Talk:Woodes Rogers

message: Little is known about Rogers childhood, but it was more likely that he was born in Poole rather than Bristol. His family lived in Poole before they moved to Bristol - Woodes Rogers name is mentioned in a Poole poll-tax document dating to 1690. Therefore, I have removed Bristol as his place of birth until a reliable inline citation can be provided. BarretBonden (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: Please tell us who Cooke is, otherwise these sentences are meaningless.
After his voyage, he wrote an account of it, titled A Cruising Voyage Around the World[12] While Cooke beat Rogers to print by several months, Rogers' book was much more successful, with many readers fascinated by the account of Selkirk's rescue, which Cooke had slighted.
Amandajm (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of.  Cooke was the captain (initially mate, but later promoted) of the Duchess.  There was an earlier version, I think, in which I had explained who he was.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooke?

message: I know I've given short shrift to the time after Rogers became governor, I just haven't had time to deal with it.  There's more to be said about the circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still more 

message: :Rogers stocked his ships with limes to fend off scurvy, a practice not universally accepted at that time. 
I editted this to read: 
:Rogers stocked his ships with limes to fend off scurvy, a practice which later became widely accepted. 
My edit has been reverted to the former. So I'll explain the problem with the present wording of the sentence. 
The crucial piece of information here is that the ship was stocked with limes. The tag, if present at all, needs to be explanatory to the reader. 
*The first form of the sentence presumes that the reader already knows that limes were used, but is informed about a time frame. 
*The second sentence doesn't presume that the reader knows anything. It informs the reader that the practice itself came into wide use, and sets the time frame as later which is the same as not...at that time. 
Question: Was the practice universally accepted, or did some ships use oranges, lemons, pineapples, coconuts or what ever other durable fruit that is high in vitamin C was available? While limes were probably preferred, I would think the latter was the reality, simply because of availability. Places that grow pineapples in plenty don't necessarily grow limes. You probably need to drop the word "universal".
Amandajm (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Limes

message: Show some evidence that the 120 miles are in fact statute miles; either a citatation for the  190 km value, or something identifying the miles used.  This was originally just "about 120 miles" with a later addition of  by a different editor, converting them as if they were statute miles.  In any case, common sense, and the Manual of Style, say that miles need to be specifically identified as either statute or nautical miles in a maritime context; note that this means not using that template if the miles are statute miles—if they are in fact the nautical miles normal in this context, then  will give you the conversion with the requisite specific identification of the units, but as far as I know there aren't any parameters in that template which would allow it to comply with MoS if the miles are statute.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible that this would give you the most reasonable results, with the most appropriate precision, especially if the "about 120 miles" are actually somebody's (either a Wikipedia editor, or a source used by a Wikipedia editor) conversion to statute miles from 100 nautical miles:  "about " giving "about ". Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is that is what it says in the source.  Since it is written for a lay audience, I'd think statute miles were meant.  I think you are being overly picky, with respect, but since we can't have a TFA with a dubious tage, I've eliminated the measurement and we can sort it out later.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be resolved easily enough by simply looking at a map and measuring the distance between Nassau and Abaco: looks like 120 *statute* miles to me. I suggest Wehwalt restore the reference and, if necessary, source it to the atlas of his or your choice. Vincent pearse (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Look, we work on RS here.  We're a tertiary source.  A secondary source, accepted as an RS has said that Abaco is 120 miles north of Nassau.  We give words their most common and usual meaning, which means statute miles.  I suggest we restore the material to the article without the dubious tag unless Gene can come up with some indication that something other than statute miles was meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. (Just for clarification, I'm not suggesting we use ourselves as a tertiary source. When it comes to determining the distance between two known locations on the Earth's surface, an atlas is as definitive source as one can find; if the act of measuring in an atlas is not a RS in the Wikipedial sense, we can at least use it to confirm the meaning Woodard intended to the satisfaction of all parties.) Vincent pearse (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Woodward (the original source) may be giving a distance in nautical miles.  The minumum distance from Nassau harbour to the southern tip of Great Abaco to Nassau Bar is circa 9 leagues, 27 nm.  Marsh Harbour at the northern side of Great Abaco, would be a minimum of 120nm, avaiding the reefs, etc.  Ref: Sailing Directions for the Gulf of Florida, the Bahama Banks and Islands, Cuba, etc. Hobbs 1860 Hobbs His distances are given in leagues, Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Woodard's point is to give a distance one would have to travel while sailing.  Just a distance as the crow flies.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Wehwalt. From context, it's clear that Woodard is speaking of linear distances. (If one were to get involved with sailing directions, you have to factor in prevailing winds; in other sections of the work, Woodard appears to deal with this by describing vessel transits in terms of sailing times, rather than distance.) Vincent pearse (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Wehwalt. This is not a treatise on a scientific topic.  —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well.  In that case Woodard is wrong as the straight line distance is less than 100 statute miles from Nassau to the northernmost part of Great Acona Abaco where there is a harbour. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: A-ha! A quick Internet search leads to primary documents that show Vane's precise location at that time: Green Turtle Cay, north of Abaco. Not sure what that does for distance. (Here's one primary source - search within for the island.) Vincent pearse (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work that.  Do we want to work that in?  Readers will presumably be unfamiliar with both Bahamas locations.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. We can use a reference to the correct Rogers letter in the Calendar of State Papers (I think Google books has them all now). Want me to tackle that? (May not get to it for a few hours.) Vincent pearse (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that would be good.  Thanks--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well found, that is circa 120 statute miles as the crow flies. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction made and sourced. Now nobody will get lost looking for Vane's treasure. Vincent pearse (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: Is there any reason why a larger resolution image has not been uploaded for the main painting in this article? Joshdboz (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea.  A higher res image would be nice.  If you want to do it, feel free.  If not, I'll no doubt get around to it once the madness of Main Page Sunday is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: Nice article Wewahlt. You could link "freeman" to Freedom of the City which explains it all. Fainites barleyscribs 20:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the praise, your advice is sound as always and I've done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Freeman

message: "...some crew members were so dissatisfied that they dug up the recently dead hoping to find items of value. This led to an outbreak aboard ship of the bubonic plague, of which six men died."
Plague is transmitted via fleas that feed on both live human and rodent blood. Fleas do not feed on corpses, especially not "recently dead" corpses exhumed from graves, and the early modern belief that corpses spread plague is wrong. Someone needs to do a fact check on this issue, especially since it is not sourced.
Keith Ellington (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but it is in the Woodard book.  Obviously, we don't know exactly what they contacted.  I could change plague to sickness, if you like.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Plague from Corpses?

message: In the Alexander Selkirk article, it states that he was rescued on 2 February, which is one day later than asserted here in this article. The date 2 February comes from the memoirs of Woodes Rogers himself. Is there an explanation for this discrepancy, or is the date in the Woodard book simply mistaken? —howcheng  {chat} 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Beats me.  Been a long time since I reviewed the sources and I'm not at home at present.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I see the change and have no objection.  There's two new books out on Rogers btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Woodard may have relied on Cooke rather than Rogers as his primary source, since Cooke describes Selkirk's rescue as being on 1 February. Such minor discrepancies are not uncommon in regard to Selkirk, and I agree with giving precedence to Rogers. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Selkirk rescue date

message: Selkirk, who had been part of the ship's crew that abandoned Dampier after losing confidence in his leadership, was at first reluctant to join the expedition because of the presence of his old commodore, but eventually did so.
The original source for this is Cooke (1712); but his claim is hardly credible. 
*First, you have to accept that Selkirk was prepared to surrender to England's enemies, the French, in hopes of somehow obtaining a passage back to Europe, but not to an English ship on which Dampier was serving (Rogers 1712, p. 125: "Had they [the two Spanish ships that came to anchor] been French, he would have submitted; but chose to risk his dying alone on the island, rather than fall into the hands of the Spaniards in these parts"). 
*Second, you must credit Dampier with uncharacteristic broad-mindedness, after being so badly abused, to then give Selkirk his unreserved recommendation (Rogers again: "Dampier, who told me that this was the best man in her [the Cinque Ports], so I immediately agreed with him to be a mate on board our ship").
Given that Dampier's lapses in leadership did not always compensate for his navigational skills, Cooke would not be the only contemporary of Dampier's to libel him. —180.194.7.21 (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably you are correct, but what do you propose?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

text: That's fine. I'll have to see about getting the new books and see if they shed any light.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficulty is with the dearth of primary source material on Selkirk. Too many authors since have felt the need to make up for this deficiency by making stuff up, which then gets cited as fact. Hope the new books aren't in the latter category! —180.194.225.173 (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. And I wrote this article four years ago, when I was less experienced in such things.  I've ordered one on amazon and we'll see what it has to say. Plus I expect there are discrepancies between Dampier's account and Rogers' account.  So it goes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Having gathered your references, if you could work some magic on the sections for Dampier's Second and Third Circumnavigations it would be very helpful. —180.194.225.173 (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't be for a few weeks, I'm off Wednesday on a trip shorter than Woodes' but still going to be away.  I had the amazon sent  next day so I will take it with me.  I have a Kindle but I have found it useless for research purposes due to the lack of page numbers.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Little is correct, as is the article. After selling the Marquis in Batavia, the Committee redistributed the officers, sending Cooke back to the Duchess as second captain and Selkirk to the Duke as sailing master (Dampier replaced Selkirk in the Batchelor). The relevant document appears in Cooke's A Voyage to the South Sea. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be so slow to act and thanks for clearing that up.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Selkirk's reluctant rescue?

message: The article says that Defoe "sought out Selkirk". Unfortunately, there is scanty (or no) evidence that the two ever met. There may be proof that Defoe had Rogers' book in his library, which at any rate was reprinted only a year before the first edition of Robinson Crusoe was published (so he certainly could have read it). This makes the role of chroniclers such as Rogers even more important. —180.194.7.130 (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should be more specific, like "by some accounts".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a way around it. But Defoe never made any claims, so far as I know, to have met the guy. Shouldn't we try to be as accurate as possible? Would prefer something more like "appears to have read about it", as there is prima facie support for that. —180.194.7.130 (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking at David Gordingly's new book on Rodgers.  I haven't read all the Defoe parts yet but he doesn't find convincing that he and Selkirk met, as he does not mention it.  Defoe certainly knew about Rodgers as he mentions Rodgers in one of his works, The Compleat English Gentleman.  I agree, let's soft-pedal it, sources making it more direct may be more romantic than scholarly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Defoe and Selkirk Really Meet?

message: What was the point of this revert? Yes, this is a featured article, but this has nothing to do with the quality of the article, this has to do with the Captain Rogers redirect. Captain Rogers redirects here. There is another Captain Rogers that we have another article about, so we use a hatnote to redirect readers to the other article (see Wikipedia:Hatnote#Ambiguous term that redirects to an unambiguously named article). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would be better to develop Captain Rogers into a disambiguation page?  If you feel strongly about it though, go ahead and undo me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that this would be the primary topic. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what the primary topic is anymore. I did a quick Google search, and it got alot of results about Captain America, but very few about Woodes Rogers. This would very strongly suggest that Captain America is the primary topic, but it seams odd that it would be. Woodes is a historic figure, who I think would be commonly called "Capitan Rogers". Captain America is usually called "Captain America", or less commonly "Steve Rogers". "Capitan Rogers", if I'm not mistaken if a far less commonly used term for Capitan America then either "Capitan America" or "Steve America". To be on the safe side I'll make Captain Rogers a disambig. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea.  I didn't make Captain Rogers a redirect and don't see that Woodes is famous enough that it should be.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: The ships then went to the neutral Dutch port of Batavia ...
Actually, the Dutch were allies of Britain against the French and the Spanish in the War of the Spanish Succession, so wouldn't Batavia be an allied port? A substitution might be in order here. — Dr.Gulliver (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe best just to delete the adjective.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch neutrality