Talk:Peter Heywood

Untitled

The article Mutiny on the ''Bounty'' (fiction) states that this Peter Heywood was the inspiration for Roger yam, the "I" in the novel Mutiny on the Bounty. Beside the fact that we should mention that in the article, I have a question: the novel makes Byam a linguist who compiles a Tahitian-English dictionary. Did Heywood do that? Caesarion 09:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he did. In any case, I hope to expand on this article a bit once I get the hang of Wikipedia. Viviena 06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Guilty?

Was Heywood actually guilty of mutiny and then pardoned, or was he, as Byam in the book, actually uninvalved. The aticle doesn't really make it clear. --YankeeDoodle14 03:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article states, "who was aboard HMS Bounty during the mutiny of 28 April 1789, in which he took part." I guess this can be read two ways, 1. That he was in league with the mutineers, or 2. That he took part in the mutiny because he was aboard at the time it occurred. But I took it the first way, that he was guilty. But his guilt or innocence is a matter of opinion, not fact. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia if fact, not opinion, the clause "in which he took part," should be deleted. It is true that the court found him guilty, but they accompanied this with a strong recommendation for mercy, because there was evidence that he was kept aboard against his will, and thus prevented from going with the others in the launch with Bligh. Two other midshipmen, Hayward and Hallett, who were forced to go in the launch, gave testimony that implied he was with the mutineers, but Hayward's testimony was suspect, and Hallett later recanted his testimony against Heywood. Bligh was at sea on his second voyage to Tahiti in the Providence at the time of the court-martial, and, thus, the accused were not able to confront their chief accuser. So, as I say, his guilt or innocence is a matter of opinion. James Galloway (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Expansion

The article will shortly undergo significant expansion, with the introduction of much new material, images etc. These changes will be introduced over the next few days. Comments etc welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: the article was expanded, peer reviewed and nominated for FAC in December 2009. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Would suggest using a military infobox Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an article that has one? Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, also see {{tl:Infobox military person}}. David Underdown (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You may care to mention Heywood's friendship with the astronomer Carl_Ludwig_Christian_Rümker and Heywood's recommendation to Sir Thomas Brisbane that Rumker accompany him to NSW as an astronomical assistant. Also, there are two letters from Heywood in the State Library of NSW's Manuscripts and Pictures collection, viewable on line. Bluedawe 22:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles

Each of the Articles on William Bligh, on the 1935 film "Mutiny on the Bounty" and this article give a great deal of supposedly accurate general information about Bligh and the mutiny but are highly at odds with each other (and perhaps other articles). For example, if one reads the article on Bligh, "he scolds when others would have flogged and flogged when others would have hanged" and was concerned with health and good food for the crew and had a scientific bent but was a bit thin skinned. In high contrast, this article gives much "detail" about Bligh and the Mutiny (all of which seem off point in this bio) that paints Bligh as a tyrant. I suggest that the "background" in this article be kept to a minimum and moved to (and "may the best facts win") the article on Bligh and the Mutiny, as appropriate. That way, the "facts" can be in one place and vetted. Any background in this article should summarize, and differ in no way, from the facts in the Bligh and Mutiny articles. Perhaps there are many more articles on this topic, each of which need to be conformed Sorker (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a point of contention. I have read that older sources portrayed Bligh as a tyrant, but more modern sources reject that view. I have not had time to review this and other articles to see if this has been remedied yet or if it is still an issue. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think modern sources wholly reject the traditional view of Bligh, though they certainly modify it; that he was as much sinned against as sinning is probable. But beware of semi-fictionalised cinematic accounts, or other hastily written material. This article has been thoroughly researched from numerous reliable sources and has been through the WP review processes to ensure, among other things, that it maintains balance and neutrality. I can't speak for other Bligh-related articles since I didn't write them, and the various films of the mutiny, prepared as entertainment, are far from objective accounts. I am confident that this article properly reflects its multiple sources, and the suggestion that someone (who?) should gather all the related articles together for "vetting" purposes is, I believe, bizarre and impractical. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Benefited?

"...and he later benefited from the Christian family's generally fruitful efforts to demean Bligh's character..." I don't see how Heywood could have benefited, the "demeaning" took place two years after the trial when he was back at sea.James Galloway (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Heywood. 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/20100723001459/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Bounty/heywoodtranscript.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/Bounty/heywoodtranscript.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723001459/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Bounty/heywoodtranscript.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/Bounty/heywoodtranscript.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)