Talk:Stede Bonnet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Stede Bonnet is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 23, 2008.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Piracy Portal

Stede Bonnet lies in the latitude of WikiProject Piracy, a crew of scurvy editors bound to sharpen up all Wikipedia's piracy-related articles. If you want to ship with us and help improve this and other Piracy-related articles, lay aboard the project page and sign on for a berth.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High-importance for Piracy-related articles.
WikiProject Piracy To-do:

Contents

[edit] Captain Codd?

This line I'm not sure on: "Captain Codd, whose merchant ship was taken on 12 October, described Bonnet as walking the deck in his nightshirt, lacking any command and still unwell from his wounds."

Captain Codd, I'm probably wrong but is that not the Fish finger's Captain? Confused so I'll leave it I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GothmogII (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Article introduction

I've fixed the factual errors in the introduction, but I'm still not satisfied with the introduction as a whole. It is much too long, and reads like the entire article was put into a car crusher and squeezed into three paragraphs. In my view, an introduction should not try to recapitulate the entire article, but state only the most pertinent facts, in one paragraph if possible.

Still, I am undoubtedly biased, as I created a large portion of this article back in March 2007, and doubtless have a preference for my own work. Therefore, I would like to have some other opinions before I go about changing the introduction wholesale. Pirate Dan 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, leads are supposed to act as outlines for the entire article. I found the article lead to be a bit in excess, so I tried to trim it down a bit. It's still pretty big, so I'll check out what can still be removed. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose the following new introduction, focusing on what was really important about Bonnet, his piratical career, and leaving the minor details for the main article:
Stede Bonnet (c. 1688 – December 10, 1718) was an early 18th century Barbadian pirate, sometimes called the "the gentleman pirate" because he owned moderate wealth in land before turning to a life of crime. In the summer of 1717, with no prior sailing experience, he bought a ship and turned to piracy, ravaging vessels off America's eastern seaboard.
Bonnet met the infamous pirate Blackbeard in Nassau and temporarily ceded his ship's command to Blackbeard. Before separating in December, 1717, Blackbeard and Bonnet plundered and captured merchant ships along the East Coast. After Bonnet failed to capture the Protestant Caesar, his crew abandoned him to rejoin Blackbeard. Bonnet stayed as a guest on Blackbeard's ship until Blackbeard abandoned him off North Carolina. Bonnet then rescued some pirates marooned by Blackbeard and returned to piracy in July, 1718.
In September, 1718, while anchored in the estuary of the Cape Fear River, Bonnet was defeated and captured by a naval expedition under Colonel William Rhett. Taken to Charleston, Bonnet escaped, but was recaptured on Sullivan's Island. Convicted of two acts of piracy, Bonnet was sentenced to death. He was hanged in Charleston on December 10, 1718.
Pirate Dan 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest PD (having given my support at FAC), I think the wording before your last edit (summary "tightening") was better. Can you own wealth? I suppose you can, but it looks strange to me. My tuppence, anyway. Carre 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wanted to get rid of "lived as a moderately wealthy landowner," since "lived as" was clearly surplus verbiage. My first thought was just to say he "was a moderately wealthy landowner," but many stylists say to avoid the verb "was" for a more active verb like "owned" whenever possible. But if you find the phrase "owned moderate wealth in land" awkward, I'd be happy to change it to "was a moderately wealthy landowner." Pirate Dan 19:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[←]was a moderately... seems good to me, although I'd need to see it in full context to be sure. I think it'll be ok though. Stylists, to my mind, over-concentrate on the active versus the passive: there is room for both in good prose, and you shouldn't ignore one in favour of the other where it results in clumsy writing (which I think the current version is). Carre 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it. It does look a little more natural. Pirate Dan 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that looks lovely; I can't even see why there would be an argument about it! What do stylists know?! Nice one. Carre 20:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be comprehensive outline of the entire article. I don't think your version does the trick. I agree the lead I wrote is long and can be shortened, but it can't be this short. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry; my comments to this version of the lead have been about just one phrase, and nothing else. I just glanced at the whole result, and it looks fine to me from a length perspective, but I haven't checked its content vs the article. That will have to wait til tomorrow for me, since it's late here (PS a lead should only ever be 3-4 paragraphs). Carre 22:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[←] Grr, it was definitely late last night! Nishkid's right, the current lead is fine as is; the proposed new one would be too short. I've just done a minor copyedit on the article's lead, just to make it flow a little better (IMO, of course). Hopefully the changes are acceptable. Carre 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map?

I really enjoyed reading this article. It is very well written and it held my attention. (A rarity for the featured articles) I do have one request. Would it be possible to add a map showing the mouth of the Cape Fear, Charleston, and other points of interest? Dincher (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yarrrrr, glad to see you liked the article, laddy. Perhaps you were intrigued by the fact that Bonnet was a pirate! In that case, I might as well churn out more pirate FAs. This image highlights the Cape Fear River and its tributaries. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Argh, I be talkin' about a more specific map. One that might lead to some traysure! Or show which estuary the fight was fought on. Dincher (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Because of marital problems"

Sounds like an excuse to me. What sort of marital problems are causative of piracy, and are there any other cases recorded? Perhaps it may have been "after his wife told him to ... go away, he did, and ...". 82.46.46.98 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The specifics of the marital problems were never provided. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I, also, thought its mention in the intro was odd. It's explained later in the story that this is a quote from a writer of a history of the pirates. The intro should mention the source since the tidbit is so odd. Tempshill (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead is pretty shocking for a FA, perhaps someone with more knowledge should edit it? Mattyness (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone moved most of the contents of the lead to a separate section called "Overview". I have reversed that change. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It certainly is far too detailed. Here's how I would shorten it:

Stede Bonnet (c. 1688[1] – December 10, 1718[2])[3] was an early 18th-century Barbadian pirate, sometimes called "the gentleman pirate"[4] because he was a moderately wealthy landowner before turning to a life of crime.

Because of marital problems, and despite his lack of sailing experience, Bonnet turned to piracy in the summer of 1717. He bought a sailing vessel, named it Revenge, and sailed along the American eastern seaboard, capturing and burning several ships. Upon reaching Nassau, Bahamas, a notorious pirate den, Bonnet met and ceded command to the infamous Blackbeard. Before separating in December 1717, Blackbeard and Bonnet plundered more merchant ships along the east coast.

In the summer of 1718, Bonnet was pardoned and received authorization to turn privateer against Spanish shipping. However, he soon returned to piracy. He was captured later that year, escaped, and was recaptured. He was found guilty of two counts of piracy and hanged at Charleston, South Carolina on December 10, 1718.

Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The current lead is acceptable per guidelines. I think your proposed lead cuts out a number of important details that should be mentioned in the lead. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Acceptable does not mean good. A lead section should be concise; the current version is far too detailed IMO. That's what the body of the article is for. How about a third opinion? I see that there are editors that specialize in intros. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that lead sections should be concise, but they need to serve as a standalone outline of the entire article. The proposed lead fails to do that. It goes from Bonnet and Blackbeard in December 1717 straight to his pardon in summer of 1718. Bonnet achieved his notability during this small period of time (recall that he had a short pirating career), so the details in between need to be covered. This is what the current lead does. I'll try to remove some unnecessary details, but I won't go as far as your version. Also, this issue was brought up previously, but another editor, Carre, who is quite familiar with FACs and such, said the current lead is fine. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that my version is an inadequate outline of the article. It explains who the subject is, why he is notable, and what his fate was. When three different editors question the quality of the lead, it is time to reconsider your stance. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And I have... I've trimmed the lead significantly since the lead issues were first brought up. Your proposed lead is insufficient because it leaves out details between December 1717 and the summer of 1718, a time period when Bonnet achieved most of his infamy, and notability. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Treacherous"

Bonnet set sail at once to hunt down his treacherous ex-confederate, but could not find him, and Bonnet never met Blackbeard again.[32]

I read the article up to this point and was surprised at the word "treacherous". I didn't read about any treachery in the article. Tempshill (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackbeard did not allow Bonnet to command the Revenge. Instead, he basically locked him up in the Queen's Anne Revenge, which is why Bonnet confided to his crew that he would rather live a life of self-exile than be subjected to such treatment. The men had been on good terms before, and this sudden betrayal of sorts is why the word "treacherous" is used. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Women

"Because of marital problems...Bonnet decided to turn to piracy in the summer of 1717." See the problems women cause? Jk, jk Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 22:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful! You're asking for an unnecessary argument. Brutannica (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably not the best thing to be joking about. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently some people can't take a joke. For every woman I have offended, I'm sorry. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)