Jump to content

Talk:Mary Celeste: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Cleanup.
→Petroleum: new section
Line 200: Line 200:


There is still a need to expand the Conan Doyle section. His spelling of the ship's name can be found in reliable newspapers well before the 1960s, as early as 1901, in fact, and throughout the first half of the 20th century, along with fanciful claims about the presence of lifeboats and serious suggestions that his short story is a genuine attempt to explain the mystery. Doyle changed the whole significance of the episode, to an extent that is not yet reflected. Time is slipping by. We need to get this Featured Article presentable in time for the awards ceremony. [[User:Hengistmate|Hengistmate]] ([[User talk:Hengistmate|talk]]) 02:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
There is still a need to expand the Conan Doyle section. His spelling of the ship's name can be found in reliable newspapers well before the 1960s, as early as 1901, in fact, and throughout the first half of the 20th century, along with fanciful claims about the presence of lifeboats and serious suggestions that his short story is a genuine attempt to explain the mystery. Doyle changed the whole significance of the episode, to an extent that is not yet reflected. Time is slipping by. We need to get this Featured Article presentable in time for the awards ceremony. [[User:Hengistmate|Hengistmate]] ([[User talk:Hengistmate|talk]]) 02:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

== Petroleum ==

Why does one paragraph say the ship carried petroleum? That's not alcohol.[[Special:Contributions/76.105.131.18|76.105.131.18]] ([[User talk:76.105.131.18|talk]]) 12:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:15, 4 December 2015

Featured articleMary Celeste is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 4, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
March 17, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

The Wreck of the Mary Deare

I find the plot of The Wreck of the Mary Deare (book and movie) by Hammond Innes very similar to the Mary Celeste story. Jay 14:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Occultists fools?

After reading this article, I fail to see where the great mystery lies as it seems pretty straight-forward. Is the article not neutral in it's POV or are the occultist simply fools? Kristian (sorry, no registration for me)

Kristian: Exactly what happened is still unknown, as there were no verified survivors to tell the tale, and occultist claim anything unknown is tied to the spiritual. It is worth noting (and the article does) that it happened nowhere near the so-called "Bermuda Triangle" (another myth).

dino 03:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re OCCULTISTS. Yes, Kristian, as Dino correctly points out, it is worth noting that it happened nowhere near the Bermuda Triangle. But while it is true that the article duly informs us about this fact, it is also true that it fails abysmally to tell us where else it did not happen. After all it

also happened nowhere near a lot of other places, among them very important and significant ones. Wouldn't these places deserve at least a mention in the article?

But I must say I am appalled to hear you compare occultists to simple fools. Fools? How can you only consider such a possibility? How can you only say such a thing? Where is your NPOV? I'm not surprised at all that you choose to remain anonymous. A wise choice indeed, if I may say so.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I will not defend anonymity, I will to a certain extent defend Kristian's post. He does not claim that occultists are fools, he just expresses the view that if the article is NPOV, he, as a reader, must conclude that occultists are fools. --- Anyway, the subject of this article is in itself unnotable; its notability comes from its impact on the imagination of Doyle (incidentally an occultist), and others.--Niels Ø 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Niels, I hate to point it out, but you did a logical mistake. Kristian claims that either the article is not neutral in its point of view, or the occultist are fools, and he's asking which one is true. So, your assumption that he's not claiming they're fool can't be verified :). Kristian either thinks the occultist are fools, or the article is not neutral. Anyway, I really don't find a straightforward explanation for the accident. What happened?
They just found the ship deserted, no human on board. Water in the hold, missing alcohol, no life boat... OK, obviously they took the lifeboat along with some pumps and navigational equipment, the crew of Celeste. Why? Why would you go out of a ship, using a small vessel that doesn't even has sails? If the ship's sinking, then this desperate act could (on theory) prolong your life, but the ship wasn't sinking! What about the alcohol? OK, sb stole it in the docks (9 barrels's a lot!). And... then? Diyan.boyanov (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering it, a ship found in perfect condition - with no damage except a slight rip in the sails - and looking as if the crew just died, would be strange. If they left, there would be things cleaned up and the ship would have stopped. But everythting was in posistion and the ship was still moving,meaning that they did not disembark. Vpitt5 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old sailors

Does anybody besides me feel that the following sentence is unencyclopedical? "Old sailors sometimes claimed that they had been aboard the Mary Celeste. Little credence is given to these stories." BJS 01 August 2006

Hurricane in the Atlantic Nov 22nd-26th

After a friend, Chris Hood (see Books), pointed out a Japanese boat appeared off B.C. Coast, he suggested the Mary Celeste might have had the same fate. I did a search for tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanoes and so on around the week of November 24th - 30th 1872 in the online collection of UK Newspapers and there are dozens of reports of hurricanes beating against south-west England and ships running aground on Monday 25th November.

SEVERE STORM AND LOSS OF LIFE . The Derby Mercury (Derby, England), Wednesday, November 27, 1872; Issue 8262.

Snippets: "Today a week's rough weather has culminated in a hurricane which in intensity and destruction of life and property has not been equalled since 1865. From Scilly, on the westward, to Exmouth, on the east, records of disaster and death are received, while steamers driven back hundreds of miles in the Atlantic bear testimony to the wide range of the storm....", "Not so happy was a large barque drifting unmanageable towards the shore. When a mile off, the crew were seen to take to the boats, and pull towards one of the most dreadful spots on the coast, where they were drowned.... ", "A steamer coming into Falmouth harbour during the height of the gale drove in among the ships at anchor and three or four broke loose. Three went ashore, the fate of the crew is not known yet.", "Early this morning a French schooner went ashore on Batten Reef.", "A Norwegian boat was capsized in the harbour, the body of one of the crew washed ashore"

SEVERE GALES AND LOSS OF LIFE . The Morning Post (London, England), Wednesday, November 27, 1872; pg. 6; Issue 31328. 19th Century British Library Newspapers: Part II.

There is a telling of a ship on the Monday 25th Nov that came close to the coast battling against the strong gales.. eventually the captain made a beeline to the coast, ran aground, but the crew and passengers could not get clear of the waters... one man lost his life.. then the ship swung out again.. Finally they could get off... women and children were rescued... the boat was the Royal Adelaide (1865) travelling from London to Australia. As they were brought to shore the sea crashed around them... "During the whole of this time the sea was dashing with the wildest fury against the vessel, threatening to sweep off the remainder of the people, who were seen anxiously awaiting their turn to come in the cradle, but afraid to venture. One by one the masts fell with a terrific crash, whilst the sea began to pour through the sides of the ship, and it was evident that she was breaking up." The last three to cross (leaving 4 or 5 still on the boat) got snapped away by waves and drowned.

So it's not quite hard to account for the Mary Celeste... if the last entry in the log was November 25th.. and there was water on-board... I am very surprised to find this with a 'Paranormal' classification.

Zorgster (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed a storm then, according to records, and not just near England (wrong part of the Atlantic) but in the Azores, with gale force winds (62 km/h is the minimum for a "gale" and just at the top range for "tropical depression" but not quite high enough for "tropical storm"), although this seems to be the only recorded observation: http://www.maryceleste.net/met.htm The pressure, 752 mm (=29.6 inHg), isn't a record-breaker by any stretch, but it's a bad storm.
Further, it's hard to imagine a cyclone (hurricane) between the Azores and Portugal not making landfall on the Iberian peninsula, but the NHC declared upon the landfall of Hurricane Vince in 2005 that it was the only tropical cyclone to make landfall there; still, there's also record of an hurricane making landfall in Spain in 1842, so the NHC records may be incomplete.
As noted in the European windstorm, cyclones in Europe do form and do so in clusters. The 1872 Baltic Sea flood was devastating: a major November storm blew from the southwest up across the Baltic towards Finland, became a cyclone (not technically a hurricane, but the press used and still uses the terms interchangeably), reversed direction, and bore down back across Europe, wiping out the Baltic coast on November 13; the "Mary Celeste" was at sea then, but the "Dei Gratia" was still in port in NY waiting for cargo. Another one (″The Great Storm of 1872″) hit Britain on December 8 ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2010/dec/04/weatherwatch0414 ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.55.167 (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the vessel had been abandoned due to a severe storm or hurricane the resultant damage to the ship would have been obvious to the crew of the Dei Gtatia, and without a crew to sail her through any such storm she is more likely to have been sunk rather than being discovered in such good condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol Theory Questioned

The article states that "The idea was put forth by the ship's major shareholder, James Winchester, and is the most widely accepted explanation for the crew's disappearance." There is no citation given to support the idea that this is the "most widely accepted" explanation for the crew's disappearance yet that statement gives weight to one specific theory. I suggest either providing a citation for that or remove it. Mychair (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)mychair[reply]

Agree. Salmanazar (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life boats

In 1873 two life boats reportedly landed on the Spanish coast with 6 corpses and an American flag on board. Should this be included in the article? --92.232.49.38 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not without references and identification of MC relevance. Chienlit (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's merely speculation but then again everything about this mystery is. It wouldn't be a mystery otherwise. There are several websites that report the lifeboats. However, I'm unfamiliar as to whether these websites are reliable or far flung conspiracy theorist havens. A google search of "1873 2 lifeboats spain" turns up plenty of results, if someone could see if any of these are of use it'd be greatly appreciated. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The story was reported on May 16th 1873 in the Liverpool Daily Albion as follows:
A sad story of the sea - a telegram from Madrid says 'Some fishermen at Baudus, in Asturias, have found two rafts, the first with a corpse lashed to it and an Agrican [American?] flag flying and the second raft with five decomposed bodies. It is not known to what vessel they belonged.
It wasn't until much later as far can be made out that anyone theorised that the rafts belonged to the Mary Celeste.
Salmanazar (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but how does this fit with the Marie Celeste? How would the crew leave the ship in the lifeboat and then later turn up without the lifeboat but on two rafts? Where would they get the materials? no matching damage to the ship was reported. Also, they seemed to leave all dear and/or important goods on the ship, but they would take the trouble to fly an American flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.57.52 (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who presided over the inquiry?

A minor quibble discussed in the past is the spelling of the name of the Gibraltar Attorney General. One editor on this page has said that he won't "die in a ditch" if we've spelt his name wrong, but that's not the issue I am raising. Every occurance of the name is linked to an article on Major Gen. Sir Frederick Richard Solly-Flood. The "protector" (I hesitate to call him an "edit-warring turf dictator" because I think he believes he is acting in good faith) of that article is quick to remove any contribution that mentions the Mary Celeste or the inquiry. He believes they are not the same person; his assertion is that it is "unlikely" because "one is an attorney, the other is a soldier", although the two professions are not mutually exclusive and he cites no sources to support his claim. So we'll have to do it for him, and doing so requires that we verify the correct spelling of the name. If the Gib. AG has a compound surname that is not hyphenated, then they are certainly not the same person. If we can find a source that confirms that they are the same person, then the source can be cited in both articles. If they are different persons, we should not be linking to that article. Certainly the Who's Who citation in that article makes no mention of the MC inquiry and only references his military career. 73.180.197.201 (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of the Gibraltar Advocate-General with a much younger army officer of a similar name is mentioned in my "Problems" note, below. Frederick Solly Flood, born 1801, was a quite different person from Major Gen. Sir Frederick Richard Solly-Flood, born 1829 – although undoubtedly they were from the same Irish family. Brianboulton (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more theory to the list

Here is a new theory, similar to others but with a significant twist. First, I must state, I am not an expert in the Mary Celeste, nor am I a seasoned seaman, etc. I have not spent years studying the hearings. I am just applying a little common sense to what is already said here and a couple other published places. So feel free to rip this to pieces.

On the cargo, I note that only the red oak barrels were empty. What are the odds that crew members or other people would have randomly picked those 9 barrel? If they had drank that much, there would have been other signs of damage by drunken crews. I also note that there is no report that the barrels had been tapped, broken or otherwise violated. That gives strong support to the theories about the alcohol seeping out either through the porous red oak, the seams, or in some other manner. Perhaps the sloshing by the rolling of the ship, it had been a rough crossing with several storms and/or the heat in the hold causing the alcohol boil off more etc. aggravated the situation.

(Today, a company shipping alcohol would have various experts on packaging, etc. But in late 1800’s, it was common laborers with little or no education who filled the barrels with little thought about the difference in red oak and white oak, and when they ran out of one, they just grabbed the red oak barrels. After all they held water, so what’s the difference.)

I have not heard of any effort to prove or disprove these theories. Get one red oak barrel as close as possible to those on the Mar Celeste, fill with alcohol, place in a sealed up shack or container obviously in a remote location, kept at the temperature in a ships hold of that time, a mechanism to keep it rocking, and see what happens in a couple months.

For now, I will accept that the fumes eventually started seeping out and finally, the crew realized they had an explosive situation. The caption did not have access to a modern chemist to let him know exactly what he was dealing with, but he clearly knew enough to know that fumes like this built up in the hold were not good. So he did what we all would do. If you go home tonight and find the strong order of gas in your house, do you just start fixing dinner and ignore it? You probably open the windows, and get everyone out, call 911 or the gas co. You hope the gas man gets there quickly turns off the gas, and then wait for the house to air out until it is safe to go inside, find and fix the leak. You then go on with your life.

My guess is they did just that. Open the hatches, a few port windows, etc., got into the boat tied a safe distance behind hopefully until the hold had time to air out. They then planned to come back on board, find what they assumed to be the broken barrel(s) dispose of it(them) and continue their trip as planned. Unfortunately, something went horribly wrong. Perhaps, a large wave capsized the little boat, maybe a wind shift as they were trying to re-board caused the Mary Celeste to shift over them, etc. Dealing with the two year old may have contributed and many sailors back then could not swim. In any case, they all ended in the water watching the Mary Celeste still towing the little boat sail off. Eventually, the little boat, likely swamped or capsized, broke away. The rope trailing in the water provides evidence for this.

The key here is they never intended to abandon the Mary Celeste, just get off until the hold had time to air out, then planned to re-board, correct the problem and continue their trip. Possessions left on board support this theory. Navigation gear would help them know if they were getting close to land and had to quickly get back on board to change course.

Clark G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.235.32.35 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The theory espoused here is not new, though it is basically as plausible as many others. In 2006 Dr Andrea Sella of University College, London, carried out tests using a replica of Mary Celeste's hold, to examine the "fear of an explosion" theory. His findings will be incorporated into the article, in my proposed expansion/rewrite (see "Problems" note, below. Brianboulton (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the theory has some merit one would question the wisdom of every passenger and crew member going into the lifeboat, one or two of the crew should have remained aboard the Mary Celeste for reasons that must now be all-too obvious and I doubt if Capt. Briggs was so foolish as to have ordered this. You don't completely abandon an otherwise seaworthy ship alone in the middle of an ocean under any circumstances, risk of explosion or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Departure

I am just reading this article and find something does not add up about the departure of the two ships. In the last paragraph of that section it says the Mary Celeste left port on 5 November. The cargo for the Dei Gratia did no arrive until 15 November. That is 10 days later. At that point it would take some time to load the cargo. So, how could the Dei Gratia have set sail seven or eight days after the Mary Celeste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.57.52 (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article at this point in time (9 February 2015) is inadequately sourced and contains planty of errors. When the article is revised, questions of departure times etc. will be fully examined. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Combination of alcohol vapours and general poor quality of ship

The most likely explanation for the abandonment of the vessel is often said to be a combination of both alcohol vapours and poor maintanance of the Mary Celeste. The Mary Celeste was found with its equipment damaged, as well as with disturbed alcohol. It is said by some of the sources on this page that Briggs realized the alcohol was leaking and that a stove-pipe had come loose. Fearing his boat was about to violently explode, he tied an unusually long line to his ship and put his crew and family on board. Then the rope came loose and Briggs and his family perished trying to rescue their valuable cargo.--77.96.223.251 (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you chamnge the article? Any such change needs to be supported by a reliably sourced citation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fumes/fear-of-explosion theory is raised by an earlier contributor to this page (see above). It is one of the more durable theories relating to the abandonment and will be fully consiered along with others, when the article is revised – see my note below. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the theory is "one of the more durable" (and from what I know of this incident, it is), why does the article still say "The lack of damage from an explosion and the generally sound state of the cargo upon discovery, tend to weaken this case"? I don't know if it's in the source or one of us is paraphrasing, but the logic is unsound: Just because there was no evidence of an explosion does not mean the captain and crew didn't have reason to fear one would occur and evacuate the ship. Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this article

There are numerous problems with the article as it stands. It gives information that is factually wrong, and generally over-relies on internet sources many of which are not reliable (some of them are dead links). A large number of statements in the article are not cited at all, and bear citation tags. The article makes far too little use of the major reliable histories of the Mary Celeste, in particular Charles Edey Fay's The Story of the Mary Celeste (1988 edition) and Paul Begg's Mary Celeste: The Greatest Mystery of the Sea (2005). In addition to these, MacDonald Hastings's 1972 book Mary Celeste is a useful guide to some of the myths and false assumptions that have bedevilled this story. There are also some very interesting contemporary newspaper accounts. These sources, collectively, will help to resolve many of the queries raised on this talkpage.

I have long been interested in this story, and think that the article desperately needs a rewrite based on reliable sources. I am planning to begin this soon, and in the meantime here are a few examples of wrong or dubious information presently in the article:

  • The collision in the English Channel supposedly took place on the ship's resumed maiden voyage. The story is possibly, though not certainly true, but the assertion that the captain, John W. Parker, was dismissed as a result is certainly untrue.
  • Although Briggs had captained several ships before Mary Celeste, the statement that he had "owned many more" is nonsense.
  • There is no reliable evidence that supports the story that the Briggses and the Moorhouses dined together on the eve of Marie Celeste's departure, or even that they knew each other beyond a nodding acquaintance.
  • The "Frederick Solly Flood" (unhyphenated) who was Advocate General in Gibraltar in 1873 was by no means the same person as the Army Major-General (hyphenated) to whom his name is wikilinked in the text. He was a 72-year-old lawyer, for whom Begg provides detailed biographical information. I will remove the false link.
  • There were not "at least 13 changes of ownership" after 1873. Four or five, and some of these were simply changes in consortium membership. There were just two owning consortiums between February 1874 and the ship's demise in 1885.
  • Gilman C. Parker was not the final owner. He was the final captain.

I hope to begin work on the update shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that, after the editing dust has settled, large portions of this talk page be archived per WP:ARCHIVE? This page is really long, and many of the entries have been overcome by events. Thanks for your hard work. —Molly-in-md (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an auto archive.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary's a Grand Old Name

I think it has to be acknowledged that a great many people, perhaps even a majority, still think that the name of the ship was Marie Celeste. Even one of the contributors to this talk page refers to it as such. Is it enough to simply redirect people who search for Marie Celeste to Mary Celeste, especially since the origin of the confusion isn't explained until a long way down the current article? I found that confusing, and I suspect that people holding the deeply ingrained belief the the ship's name was Marie will not understand why they are redirected, with no explanation, to what is apparently an article about something else.

I would suggest that the page on Marie be expanded to explain briefly that it is a fictional ship, often confused with Mary, and linked to, rather than redirected to, the article on the real thing. The latter ought to contain an early explanation of the Mary/Marie confusion, perhaps in a footnote.

I am not sure that the album by a thrash metal band (who also seem not to be aware of the ship's real name) is notable, nor that the link to and existence of the most blatant plug should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.113.235 (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a hatnote to this article which explains the redirection and offers a link to the article about the story of the fictional ship. I think this should avoid confusion. As for the album: if there were no article "Mary Celeste" there would be an uncontroversial redirect from album to band; as there is an article at the title, there's a hatnote. (Though actually I now see there's another album mentioned at Mandrake (band), so a Mary Celeste (disambiguation) page could be justified). There's also a ship the Marie Celeste, which sank in 1864, which features in the article Crenshaw Company! PamD 23:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This collaborative approach is most welcome. I would, though, tackle it slightly differently, of which: more in a moment. First, though, the Marie Celeste that sank in 1864 was a sidewheel paddle steamer. It's wrongly linked to the Mary Celeste. In any case, sources call this vessel both Marie and Mary. That's somebody else's problem. I've removed the link.

I'm all in favour of a disambiguation page. Then the link to what is an obvious promotion for a not very noteworthy and, I suspect, terrible album can be shunted off there, and the article doesn't have to be cluttered up with it. It's the least encyclopaedic bit of writing I've ever seen. There's a strong case for deleting it altogether, but let's settle for kicking it into the long grass.

Now: with respect, I don't think your alteration does the job. All this "redirect" stuff is Wikipediaspeak. It's not user friendly. If Wikipedia needs to redirect something, the punter doesn't need to know. All he's interested in is the information. Also, the note doesn't explain the connection between Mary and Marie. The punter will think "Why should I be interested in a fictional ship in an obscure short story? That's not what I came here for. " I wouldn't have that link. I would explain in the lead or in a note or even in a short section that the name is often confused with Doyle's fictional one. That point is, at the moment, much too far down the article. What say you?

And I note that, so far, the person who objects to the proposed alterations to the Marie Celeste article has yet to respond to the invitation to explain his reasons for declaring the alterations unconstructive. Hengistmate (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Celeste Problem, November 10, 2015

For reasons that go beyond Wikipedia, it's important that the ref to the Marie Celeste misnomer goes in the lead. Almost everyone thinks Marie Celeste was the name of the ship. They bring that misconception with them when they visit the page. In fact, some people will be genuinely surprised to learn that the ship wasn't called Marie Celeste. Some might well assume that Wikipedia has got it wrong (Wikipedia does get things wrong). The ref shows that the statement is authoritative. It helpfully explains the whole thing in a nutshell. And this article should go hand-in-hand with the article on Marie Celeste, which I'm working on. Wikipedia has the opportunity, and, some might say, the responsibility to correct this widespread misunderstanding. The explanation further down the page doesn't make this point early, prominently, and forcefully enough. This is a case of thinking from the point of view of the person using Wikipedia rather than the person editing it. Does removing the reference improve the article? Hengistmate (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After due consideration, this has got to go. The link takes you not to the album, but to the band Huron. The band aren't really notable, and the album less so. I think it's clear from recent editing activity that there's some manipulation here. It looks as if someone wants to use the Mary Celeste site to steer people towards the Huron site, where there album is mentioned briefly in the copy. If they want to do that, then let them at least go to the trouble of creating an article. As for the Huron article, it's mostly a huge puff for the band, with no NPOV. Three of the references are to their own website. This isn't an encyclopaedic article, it's sleeve notes. There's even an album track called Mary Celeste by a band called Gazpacho (which is actually quite a nice, lyrical song). How long can this go on?

Anyway, irrespective of the fact that this track is utterly frightful, I'm removing the link because it isn't a link to the subject. That's completely legit. If anyone's misguided enough to want to find information on this racket, the perpetrators will have to accommodate them by coming up with a Wikipedia article that meets some of the criteria. The Huron site is another matter; it's such a travesty that I don't think it would survive serious scrutiny. It would be nice if someone were to do that. Hengistmate (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hengistmate: I disagree. If you think the article on the band should not exist, take it to AfD. While it exists, it is appropriate for there to be a redirect (or dab entry, or hatnote) for each non-notable album, leading to the band. In this case, as there's a Primary Topic (the ship) and no dab page, a hatnote is correct. It's not uncommon for an editor to feel that a hatnote to a minor topic disfigures an article in which they have an interest, but this hatnote complies with Wikipedia's policieis/guidelines (not sure which exactly, not going to dig out chapter and verse) and needs to stay. PamD 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hengistmate:Re-pinging because I mistyped yr name first time round!PamD 09:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
had a quick look at huron site, seems a small band, even smaller album. how many people are going to type Mary Cedleste expecting to find the album - which is clearly not even notable enough for an article. Awaiting further comments, but that link is clearly there to promote the band and should go IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link is there so that someone looking for an album called "Mary Celeste" can find information about it, which is in the article on the band Huron (UK band). It's a perfectly legitimate link to be included in the hatnote on this article. @IdreamofJeanie: where did you mean to say the link should go to? Looks as if you lost the last part of your sentence. PamD 11:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, misread the sentence - I thought it was going to say "should go to ...". Missing full stop may have distracted me. And at first I misread it a different way, thought it was Hengistmate replying and saying that the link should go to you, in an unsigned but dated comment. I've got a cold, not thinking too straight. But I still think it's a legitimate hatnote. And I have no connection with the group and no interest in heavy metal music. PamD 11:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pam's argument doesn't hold water for a second, I'm afraid. The purpose of hatnotes is quite clear; to send people to articles. There isn't an article on the album Mary Celeste. It's not notable, but if somebody wants to create an article on it, they're welcome to do so, as someone has done with another of the band's albums. It's not our job to direct people to something not notable hidden in the text of another article. If they create an article, it can go in a hatnote or on a disambiguation page. Put it this way: the Wikipedia article on the shirt doesn't have a hatnote to Adolf Hitler because it says in that article that some of his supporters wore brown ones. Or, more specifically, the article on former British cabinet minister Chris Smith doesn't have a hatnote to Chris Smith, guitarist with Huron. The latter is not notable, either, and there's no article on him. Quite apart from the fact that Huron don't deserve to benefit from the commercial nature of their article, the hatnote has to go. Hengistmate (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of hatnotes is to send people to information in the encyclopedia. We have information about the album. The hatnote should stay. MOS:DABMENTION is explicit about the case where there is a dab page; here there is no dab page, but the hatnote fulfils the same function. PamD 17:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The purpose of hatnotes is to send people to information in the encyclopaedia."? Then quite soon everything will link to everything else, and Wikipedia will become a very busy place. Should we therefore add "For the other album, see Salt Marie Celeste"? The criteria seem to be exactly the same, and the music just as dreadful. The only way to decontaminate the article would appear to be to create a disambiguation page, to which both these abominable and unnotable albums may be consigned, along with Gazpacho. I don't know what a dab is. Not in this context, anyway.

"Commoner" is a word, and a natural one: See "Origin." That's what the source says.

There is still a need to expand the Conan Doyle section. His spelling of the ship's name can be found in reliable newspapers well before the 1960s, as early as 1901, in fact, and throughout the first half of the 20th century, along with fanciful claims about the presence of lifeboats and serious suggestions that his short story is a genuine attempt to explain the mystery. Doyle changed the whole significance of the episode, to an extent that is not yet reflected. Time is slipping by. We need to get this Featured Article presentable in time for the awards ceremony. Hengistmate (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum

Why does one paragraph say the ship carried petroleum? That's not alcohol.76.105.131.18 (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Celeste&oldid=693719814"