Talk:Batavia (1628 ship)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Earlier unsigned comment

"As an example, Cornelisz's second in command was broken on the wheel as Cornelisz himself had already been executed."

This sentence is ambiguous; does the second "as" mean "in the same way" or "because"? So should it be "...in the same way Cornelisz himself had already been executed" or "...because Cornelisz himself had already been executed"? If someone who knows could fix it, please do.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.241.101.65 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's 'because Cor nelisz was already dead'. I have changed it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedash (talk • contribs) 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mutiny/ barratry

This wasn't a mutiny, it was a barratry; the theft of the ship and/ or her cargo by the master and/ or officers, rather than a rebellion against lawful authority.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Bonkers (talk • contribs) 13:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

A lot of people have been vandalising this page recently, it stems from a school hisotry class using this page for a project.I'm not sure what the protocol for this is I'll try to stop all the people doing it personally, but I don't think that it will take too long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.168.39.12 (talk • contribs) .

Don't use wikipedia as your only source of information, and don't vandalize pages. --Jemijohn 03:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WA Maritime Museum v Geraldton Region Museum??

"These two museums are presently engaged in a dispute over the rights to the remains - including a stone arch, currently in Gerlandton which was intended to serve as a stone welcome arch for Batavia."

I really would like to see a citation for this, as I can find nothing anywhere to back this up and it doesn't really make sense. The portico or arch in question was salvaged by the WA Maritime Museum and is being exhibited in Geraldton - at the WA Maritime Museum's Geraldton site. There are no plans to move it anywhere else.

My understanding is that under Australian law regarding shipwrecks and their artifacts, WAMM has jurisdiction over the portico. There is no dispute to be had. Legally it falls under their jurisdiction.

In any event I can find no evidence anywhere of any kind of dispute. There are some in Geraldton who would like to see all Batavia artifacts based on Geraldton, but that's it. Can anyone shed any light on this?

172.205.134.197 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The arch was originally displayed at the main WAMM site in Fremantle. Then, when WAMM Geraldton was reopened, hugely expanded, it was transferred there and a replica put on display at WAMM Fremantle. There was some dispute at the time about the wisdom of making the transfer, as the Geraldton museum is substantially less well visited than that in Fremantle - the argument for Geraldton, of course, being that the Batavia wreck is local to the town and that salvage was carried out in part by Geraldton residents. This seems to be the dispute referred to, but as the poster above points out, the matter is decided by the management of WAMM, it's not in effect a public dispute between the two towns.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.1.156 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Barratry?

Hardly. Wikipedia's own definition of barratry is: 'a fraudulent act committed by a master or crew of a vessel which damages the vessel or its cargo, including desertion, illegal scuttling, and theft of the ship or cargo.'

What Cornelisz did was hardly fraud. Mikedash 18:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly wasn't hi-jacking, as the article (now) suggests. From Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary: 'Every wrongful act wilfully committed by the master or crew of a ship to the prejudice of the owner or charterer without his knowledge or connivance, eg. sinking the ship or stealing the cargo'. The Wikipedia definition is wrong because it only refers to fraud, whereas the actual offense is wider. (Also, in its own terms, the definition seems strange: barratry is a fraudulent act which may include theft. Is a theft, therefore, a fraud?)

In simple terms: mutiny is the crew taking over the ship from the officers (eg. the Bounty); barratry is the officers taking over the ship from its owners.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but your definition implies that a consipracy among officers is required. That's not what happened. Cornelisz's conspiracy was wider-ranging than that, and it certainly wasn't exclusive to the officer class. In fact, it involved only a minority of the ship's officers, and the majority of its supporters came from among the men.

For what it's worth, the VOC defined what happened as a mutiny. Mikedash 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiebbe Hayes

There is little hint that a separate article exists for Wiebbe Hayes. A succinct account of his role, with a Main article hatnote would suffice. --Wetman (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cunard Batavia

Wasn`t there a cunard ship of 1870 called the Batavia also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.40.197 (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed leading spaces before "Wasn't" that had left a broken box? and only a line readable - so now you see all this comment above. KHS-Boab 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Jakarta vs Batavia

Shouldn't this article be using the modern name Jakarta for the city? I don't know if Wiki has a policy about this, but I kept forgetting what Batavia (not the ship) was during this article. Jakarta or Batavia?

97.113.108.36 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The correct usage is to use the name used at the time, which was Batavia. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Mutiny on the Batavia" - section - narrative, tagging

This section reads like a narrative but is also lacking in citations to reliable source(s). Have tagged just some of the most obvious questionable passages. Azx2 04:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)