Talk:William Bligh/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Bligh popular in NSW

Prior to the rebellion did he not gain admiration and support from the colonists when he stemmed the corrupt trading practices, mostly conducted by British Army personnel stationed there. Surely this needs a mention especially as it might be connected with the procedures prohibited that led to the rum rebellion. If there are accounts of sucess in his much blighted career, they need mentioning for the sake of balance. Dainamo 11:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Its probably hard to find any of that because the corps and future-governor macarthur really did a good job of defaming and (excuse the pun) blighting his name in NSW WookMuff 09:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

you need to change something

you need to change the fact that the first line of text states that Captain Bligh was born in Cornwall, while the caption under the picture says that he was born in Devon. It calls into question all that comes after. 24.240.17.232 (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Three watches

I think the article should mention that Bligh was not the first captain of the British Navy to introduce three watches (the article seems to pretend so). Apparently the British admirality left, during quite a long period of time, to the captain of any ship to introduce this or that watch system. I do not know if James Cook was really the first one to introduce the three-watch system; however, since Bligh was Cook's Sailing Master on his third voyage to the South Sea, he should have learned the comforts of three watches. (Today, three watches are the rule; and you learn its benefits the other way round: the under-manned private sailing yachts do not allow more than two watches ... and everybody is always tired and tired and over-tired, and at the brink of his physical capacities ... )

<< Cross of the South >>

idea

You need to make a section for where you get one paragraph to read what he did. and when i saw paragraph i mean small like 5 sentances.

Incompitence

The book Incompetence (a comedy by the writers of Red Dwarf) contains a throw away paragraph stating that it is a little known fact that Bligh sufferred not one but seven seperate mutinies during his career. Is this correct? And surely, if it is, it is worthy of note on this page?

Acutally he had 3 - Bounty, when the entire fleet munited at Spithead and the troubles in NSW

Technically 4, since he also seems to have been involved in the Nore muninty following Spithead.--192.249.47.11 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

HMS Glatton

While this page states that the HMS Glatton, Bligh's command at Copenhagen, was a 64 gun ship, the ship's page states that it was a 56 gun ship. Any idea as to the correct number or the reason for this discrepancy?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord asriel (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC+10 hours (AEST))

'Certainly not the vicious man portrayed in popular fiction'?

I don't feel sure that this statement is in line with the historical facts, it merely seems to follow the latest political trend (monetarism: voracious capitalism revisited)/book about the study of Captain William Bligh. I feel that more evidence and citations are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.136.92 (talk • contribs)

The article is well referenced and the assertion is well in line with modern scholarship about Bligh. I am removing the unwarranted {{dubious}} tag. —phh (^t/_c) 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

According to a biography I read of Bligh, some decades ago, the Bounty's log recorded that he had ordered corporal punishment a total of seven times -- and commented that this was very moderate for the time, for a voyage of that length.

The log of a ship is unlikely to contain evidence incriminating its skipper.

Then why does the article state that "The Bounty's log shows that Bligh resorted to punishments relatively often"? I remember seeing a BBC documentary that also claimed that Bligh punished less than other contemporary officers - and others were not ashamed to record all theese punishements in their loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.167.252 (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On Royal Navy ships floggings had to be entered into the ship's punishment book as were any other punishments, so no, Bligh would not have been able to conceal any floggings from anyone.

And if Bligh had been as bad as is made out then Nelson, who was an unusually for-the-time humane and decent man, almost certainly would have heard about it, and made his displeasure known. Instead Nelson had a high opinion of Bligh.

And if there's anyone who ought to know, it's the crew members who spent 47 days in an open boat with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Captain Bligh mural by Olga Lehmann.JPG

Image:Captain Bligh mural by Olga Lehmann.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What did they eat and drink 47 days?

On the voyage to Timor? It's mentioned they had food for only few days and they were attacked in Tofua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Caroline Alexander's book on the true story of the mutiny, Bligh and his men survived on an ounce of bread each day, half a pint of water (plus rainwater) and oysters and berries they found on an island off of Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.65.199 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Documentary on Bligh's reputation

There was a documentary a few months ago in the UK made by a Bligh descendant, who I think was from NZ which basically traced the bad reputation that Bligh has back to a dubious source written in the early 19th century. I think a book may be being written in it but I'm not certain. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Links here and here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It was Edward Christian who started it here - http://www.fatefulvoyage.com/minutes/minutesMAppendix.html Dmgerrard (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Notorious?

The article currently states "A notorious mutiny occurred during his command of HMS Bounty in 1789" The word notorious used in this sense appears to have a bias POV against the mutiny and it is my request that the word be supplemented by a more impartial word. Notorious is usually known to mean unfavorable. It is my thoughts that it should be revised should it be agreed upon and reasonable, unless my note be in error. DiscoElf (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely a mutiny is inherently "unfavourable"!

Bligh reference in USS Cyclops article

The end of the second paragraph in the "Accusations" section of the USS Cyclops states "the crews of these ships reported that Worley suffered from a personality allegedly akin to that of HMS Bounty's captain William Bligh; the crew was often brutalized by Worley for trivial things". However, the wiki article on William Bligh states that "The Bounty's log shows that Bligh resorted to punishments relatively sparingly. He scolded when other captains would have whipped and whipped when other captains would have hanged." So which is it? Was he a gentle leader with his crew's best interest at heart or an irrational tyrant? It seems very unencyclopedic for two articles to so blatantly contradict each other. Personally I'm leaning towards the William Bligh article as being closer to the truth, but I'm not an expert, which is why I'm posting here so that hopefully someone more knowledgeable than myself can fix it.Bookbaby2004 (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the truth is about Bligh, he did have a reputation as a martinet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.207.109 (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bligh's first job.

The table currently states that his first assignment was as a Ship's Boy, but this is linked to Ordinary Seaman (rating). Should this be re-linked to Cabin boy, or renamed to "Ordinary Seaman"? Wardog (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should. Good catch. I think he was just over 12 at the time so wouldn't have been rated as an Ordinary Seaman yet. -OberRanks (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Upwind sailing?

The article says "Tahiti was upwind from Bligh's initial position, and was the obvious destination of the mutineers." I'm the first to admit that I'm no sailor, but the reference to upwind, rather than downwind, does baffle me, as does the word 'obvious'. Please excuse a landlubber if I'm out of my depth. Alpheus (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Career

Bligh became an able seaman, not a midshipman. To say that this was "the term used because there was no vacancy for a midshipman" is ridiculous. He was an able seaman not a midshipman!

Midshipman. From http://www.fatefulvoyage.com/masts/mastsRanks.html "A midshipman originally was, as the name suggests, one who lived amidships, this is mid-way between the officers who lived aft and the men who lived forward. This rank was a senior Petty Officer, usually filled by young gentleman with aspirations to become commissioned officers. The number of Midshipmen in a ship was fixed by the rating of the ship and it was at the discretion of the Captain as to who was carried. To get round the problem of large numbers of men wanting to be Midshipmen or get their service time in before the Lieutenant’s examination, various supernumerary posts, paid as able seamen were created." Dmgerrard (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Second voyage successful?

Sorry, I'm new to this and I'm too lazy to read all the fine print on how to edit an article. I submit this comment in hopes that someone will take it and correct the article in an appropriate way.

  In the section on the second voyage, the author claims "The operation was successful, and breadfruit is a popular food in the West Indies to this day.[11]" The cited article is generic article on breadfruit.
  I had always read that the experiment of introducing breadfruit to slaves as a cheap food was a failure--that West Indies slaves would not eat breadfruit. Poking around to find an answer, I found the following Smithsonian article:
 "Although the breadfruit tree flourished and spread across Jamaica, more than 40 years passed before its fruit was popular to local taste, by which time, in 1834, emancipation had been declared in the British Empire."

Erniesch (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bligh's mission was to transplant the breadfruit, which had not been done before, to the West Indies, in which he was successful. The later uses of the breadfruit, or not, was beyond his purview. No correction is needed here. The breadfruit article would be an appropriate place to mention the reception of the plant in the West Indies and beyond after its introduction, and indeed there is a comment that the slaves did not want to eat it. It could be added that within forty years or so, this objection had been overcome, using the Smithsonian article as a source. Benea (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Date Bligh joined HMS Monmouth

Should the date Bligh joined HMS Monmouth be 1st July 1762?

It is generally written that Bligh was signed for the Navy at seven, but if he joined Monmouth on 1st July 1761 as indicated in the article, he would only have been six years nine months. The Australian Dictionary of Biography states 'William was entered in H.M.S. Monmouth on 1 July 1762, [and] was paid off the following February'. Rob Mundle in 'Bligh, Master Mariner' also states that Bligh was only in Monmouth eight months, not eighteen months, which the Wikipedia article suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmalee (talk • contribs) 12:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Which HMS Crescent?

There is an anomaly in the link to HMS Crescent (28). Bligh couldn't have joined that HMS Crescent (28) on 5th February 1771, because she wasn't built until 1779. He probably joined HMS Crescent (32). See below from Wikipedia entry 'HMS Crescent'

HMS Crescent (1758) was a 32-gun fifth rate. She was formerly the French privateer Rostan, before being captured in 1758 by HMS Torbay. She was sold in 1777. HMS Crescent (1779) was a 28-gun sixth rate launched in 1779, and captured by the French off Cadiz in 1781. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.141.109 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC) --92.3.141.109 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Birth Place

Does anyone know where he was born i've seen Plymouth but it says here Bodmin?Bullseye30 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm Bligh Turnbull is not a descendent

The article mentions Malcolm Bligh Turnball as a descendent, while the article about Malcolm Turnbull says that he got the middle name "Bligh" because that was a customary middle name in his family in honour of the captain.

Amos Shapira 05:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that error! The Malcolm Turnbull article is correct, he is not descended from William Bligh. The error seems to have arisen from the source cited in this article stating that Turnbull "has ancestral links to William Bligh, and bears his name" - obviously someone took that to mean that the two were related.
I've removed the incorrect sentence completely - I don't think it's worth mentioning that someone in the present day was named after Bligh, especially as it's obviously more of a Turnbull family tradition than anything else. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Some...others...

Can't we get more of a judgment on Bligh than "some people say this, but other people say that"? Isn't the second, more favorable, opinion, the more common one today? john k (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Of course, it would help if there actually were some citations for either point of view. But seriously, I think any time I've ever been told about Bligh, I've always been told both sides of the story. The fact that there was a second mutiny against Bligh (the Rum Rebellion) shows this same "two sides". In both cases, Bligh was committed to achieving his mission, a stern and authoritative leader who did not cut anyone any slack and so he got a lot of people offside and that lead to both mutinies and to a lot of people not directly involved in the mutiny having some sympathy towards the mutineers. Absolutely the mutineers were "in the wrong" in both cases, but Bligh clearly wasn't one of the great leaders of men either it would seem, although in both cases he was given a somewhat difficult mission (the delays in the departure of the Bounty were a compounding factor in that mutiny and sending him alone to break up the Rum Corps monopoly when the Rum Corps were the military of the colony were in retrospect "dumb things to do"). After the Rum Rebellion, the British Govt finally took the situation seriously and sent out Lachlan Macquire accompanied by his own army with orders for the Rum Corp to either leave the colony or resign their commissions. To a large extent, Bligh was set up to fail in both cases; maybe it was just random chance or maybe he'd irritated his superiors too much. Kerry (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

As you say, we should actually cite sources. But "some say this, but others say that" is certainly not mandated by NPOV policy. We can provide context for who is saying what. john k (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Bligh. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830140811/http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/banks/sections/section_09.cfm to http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/banks/sections/section_09.cfm

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"began the process of bringing the mutineers to justice." ?

Wasn't Bligh prosecuted at the Admirality, London first ? Accused of having lost "HMS the Bounty". This is at least how the 1984 film "the Bounty" begins (Anthony Hopkins as William Bligh). In the casting credentials after the film, a text explains what happened after his acquittal. A text which appear to be equal (although brief) to a valid secondary source. Nothing about any preparing of justice is told there. I'm not taking any side here, but shouldn't matters be presented in chronological order ? If he was prosecuted for having lost the Bounty, that part ought to be presented first, whatever opinions Bligh himself may have had. To this I should add that the only source I have for the prosecution (and acquittal) of Bligh, is this film. (But it seems to be a more fair portray of William Bligh compared to the film with Marlon Brando from the 60's). Chronological order (and neutrality naturally), is the only real point I wish to propose here. Boeing720 (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Literature

Bligh is humorously portrayed in Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch's short story "Frenchman's Creek" as a competent but irascible and tactless surveyor sent to a small fishing village in Cornwall during the Napoleonic Wars. His accent and strong language being misunderstood by the locals as French, he is temporarily imprisoned as a spy.

If these Cornish couldn't understand the accent of a man of Cornish extraction ( St. Tudy ), who was born there or in Plymouth, they would have been extraordinarily thick. Quiller-Couch usually portrayed Cornwall much more favourably.

Claverhouse (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)