. Is this true?--Beowulf1978 (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] homoeroticism
These ceremonies are notorious for their homoeroticism, an issue this article pretty much sidesteps. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV?
The introduction's description of initiation rites includes uncited examples of abusive behavior as if these were current practices, without mentioning controversy or reform. I've put a fact tag on the paragraph but am inclined to add a POV tag. DurovaCharge! 00:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (Shellback, Order of the Golden Dragon)
