Talk:Mutiny on the Bounty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Oceania Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, which collaborates on articles related to Polynesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pitcairn Islands work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Discuss desired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article

Portal	Mutiny on the Bounty 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mutiny on the Bounty article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] earlier comments

What's wrong with this talk page's ToC? I've added a directive to revive at least this partial one.
--Jerzy•t 22:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 earlier comments 2 Bounty and Mutiny on the Bounty 3 HMAV not HMS 4 Warrant Officers/Petty Officers 5 The merge of the "HMS Bounty" and "Mutiny on the Bounty" articles was a disaster, and should be reverted... 6 Circumnavigation? 7 Who was hanged? 8 Dubious folk etymology 9 Modern Reproductions 10 Motivation 11 Dubious facts about the fate of the mutineers 12 Moved material from Talk:HMS Bounty 13 Moved material from Talk:Mutiny on the Bounty (history) 13.1 Otaheite 13.2 HMS Bounty or HMAV Bounty? 13.3 Crew 13.4 Doesn't HMS Bounty deserve a page of its own 14 Linklater/Linkletter 15 Not Connie Kalitta 16 Just sayin' 17 Is HMAV completely spurious? 18 Split this article: separate ship and mutiny

can anyone add something explaining why the Bounty was an HMAV and not an HMS? cos I'd like to know :)

nick 21:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Likely because it was such a small vessel, only four guns if I remember correctly... HMS may have been reserved for men-of-war. Bounty was essentially an armed merchantman. -Kasreyn 11:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bounty and Mutiny on the Bounty

I think there should be two pages, one fot the ship and another for the mutiny. 133.68.126.131 03:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree.... I think the merge was very poor decision. I said so on the other talk page.

So far as I am concerned there should be a disambiguation page for HMS Bounty that pointers to articles for the historical Bounty, and to each of the reconstructions, which really deserve pages of their own.

The MGM 1962 reproduction of the Bounty, in particular, has a career of its own, having served as a sail training vessel for a couple of decades, that has practically nothing to do with the Mutiny. Her maintenance has been expensive, and she lost her USCG liscense, for a time. She was damaged, and almost sank at her moorings. This has practially nothing to do with the Mutiny almost 200 years ago!

See Talk:HMS Bounty. The merge sounds like it was a premature mess. Talk pages disappearing? That sucks. Talk pages record the discussion, and, um scholarship, that show how articles evolve. -- Geo Swan 17:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HMAV not HMS

The Bounty was a converted merchant vessel as opposed to ships commissioned by the Royal Navy and the Crown to be built from the ground up to serve as Naval vessels.

Because the Bounty was a converted vessel there was not much they could do to add to the size of her, only outfit her for a specific purpose, to serve a specific role in the RN. Commissioned ships such as HMS Endeavour were planned on paper before the first timbers were ever felled, and were usually only intended for expansion of the British Empire or naval warfare, or both.

Thus, the Bounty was destined to only ever fill the role of a vessel that would carry out minor, non-warlike duties such as their 'breadfruit' expedition (but still fitted with armaments for self-defence and to deter piracy).

Hence the term 'His/Her Majesty's Armed Vessel' as opposed to 'His/Her Majesty's Ship'.

All commissioned RN warships are referred to as ‘HMS’, regardless of their size, function, origin, or anything else. Bounty is no exception. Usually minor vessels, which fell outside the rating system, were given a description (or designation) which best suited their role, e.g. Fireship, bomb, Picket, Survey vessel etc., or just by their rig, e.g. Brig, Sloop, Cutter and so on. Even so, a few fell outside even this system and were just described as Armed Vessels. To quote two examples, HMS PETEREL, a mercantile sloop, purchased in 1777 and converted to a survey vessel, was known as HMS PETEREL, not HMSV PETEREL. HMS REDOUBT, a mercantile vessel, purchased in 1793 and converted to a Floating Battery was known as HMS REDOUBT, not HMFB REDOUBT. Therefore, it is HMS BOUNTY (an armed vessel of four guns (4x4 short plus 10 swivels), not HMAV BOUNTY. ‘HMS’ is a distinguishing prefix, not actually an integral part of the ship’s name, used to identify RN from non-RN vessels. When a RN warship is named, the phrase “I name this ship NONSUCH ...” is used, not ‘HMS NONSUCH’. --Fredbloggins 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bounty was not a commissioned RN "warship". Nowhere in the sources that I have read (discounting, of course, popular fiction and non-historical accounts) have I seen the Bounty referred to as HMS rather than HMAV. Kasreyn 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

The Naval Historical Branch say that the Bounty was a commissioned Royal Navy vessel. Hence the RN crew and the subsequent Admiralty Courts Martial.

Consider HMS RESOLUTION (1771) and HMS ADVENTURE (1771), both purchased colliers and commissioned for a specific task (exploration). So let's not split hairs.

--Fredbloggins 10:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warrant Officers/Petty Officers

Most of the men listed as Warrant Officers sound like Petty Officers to me. The Surgeon, Boatswain, Gunner and Carpenter would be WOs, but the others? I've never heard of most of them ever being rated as WOs, even on a large ship. -- Necrothesp 12:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Most of them are not. For example, Robert Lamb was rated as a WO on this list, but he was flogged for allowing his cleaver to be stolen; by law, warrant officers could not be flogged. I've adjusted the list. Also, Michale Byrne, who was half-blind, was mustered as an able seaman, although he served a dual role as the ship's fiddler. He seems to have been insignificant and lightly regarded at every point in the bounty saga, and calling him an officer, even a petty officer, is far-fetched. Scimitar 02:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The merge of the "HMS Bounty" and "Mutiny on the Bounty" articles was a disaster, and should be reverted...

The merge of the "HMS Bounty" and "Mutiny on the Bounty" articles was a disaster, and should be reverted...

Just because the Mutiny was notable does not mean that the original veseel, and its reproduction, don't each merit articles of their own. Current situation is a disaster.

I know some wikipedians are big fans of merging related articles. Doing so represents an effort to impose a single organization on the corpus of human knowledge. We aren't bound by the limits of paper documents anymore. Constellations of smaller, more focussed article serve us much better than larger monolithic articles. It gives more autonomy to the reader, and lets them traverse the network of knowledge in their own order, choosing to skip the nodes that don't interest them.

Further, a link to a smaller more focussed article is, in and of itself, more useful to the reader. A link to a small focussed article is less likely to confuse the reader. Frequently one article will link to some merged omnibus article, and it will leave me wondering why the heck someone thought the omnibus was related. Or, I can see some small section might be related, but it is going to be too much trouble to find that small section. -- Geo Swan 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. Though I groan at the thought of all the work required to disentangle the two articles now. -Kasreyn 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, two separate articles (but of course at HMAV Bounty. There is probably a halfway decent article in the history of the H.M.S. Bounty article which could be resurrected. I've stepped indelicately into WikiProject Ships before, though, so don't look at me to start that process ... --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, then  ;) Kasreyn 05:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are two many loosely connected parts in this article. --Dumarest 15:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circumnavigation?

The article claims without citation that Bligh's intention of completing the voyage as circumnavigation caused dread among the crew, this being a possible contributing factor to the mutiny. This seems unlikely to me since the mutiny occurred very near the island of Tofua, which is 1300 miles west of Tahiti. If Bligh was headed for Cape Horn, the necessary route if he intended to directly return to the Atlantic, why would he have sailed 1300 miles in the wrong direction? ENScroggs 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who was hanged?

Good article. One question: the list of crewmen indicates those acquitted or pardoned, but not those hanged. Does anyone know? John Moore 309 17:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question! I will find & consult my copy of Caroline Alexander's "The Bounty" and reply back. Kasreyn 19:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Back. All in all, the charges were "found proved" against six men. Three were hanged: Thomas Burkett (Able Seaman), John Millward (Able Seaman), and Thomas Ellison (Able Seaman). Also sentenced to death but later reprieved was William Muspratt (Cook's Assistant). James Morrison (Boatswain's Mate) and Peter Heywood (Midshipman) were also among the convicted, but received the King's pardon, which is not the same as a reprieve.

Burkett, Millward, and Ellison were taken aboard HMS Brunswick and kept in its brig. There, they continued to profess their innocence, though Millward confusingly also proclaimed his belief in the justice of their sentences. James Morrison, their pardoned shipmate and apparently a devout man, administered the last rites to them.

At 11:26 AM on October 29th, 1792, Burkett, Millward, and Ellison were hanged to death aboard the Brunswick. Muspratt had not yet been reprieved at that point, and on February 11, 1793, he was also granted a royal pardon, bringing the number of pardons to three.

Source: "The Bounty", Caroline Alexander.

-Kasreyn 20:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've added the official positions of each of the six convicted. This is also taken from "The Bounty" by Caroline Alexander. It's not appropriate to include the following speculation in the article, but I'd like to note here that of the Bounty Mutineers, it generally appears that social class and connections seem to have played a significant role in determining guilt. As far as I can tell from what I've read, Burkett, Millward, and the young Ellison did not escape death was because unlike the others they had no powerful friends or rich or noble relatives. Kasreyn 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kasreyn. I have taken the liberty of updating the text of the article accordingly.

Best regards,

John Moore 309 20:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious folk etymology

Removed:

The voyage of HMS Pandora in search of the mutineers is said to have given rise to the expression "bounty-hunting," which refers to searching for a fugitive to obtain a reward (bounty) of some sort.

This seems to ignore the longstanding meaning of the English word "bounty" and why it was chosen as the name for a ship of exploration. That said, there are numerous historical uses of the term "bounty" such as "bounty lands", "bounty grants", so it makes perfect sense to use the word without reference to the story of the ship. Additionally, the history of scalp bounties of American Indians is well-documented and much more obviously connected to the origin of the term. Thus, this shouldn't go back in without a good citation. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As I stated when I originally added the claim, it was taken from "The Bounty" by Caroline Alexander. It's been some time since I've read my copy, so I'm having a hard time finding where in the book it is. When I find it, I can provide sourcing with page number. As to whether Ms. Alexander is correct, I don't know. I could cite the source she cites from her bibliography, but most of her sources are from very old periodicals which almost certainly don't exist online. I suppose a reader in the UK could try to check up on them physically. Kasreyn 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It just looks like bad research on Alexander's part. Scalp bounties, from my poking around, were offered as early as the Pequot War in the early 17th century, and were widely used across the future US, Canada and Mexico as the frontier progressed. [1] This predates the Mutiny by as much as a century and a half. Also, it's primarily an American term, so a derivation from English history seems unlikely as well.
--Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Bounty" (Latin root "bon-", meaning "good") is a word for "liberality in giving" (where the giving is often metaphorical); "bountiful" is derived from it, and the secondary meaning "reward" also flows naturally from it. Contemporaneous records can't tell you whether modern usage derives from the event they describe; the most persuasive thing you could hope for would be a remark that couldn't be distinguished from someone noting, with slightly jocular wording, a coincidence between the ship's name and a pre-existing concept of "bounty" payments.

In any case, the proper authority on this far-fetched theory is the OED, which will list the first known use of the word in the sense of "reward". IMO, it should be consulted: i have repented myself of my poorly informed blossoming contempt for Ms. Alexander's researching skills, after examining "Foolscap and Favored Sons" (free registration or US$5 fee probably required; small extract), and i now favor according her the consideration due established scholars, of a presumption of accuracy that must be overcome with OED-grade evidence before calling her wrong. But if it says what i expect, i'll consider the article incomplete if it neglects to both attribute the bad etymology to her and contradict her.
--Jerzy•t 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Reproductions

A few years back, I went on a (very short) excursion on the Bounty that's in Darling Harbor. The crew of the ship said that this *was* the ship built for the Anthony Hopkins / Mel Gibson movie. Could it be possible that only 2 reproductions were built? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.33.79.4 (talk • contribs)

You're correct, there is no evidence I could find of a third. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motivation

Old text:

• what caused the mutiny to occur

New text:

• why the men mutinied

I think there's an important distinction between saying that the mutiny "occurred" and that the men chose to commit mutiny. Correct me if I'm wrong, but natural phenomena like volcano eruptions are not the same as human actions. In the natural world, things happen. In the human world, people make decisions and take action. --Uncle Ed 20:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "Causes of the Mutiny" or "Reasons for the Mutiny"? They seem a bit more clinical and less involved. Kasreyn 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said. ENScroggs 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about motivation for this mutiny?

[edit] Dubious facts about the fate of the mutineers

The section on The Fate of the Mutineers is loaded with assumptions, which are not appropriate for Wikipedia.

This is the worst offender: Five of the mutineers, including Fletcher Christian, had been murdered by Tahitians on Pitcairn Island; one died after a drunken fall; one was killed by the other two survivors after he attacked them; and one died of natural causes. All six of the Taihitian men were killed during the fighting.

It is true that Adams (who for some time - and throughout the Bounty's journey - referred to himself as Smith) claimed all of the above.

However, ever seeking an audience, he also claimed that Fletcher Christian had:

- been killed by the Tahitian men along with five other mutineers in a single night;

- been killed by the Tahitian men along with five other mutineers over the course of several years;

- been murdered in his sleep by his Tahitian wife (who was dead or alive depending on who spoke to Adams);

- been driven mad and took his own life by pistol shot;

- been driven mad and took his own life by jumping from the clifftops;

- grew sicked and died;

- died of old age; or even

- was shot by the Tahitians while tilling his garden.

And, of course, there were the persisting romantic - but totally unsubstantiated - and popular rumours in England at the time that Fletcher Christian had either escaped Pitcairn somehow and was still roaming the seas or that Adams was actually Fletcher Christian in disguise.

Therefore, I feel this section should be changed to read, at the very least, that the fate of the mutineers that reached Pitcairn is unknown but there are many inconsistent and contradictory stories about them.

--Stu-Rat 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, on the Pitcairn mutineers. Adams's story kept changing throughout his life and he cannot be considered a reliable source. The fate of the mutineers who returned to Britain, however, is well-sourced. Kasreyn 08:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved material from Talk:HMS Bounty

I don't know quite what happened, but this talk page was a redir. Anyway, while I can understand the rationale for splitting out the mutiny, things are kind of a hash now - for one thing, this article doesn't even link to the "Mutiny on the Bounty" article! I'd like to hear more about the theory of this organization before trying to fix the mess. Stan 04:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My fault, Stan. The talk redir is the default result of a move; the alternative was to leave the old Bounty talk with this article. In view of the existing talk being about the mutiny rather than the ship, the redir was the right choice, and overwriting it as you did was good.

I engaged in a holding action, which you saw, and went off to watch some TV. Hopefully what i've done since is a big improvement.

The rationale you speak of is only half the story: what we had was not just the ship and the mutiny mixed together, but also

• the fictional version of the mutiny monopolizing Mutiny on the Bounty, without it being obvious (to me at least) that
• HMS Bounty and William Bligh were the place to look for pieces of the true version.

I considered HMS Bounty and her mutiny, but decided it was un-Wiki-like. So the whole suite is:

• Mutiny on the Bounty (dab)
• Mutiny on the Bounty (fiction) (describes book and movies)
• Mutiny on the Bounty (history) (the real mutiny w/ its backstory, & the everyone's subsequent fates)
• HMS Bounty (the ship, its travels, mention of its commanders, and its wreckage)
• William Bligh (his life including his open-boat cruise following the mutiny)

• (I suppose Fletcher Christian should be, instead of red link, a redir to ... hmm, maybe even to the dab.)
• Bligh's launch voyage could avoid the redundancy i left between William Bligh and Mutiny on the Bounty (history), by having them both give the bare bones and a link to that new article.

(Hopefully i caught all of the confusions i got into along the way, but at the moment, i can't bear to go back for a final review of the whole suite!)

Confusions or not, tho, a fresh eye would do any article and especially the whole suite a lot of good, IMO. In particular, i probably left out some links among them; e.g., i don't remember doing anything but the dab re the fiction article. --Jerzy(t) 07:20, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have this profusion of articles, Mutiny on the Bounty (fiction) should be merged into HMS Bounty. Mintguy (T) 15:22, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

The reason for multiple articles is there are multiple topics, corresponding to multiple patterns of interest of various readers. Profusion is not a problem: readers generally are not leafing thru trying to find the right article, they are linking to the right article, or are grateful to be linking to a wrong one (that will link them to the right one a little less directly) instead of looking in the wrong place and finding a dead end.

Profusion can only become a problem when it manifests as articles needing dab, but merging articles (rather than improving naming and dab) worsens that problem, by dumping together relevant and irrelevant info.

There may indeed be articles in this "suite" that should be merged, but it needs more thought than is reflected in the proposal above! The content of HMS Bounty is far less relevant to Mutiny on the Bounty (fiction) than either of them is to Mutiny on the Bounty (history). There are 344 words in HMS Bounty; nearly 200 of those are likely to be seen as mere distractions from the real versions of the events in the plot. I can't imagine the fiction fans caring a bit about her earlier history or her statistics, unless they also care about what really happened enough to refer to Mutiny on the Bounty (history) first.

What is your real goal? Is it to reduce the distraction, for those interested in "Mutiny on the Bounty", from senses other than (probably) the usual, namely the fictional works? (I got the edit done, boldly, rather than agonizing any longer over how to name the article currently named Mutiny on the Bounty (history).) If so, IMO you should be arguing for something like this:

Give Mutiny on the Bounty (instead of it being a pure dab) the current content of Mutiny on the Bounty (fiction), plus something at the top like

This article concerns works of fiction named "Mutiny on the Bounty" (and those with other titles and the same inspiration). For the corresponding historical event, see Mutiny on the Bounty (disambiguation).

or

... see HMS Bounty mutiny

or

... see HMS Bounty mutineers

and moving Mutiny on the Bounty (history) to whichever of those new article titles is eventually settled on.

--Jerzy(t) 06:33, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

[edit] Moved material from Talk:Mutiny on the Bounty (history)

Is there any information about those forced to remain on-board the Bounty ? The novel describes their fate at length through the fictional character of Byam. Can anyone provide any real facts about Ellison, Morrison, Muspratt etc etc who supposedly remained in Tahiti beofre enduring a trip back to England in chains, to be court-martialled.

Also the novel suggests that Bligh went on to be Governor of New South Wales and have further problems with "lack of tact". I will have to check this one out. Julianp 04:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see that this is true Julianp 04:07, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Of the 44 men on board, 11 joined Christian in mutiny while 31 remained loyal to Bligh.

That doesn't add up. Josh Cherry 20:29, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think I wrote that. What I meant was, 11 + 31 + Bligh + Christian == 44. I'll try to make that clearer. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:01, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

8 remained on Pitcairne with Christian, 3 found guilty and hanged in Britain, 2 found guilty and pardoned - therefore at least 13 men participated in the mutiny. Besides, there were 4 who died on Pandora, 1 who was released on legal technicality, and 2 who remained on Taiti (16 went ashore, but only 14 arrested). Therefore, between 13 and 20 people participated in the mutiny.

---

Hello. The article is looking pretty good! I wonder if we can make the statements about the numbers of mutineers and loyal crew match the list that was recently added. I added the stuff about some men voluntarily joining Bligh in the launch and the other men who were forced to man the ship with the mutineers. I was working from an article in New Yorker magazine -- they have high standards of writing but it's entirely possible I misunderstood something. In particular, were there really only 11 mutineers to begin with? Presumably it will be easy to get all the numbers to add up, and I do think it's important to know just who was involved in different episodes of the story. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Otaheite

Otaheite is not an unnecessary link. Otaheite is an island; a specific island of Tahiti. More needs to be added to it. Please do not remove that link.

• Yes, Otaheite is a name of an island. But Tahiti is a modern name of the same island. The archipelago it is located in is called Society Islands. (See, for example, MSN Encarta.) -- Mike Rosoft 20:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, but natives on the islands - or descendants of the natives - might like to preserve the cultural and historical reference. Writing it out of history does not seem reasonable. -- TaranRampersad 21:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • You are right. After all, I just removed the link (and created a redirect from Otaheite to Tahiti instead), I wasn't trying to remove mentions of Otaheite from this or any other article. (Sorry if I seemed impolite.) - Mike Rosoft 08:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Bounty or HMAV Bounty?

Which is the correct appelation of the ship Bounty? (HMS Bounty has almost 34000 hits on Google, compared to less than 1000 for HMAV Bounty.) -- Mike Rosoft 15:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• In the books, it's HMAV. Check the references.
• It's HMAV. It's in the historical references. His Majesty's Armed Vessel.
  • Thanks, I'll edit the rest of articles. - Mike Rosoft 08:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to the Royal Naval Museum Portsmouth, based on HM Naval Base Portsmouth, they list it as HMS Bounty, I'd personally consider the Historical branch of the Royal Navy to be more accurate than the books. [2] I work for the Portsmouth Historic Dockyards, so will see if I can find out a proper answer for this. I would suggest the above unsigned comments about it definitely being HMAV in the historical references should be disregarded unless a proper source is given for the statement... JonEastham 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bligh wrote his own account of the mutiny in 1790. The title names the vessel as His Majesy's Ship Bounty. If you wish to read it for yourself it's available online here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20337/20337-h/20337-h.htm ENScroggs 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crew

The listed status of many of the crew seems wrong. Bligh was, as far as I know, the only commissioned officer on board. The Sailing Master and Master's Mates, and also the Surgeon who is listed here with the WOs, were Warrant Officers of Wardroom Rank - treated as officers but not holding a commission. The list of warrant officers seems too long. People like the Boatswain, Gunner and Carpenter were certainly WOs, but I would have thought that most of the rest of the specialists were actually Petty Officers. Warrant Officers were the privileged few, not the majority of the crew. -- Necrothesp 17:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This point is very important and is germane to the question of the causes of the mutiny. Because of her small displacement Bounty was rated as a cutter by the Royal Navy, which dictated that only one commissioned officer, namely the lieutenant commanding, was authorized. All the other subordinate posts were to be filled by warrant officers, petty officers or midshipmen. No detachment of marines was authorized for a cutter. Thus Bligh, a very competent navigator and sailor yet without much experience of independent command, was faced with a very long voyage without a brother officer to back him up. ENScroggs 23:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't HMS Bounty deserve a page of its own

Currently HMS Bounty is redirected to Mutiny on the Bounty. Shouldn't there be an article devoted exclusively to the vessel. Actually I think a case can be made that the original Bounty, and the two existing reconstructions all deserve article of their own. Geo Swan 18:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In view of my role in the previous article of that name, i may be biased. That version (conceived to provide a continuous chronology for the ship, rather than requiring readers with that interest to read the start of the Bligh article, then jump into the history of the mutiny) may have duplicated too much material [shrug]. But in any case, be sensitive to what went before; it may be worth limiting boldness to save effort. --Jerzy(t) 01:23, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

[edit] Linklater/Linkletter

The article lists Peter Linkletter while Linklater gives his dates and the different spelling Peter Linklater, perhaps based on Find-a-Grave (which is perhaps like WP w/o admins?).
--Jerzy•t 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A page on a potentially valuable site supports the Dab's spelling.
--Jerzy•t 22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Connie Kalitta

I'm not expert in RN law, but as I understand USN law, refusal to obey an order isn't mutiny (tho popularly believed to be). Does it bear correction here? Trekphiler (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just sayin'

That whoever wrote the sentence "Unfortunately, the slaves on Jamaica refused to eat the breadfruit plant, so the main purpose of the expedition was ultimately fruitless." is a bad person with an even worse sense of humour :-P 124.254.97.127 17:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is HMAV completely spurious?

I have been unable to find any verifiable source for the origin of this abbreviation. The fully worded phrase is in the National Archives manuscripts and in Bligh's book. So who first made it into four letters? I suspect that the idea that it is the "true" name of the ship is an urban legend and dates to no later that about 1970. Can anyone tell me of any datable publication in which it can be found? Please! verifiable sources, not assertions, theories, opinions etc.

Petecarney (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer is not quite. I have since found some early use of this abbreviation in colonial records not relating to the Bounty. The earliest use relating to the Bounty which I have found so far is 1945. The present popularity of this form surely derives from the film "The Bounty". Petecarney (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split this article: separate ship and mutiny

In the near future I'm going to split this article to create separate articles for the ship and the mutiny. Petecarney (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)