Talk:Stede Bonnet

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).

Believe it or not, that really is the correct name according to period sources. Vincent pearse (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Shudders

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 – December 10 1718) 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)

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)

References

"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)

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)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

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:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

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)

Method of surrender

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)

Early piracy phase

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)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Mary Allamby's death

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)

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)

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)

Internet Historian Movie (Pop Culture section)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Speculative / Unsourced Sentences

Regarding the sentence(s) in the intro's third paragraph,

"Perhaps Stede’s early life as an orphan caused him to carry emotional baggage that was too much to sustain an already fragile marriage. Or, as noted by several historians, perhaps the emotional stresses (for Stede and for Mary) of losing Allamby at an early age created irreconcilable fissures in the Bonnet marriage.[7]"

I feel like the tone of that sentence, is speculative, and feels like the setup for a conclusion of an essay or an argumentative text. I understand that with historical characters there are many unknowns, especially regarding a private relationship between two people, but I feel like the way the text is presented in this manner just isn't encyclopedic, even if this is a FA. Any more experienced editors out there are free to correct me if they think otherwise. My opinion is that these two sentences should be slightly rewritten to something like:

"Some historians have written that Stede's early life as an orphan caused him to carry emotional baggage that was too much to sustain an already fragile marriage. (source required), while others write that it was the emotional stresses (for Stede and for Mary) of losing Allamby at an early age which created irreconcilable fissures in the Bonnet marriage."

The above seems more encyclopedic, evidence-based, and factual in itself, rather than an unsure or suggestive phrase which isn't even supported by a specific section or page in the supplied source, only the book as a whole. I don't happen to have a copy of "The life and tryals of the gentleman pirate, Major Stede Bonnet" by Jeremy R Moss on hand, but someone active in WP:Piracy or WP:History could probably give this a proper look over, especially since this is a Featured Article. Perhaps there are other phrases like this in this article or throughout WP:Piracy which should be looked over.

Or, if I'm just a naive editor who doesn't know the nuances of historic biographical articles on the English Wikipedia, feel free to let me know that too. SpacePod9 (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that any material that is trying to convey the emotional state of historical characters needs to be very well sourced, and attributed to specific authors. While it is possible that the sentences you question may accurately reflect scholarly opinion, they must be supported by (and attributed to) reliable sources. I also do not have ready access to the cited source, so we must wait until someone who does have access can verify that Moss's book (or another reliable source) does explicitly support the statements. For the time being, the speculation notice you left will do. - Donald Albury 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: The Moss citations seem to be mostly straight rips from the book, while some others are citations that I assume the editor added to the lede in the belief that the extant sentences needed a vague citation. I provide examples of the most egregious copy pastes as follows.

P. 18 of the e-book edition says:

The reasons for the “Discomforts” of the Bonnet marriage are not well preserved. Perhaps Stede’s early life as an orphan caused him to carry emotional baggage that was too much to sustain an already fragile marriage. Or, as noted by several historians, perhaps the emotional stresses (for Stede and for Mary) of losing Allamby at an early age created irreconcilable fissures in the Bonnet marriage.

P. 20:

An apparently voracious reader with a fondness for books, Bonnet himself may have been inspired by books like the voyage narratives of the times...

P. 16:

Bonnet would be recognized as part of this Barbadian militia and given the title of major. Although some have exaggerated Bonnet’s status and rank into an assumption of significant military experience, his rank was merely bestowed upon him pursuant to a June 1652 Barbadian law that bestowed military titles upon the landowning aristocracy. The title would be important to Bonnet, however, and history would assign “Major” to Stede Bonnet’s name for more than 300 years after his death.

Not looking good! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

And that book was published by Koehlerbooks, which advertises a Co-publishing/Hybrid Model. If the book in question was published under that model rather than the Traditional Publishing model, then I would argue that it is not a reliable source. I'll look into it a bit further, and then see about listing the book at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Donald Albury 15:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked about the book at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Book about Stede Bonnet. Per the comments there, I think we need to remove any material about Bonnet's emotional state, thought processes or motivations sourced from Moss's book (the current third paragraph of the article, at least). - Donald Albury 14:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Popping in here from WP:URFA/2020A. From what I've seen, Moss should probably not be cited in a FA at all. I also find it concerning the degree of use of the General History of the Pyrates, given that it has a known tendency to be a bit on the myth-making side (also, why is it directly cited to DeFoe when it seems that Defoe's authorship is quite speculative and has been challenged). The lead (at least the Moss additions) does not seem to comply with the MOS standards for leads. As an aside, it wouldn't hurt to do spot-checks here for the non-Moss sources if possible, given some issues I've detected in articles from the same FAC nominator before (see Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. Richard, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball), and Talk:Thomas C. Hindman). This one may end up needing featured article review. Hog Farm _Talk 17:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)