Talk:Stede Bonnet

message: 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)
thread_title:  Captain Codd? 

message: Link: http://www.amazon.com/Unfortunate-Career-Stede-Bonnet-1688-1718/dp/B002X33UPO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1288045065&sr=8-2
This band have named an album after Stede.86.141.225.55 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Shudders

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Map?

message: 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)
replies: text: The specifics of the marital problems were never provided. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This bit of information was also just referenced on This American Life in this episode about Stede Bonnet 2003:45:4B45:3A01:EC6A:A6FF:FE54:EBC7 (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Because of marital problems" 

message: The lead is pretty shocking for a FA, perhaps someone with more knowledge should edit it? Mattyness (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It certainly is far too detailed. Here's how I would shorten it:
Stede Bonnet (c. 1688 – December 10 1718)All dates in this article are in the Old Style form used in Britain and her colonies during Bonnet's life, except that the new year is dated from January 1. was an early 18th-century Barbadian pirate, sometimes called "the gentleman pirate" 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lead

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Treacherous"

message: "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)
replies: text: Careful! You're asking for an unnecessary argument. Brutannica (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's probably not the best thing to be joking about. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Women 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: For the second time I have removed a reference to Bonnet's crew raising a white flag in surrender.  There could have been a white flag used, but surrender at sea in those days could also be signified simply by lowering the battle flag or by striking the sails.  Without more evidence, the article should not speculate on how Bonnet's pirates surrendered. Pirate Dan (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method of surrender 

message: The accounts in Butler regarding Bonnet's earliest piracy actions may need further scrutiny. Will try to do so in coming month. --Vincent pearse (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early piracy phase 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stede Bonnet. 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/20080115071330/http://www.bonaventure.org.uk/ed/flags.htm to http://www.bonaventure.org.uk/ed/flags.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An IP editor change the item in the infobox on Bonnet's marriage to show Mary Allamby surviving him. I reverted the edit, but this does need to be looked into. I did find this, which says that Mary lived until 1750, but it is a user edited site, and thus not usable as a reference. In the body of the text, it says Mary died before 1715, with a citation to a book. I don't have access to the book (Pirates, Privateers, & Rebel Raiders of the Carolina Coast, by Lindley Butler), so I can't verify the statement. Does anyone have access to that book, or know of another reliable source that can settle this? - Donald Albury 02:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The link provided to the Internet Archive's record of the book allows it to be accessed (if you create/log in to an account and "borrow" it). I did this expecting to see it assert that Mary died some time before 1715, as the article says, but in fact Butler claims that she survived until 1750. She cites two sources, one which I cannot access at all and another ('The Barbados-Carolina Connection' by Henry Fraser and Warren Alleyne) which can be partially accessed through Google Books. The latter also suggests she died in 1750, although I'm not sure where that book in turn gets this information. Whatever the case, the claim that Mary Allamby died before 1715 doesn't seem to be supported by any of the article's sources. I'm not going to make any changes but, as you say, this is something which should probably be addressed and it seems that the 1750 date is more likely to be correct. Brumafriend (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for checking that out. I did find this, Charleston and the Golden Age of Piracy, by Chris Downey (2013: History Press). It does not give a date of death for Allamby, but it certainly implies that she was alive when Bonnet left for his pirating in 1717, as do various blogs and a couple of history sites that do not cite sources. I will remove 1715 as her date of death, as that is unsourced, and leave the date blank. It does look like 1750 is the correct date. I will leave a hidden note saying so, and pointing to this discussion. - Donald Albury 16:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there was no clear source for her dying in 1714 even . The clause "Allamby died before 1715" was discussing the son. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Allamby's death 

message: So the Internet Historian movie on the life of Stede Bonnet has been posted and removed several times. Perhaps we could discuss whether it should be included? My argument: At 1 hour and 16 minutes it is the only full-length modern depiction of Stede Bonnet's pirating career. It is also, as far as I can tell, the only comical re-telling of his story. And Google trends depicts a surge of interest in Stede Bonnet immediately after the movie was posted. Interest is still roughly double the baseline from before the movie was released. Wilson (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just chiming in while watching it for the second time. It is inching towards 3M views, so I would think that's notable. 126.116.23.157 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what "notability" has to do with it. In Wikipedia, "notability" has to do with whether a subject should have a stand-alone article, and is defined in :Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Anything that goes into the article should broaden and support the reader's knowledge of the subject of the article. So, how do you see a You-Tube video, a "comical re-telling" of Bonnet's story, adding to an encyclopedic article about him? Please also see :Wikipedia:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites and :Wikipedia:Video links. - Donald Albury 17:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

text: It's a feature-length movie, it just happens to be hosted on YouTube and is created with low-budget/minimal animation. It's not clear to me that a discussion about Bonnet in the prologue of a radio program
broadens the reader's knowledge any more than a movie being made about his life. 98.113.91.134 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Historian Movie (Pop Culture section) 

message: I'm moving the below section on Bonnet's flag to the talk page because I believe the current references are not sufficiently reliable, nor do they back up all the information provided. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag section