This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Nimble (1826) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
A fact from HMS Nimble (1826) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 February 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that in 1827, HMS Nimble, an anti-slave patrol, ran aground near the Florida Keys while engaged in a gun battle with the Spanish slave shipGuerrero, which also ran aground and sank?
I think that "It was reported that the recaptured Africans in the hold were making so much noise that the crew could not hear the sound of the breakers on the reef" would read more naturally with the word "recaptured" removed. I accept that the word is used by the sources in this context, but the Africans were not captured (or indeed recaptured) in the sense that the ordinary reader would assume was being used. Losing the one word loses nothing from the sense of the sentence, and the aim should not be to repeat the exact wording used by the sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that the term "recaptured" is ambiguous and awkward. "Freed" is not appropriate, either, as the Africans were not free to go where they wished. It appears that the Africans found on slave-runners were supposed to be taken to one of the courts set up by international treaties to determine their status, and even when they were found to be emancipated, they still didn't have much choice. Africans found on slave-runners near Cuba were taken to Havana, and if deemed emancipated, were then "freed" on the island to seek work, which was generally under conditions little better than slavery. Africans found on slave-runners who were landed in the U.S. for one reason or another, were kept in custody until they could be taken to Liberia (i.e., the Antelope, Guerrero and Amistad cases). I'm open to other suggestions, however. -- Donald Albury01:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think just "the Africans in the hold" would get the idea across adequately. I see you've been able to avoid the issue in other parts of the article by referring to the captured ships and their cargoes, without needing to be specific about the status of the individuals making up the cargoes. I guess technically they could be said to be in British custody in such circumstances, although in this particular sentence that phrasing would be even more awkward. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.svg)
