Talk:Mahogany Ship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Mahogany Ship is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history.
Assessment comments
Portugal Portal
Mahogany Ship is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Portugal To-do:


Contents

[edit] Title

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)

[edit] Facts vs Opinion

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)

[edit] copy

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)

[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)

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)

[edit] Suggestions for improvement

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)

[edit] Deletion

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)

[edit] Spanish and French origins

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

[edit] Overview and Reported sightings

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)