This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia 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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime 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.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Hough is used as a source several times, is it really a good idea? Reviews of this book state it is "fiction" with no footnotes and apparently end with the conclusion that "Captain Bligh and Spencer Christian were really gay lovers". And I just saw the 1984 movie, how can anyone argue it being "homoerotic" like Dening is quoted to have said here? Some source criticism wouldn't hurt.
Thank you for taking an interest in this article. The credibility of the sources used was confirmed in the article's recent featured article process. I have not seen any reviews of Hough's book which describe it as "fiction", and any that do are mistaken. Are you confusing it with another book, perhaps Nordhoff and Hall? Hough's book may not contain footnotes, but it includes a section summarising the sources employed, which are all of impeccable historical quality. It is a serious book, and generally regarded as such by those with knowledge of the subject. The supposition that it ends with the conclusion described above is simply false. As to "I just saw the movie..." etc, whatever your personal analysis of the film may be, Dening refers specifically to the depiction of Bligh in the film as "a man bedevilled by his vaguely homosexual jealousies", which is I think adequately covered by the text as it stands. I am removing the tag. If you would like to suggest an alternative wording, please do so, but it must be based on what is the published reliable sources. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
(PS: please sign your posts, to make discussions less impersonal. Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC))
Thank you Dingsuntil, but shouldn't the new title be 'Mutiny on (not 'of') HMS Bounty"? The ship didn't mutiny. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Roger 8 Roger: Change it if you like; I just wanted it more distinguished from "Mutiny on the Bounty," and I don't think there's any danger of confusion. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have had a second look and I think the rename should be reverted for several reasons: it is well known as Mutiny on the Bounty, not on HMS Bounty: there is no confusion with films and books (those articles are clearly titled); the ship was not HMS but HM sloop Bounty: Mutiny on HMS Bounty sounds odd: it was well established as a feature article with its original title; it seems no consensus for the change was established. Sorry to sound pedantic, but it was better as it was. I'll revert the changes now. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)