Wikipedia:Peer review/Peter Heywood/archive1

Peter Heywood

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Peter Heywood has been described as the third man of the Bounty mutiny – less well-known than Captain Bligh or Fletcher Christian, but with a fascinating story of his own that combines exotic islands, piracy on the high seas, shipwreck, capture, court martial, death sentence...and rehabilitation. His story throws some fascinating light, too, on the workings of the British Navy in the late 18th century. Comments welcome on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from elcobbola (talk · contribs) regarding images

• File:Nunnery Isle of Man.jpg - Pre-1.1.1923 publication (1913) is verifiably sourced, but where is the 1825 date from? I'm sure I've just overlooked it.
• File:Yasmina.Bounty.JPG - The OTRS ticket (which is one of the best I've seen in terms of documentation) releases this only as CC-by 3.0. It shouldn't be using a GFDL license (and certainly not one with a "self" modifier, at that). Just shouldn't be using the "self" modifier.
• File:William Bligh - Project Gutenberg eText 15411.jpg - Copyright term of p.m.a. +70 years is only applicable to unpublished works in the U.S. This is a published work (per the source, a publication), so the license should be one based on a publication term (e.g. {{PD-US}}).
• File:Mutiny HMS Bounty.jpg - Source is a dead link (although sufficient information is present to support the license tag). Any chance of finding a working link?
• I tweaked a few of the others to remove bare URLs/add source links/etc. The above are minor issues; overall, images look well done indeed. Эlcobbola _talk 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the above. I can't for the life of me find where I got 1825 from - I'll keep looking, but otherwise I'll amend this information. I'm not clear what if anything I should do about the Yasmina image details. I have replaced the licence on the Bligh portrait with PD-US and have found a live link for the mutiny picture. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• When a license has a "self" modifier, it adds "I, the copyright holder,..." as a header, a statement which reflects on the uploader. Therefore, when the uploader and author are different people/entities, it shouldn't be used. I've made the correction (here, so you can see the difference). Эlcobbola _talk 13:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• No luck with 1825. I have altered the date information to "Unknown, probably early 19th century" ehich is the best I can manage for the present. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Fascinating read. I knew the story in general. I imagine this is heading for FAC so you'll want me to work it over thoroughly.

General comments:

Is the fact that Nordhoff and Hall used Heywood as the basis for the narrator in Mutiny on the Bounty worthy of mention?

I don't think so. Nordhoff and Hall's semi-fictionalised account has a lot to answer for, and I'd prefer to leave such a non-historical source well alone. Brianboulton (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying use them as a reference. However, since many people get their impressions of the Bounty mutiny from N&H or the subsequent movie, would a mention that Heywood was the basis for Byam be untoward?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am uneasy about this. This article is about the historical Peter Heywood; the Byam business is a bit of fiction. If this is included, it may not be long before someone raises the Charles Laughton film and asks who played Byam in that (Franchot Tone, incidentally). Let me ponder this, and maybe seek other opinions. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the point drop, but let me ask you this: Would anyone care about Heywood today if he wasn't the basis for Byam? The ship is never far from the narrative. Perhaps a footnote?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If I put in a footnote, where do you think should I cite it to? Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Do any of your references mention it?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You could try this.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd forgotten that Dening (p. 330) mentions the Heywood/Byam fiction. I will add the footnote with appropriate citation. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede:

First sentence bugs me. I don't like leading in with the fact that he was condemned to death. I also think the paragraph should be a bit longer. Can we do it as three sentences, first mentioning that he was aboard the ship at the time of the mutiny, second mentioning that he was tried convicted sentenced to death and then pardoned, and the third dealing with his later naval career?

I, too, wasn't happy about the opening. I've tried the three-sentence version you suggest - is that better? Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a modest change, change it if you don't like it.

Strictly speaking, PH wasn't a midshipman. He was mustered as a seaman but given the privileges of a midshipman or junior officer. As this point is made later, best to avoid confusion. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are chronological difficulties with the lede. Bligh's return to England preceded the dispatch of the Pandora; though he was not in England at the time of Heywood's court-martial.

I've dealt with the chronology problem. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The one, unattributed comment about the three seamen being hung while Heywood was spared is an awfully thin reed for the treatment you give it in the lede. "And summed it so well that it came to far more/Than the witnesses ever had said". Carroll.

I am dealing with this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Later) Professor Dening has more to say about this. Hough's anonymous commentator was evidently quoting press reports to the effect that money was buying freedom. The same press reported (wrongly) that Heywood stood to inherit a large fortune. Dening sums up that "in the end it was class or relations or patronage that made the difference." I've dropped the Hough reference and included the Dening stuff in the text; I believe the sentence in the lead, which I have also amended, is now justified. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, aren't you overstating it a bit when you say that Heywood benefited from the Christian family's activities? No particular benefit is mentioned.

He certainly benefitted. Their activities, specifically publication of the Appendix, did a lot to discredit Bligh and to make Heywood (and of course Fletcher Christian) appear as a victims. So we have senior naval people busting themselves to compensate by promoting Heywood regardless of their own rules and regulations. One of those who supported his application for promotion to lieutenant was Captain Cloberry Christian, Fletcher's cousin. I will add that tiny nugget to the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can the material on the fates of the Bounty men be drawn out into its own subsection? I refer to the material on Bligh and also to the "Oh dear" paragraph which ends the article? I realize you are playing with a limited number of cards, but the shifting focus between Heywood and his former shipmates is a bit confusing. Of course that has its own perils, looked at in isolation it may not be truly necessary to the article, but then you're going to wind up with a fairly short article. Can you find anything more about the specifics of Heywood's naval career?

I don't think a separate subsection for the fates of the Bounty men is necessary. As the mutiny and court martial were the main events of Heywood's life it is reasonable that a few lines be taken up briefly recording what happened to those closest to him in these events: Bligh who denounced him, Hayward and Hallett who incriminated him, Fletcher Christian the fons et origo (I have dropped Morrison whose story is rather separate from Heywood's). On a few occasions in the article I have had to stray from the strict Heywood storyline to fill in general details about the mutiny and/or other people, but I don't think this has been overdone. I could of course include more about Heywood's naval career, but this would be routine stuff. He was basically a hydrographer and saw little by way of action; this is a summary encyclopedia article not a detailed biog. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, a blah expedition or three will bore everyone, stick to what he is known for.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More later. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of notes on the aftermath of the court martial before I dig in (later today or tomorrow):

You indicate that the condemned sailors according to some accounts maintained their innocence and according to others maintained their manly bearing. According to the witness account on p. 283 of Hough (I have the American edition, there may be page differences) , Millward "confessed the errors they had been guilty of, acknowledged the justice of their sentences ...". And from what I recall reading of the court martial, Ellison at least pretty much admitted everything and blamed his youth. I'm wondering if that leaves the reader with the false impression the sailors were unjustly convicted (by the standards of the day). I haven't read Alexander, and she may take a much more impassioned view of things, but ...

Alexander identifies Hough's "unidentified fellow" as an officer of the Brunswick who reports much as per Hough's account. However, she says: "Accounts of the last words of these now forlorn mutineers differed widely...according to the popular press the men persisted to the last moment of their existence that they were totally innocent of the crime for which they were to suffer." So I have presented both possibilities, according to the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Lord Hood himself offered Heywood a place in his vessel? That is certainly a huge slap in the face at Bligh. Also, perhaps a mention of Bligh's involvement in the Nore mutiny, something often overlooked when reciting the litany of his "tyranny"? Also I'd be careful about calling the Tahitans who went to Pitcairn "volunteer". They were at the least deceived. I don't expect the huge Tahitan lobby at WP to rise up in horror at you, but it still might be a good idea to find a different word.

I have included a phrase about Hood's offer of patronage. The point about a slap in the face for Bligh is I think already made. Mention of Bligh's role in the Nore mutiny would be a little off-topic in this article. As to the last point, you are dead right. Only a few of the Tahitians were volunteers, they were mainly duped or coerced. So I've altered "volunteer" to "conscript". Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A more organized critique later.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, here we go. Early life:

"long-standing roots" An odd phrase. Possibly a mixed metaphor, or it may be redundant. Hmmm. I'd suggest a rephrase anyway.

Rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"before a change of fortune in 1781 brought them back to Douglas, following the father's appointment as manager of the Duke of Atholl's Manx properties." Wordy. Why not just say "before the father's appointment as manager of the Duke of Atholl's Manx property brought them back to Douglas"?

I'm always glad to cut the wordcount, so I've adopted your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The various ways you refer to Peter Heywood Sr. are confusing. Perhaps stick to one? Also, the Heywood who went to stay with Bligh is obviously the teenager, but someone is bound to question that at some stage.

I've called him "Peter John Heywood" except where, to avoid close repetition, he once becomes "the father". I have clarified that it was the young Heywood who went to stay with Bligh. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been reading John Diefenbaker's memoirs, probably my next project. Anyhoo, here's the next batch:

Outward journey

"ten years previously". The reader has to either look back or look forward to see we are in 1787, suggest the year of Bligh's visit be stated.

"No mention ... ". Hmph. It's an interesting anecdote, but trying to use a negative to prove something is difficult. Would a sixteen year old boy mention this in a letter home to his parents? Imagine a sixteen year old kid today at boarding school mentioning his punishments in the letter (I suppose email, these days) home. If this had significance to Dening, it might be wise to attribute an opinion to him.

Can anything be put in this section about Fletcher Christian? Except for a brief mention of the distant relationship between their families, we have no mention of him yet, but the next section will find them farming breadfruit together. Or, alternatively, the previous section ...

In Tahiti

Heywood and Christian. Christian? Who's he? You haven't explained what was his position on the Bounty (I am laughing as I write this).

"a list that contained the names of Christian and Heywood, among others." If it was just a list of names, with no other information, suggest "a list of names, including those of Christian and Heywood". If there was other info on the list, you might want to say, but I'm guessing there wasn't.

"in Hough's words," Just wanted to comment, nice turn of phrase there, I'll probably steal it.

Mutiny

Just one comment: Is it worth having a main template to Mutiny on the Bounty? I know you've linked to it, but ...

Seizure of Bounty

"that the young man's treachery was as deep as that of Christian". Perhaps a little strong. How about "that Heywood was as guilty as Christian" (or complicit, if you like).

"report to his wife" It is a bit awkward that the account of Bligh's boat voyage follows after the report of the report to his wife. Perhaps a brief phrase could be put before the report to wife, saying how he got to Coupang? I don't know, it is a bit awkward either way.

I have reworded this bit, simply referring to Bligh's letter to Betsy. Readers know from the lead that Bligh survived after an epic open-boat journey, and I don't think we have provide more detail at this point. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Hayward". Perhaps have that he stated that Heywood said this thing. I'd also lose the near-namesake, suggest "shipmate" or "fellow midshipman"

Fugitive:

"group of native volunteers" suggest "a number of Tahitian men and women".

"some private information" Was this the message to Edward Christian Hough writes about?

No, Heywood did not divulge this information to anyone. In a footnote I have summarised Hough's conjectures about the nature of this information based on Ch. 12 of his book, but it is just supposition. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

More later. It's a good read.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your issues on the Outward journey, Tahiti, Seizure and Mutiny sections have been addressed per your suggestions subject to my couple of notes. Thanks for this help, and I look forward to more (if/when you can tear yourself away from Diefenbaker). Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for giving time to the colonies

Prisoner

Pandora voyage

"Tahiti fugitives". Odd phrase, I know what you are trying to say, but ... any other way I can think of will take several more words, so don't have any great ideas here.

"Captain Edwards vainly sought from the native population information concerning Bounty's whereabouts" The phrasing is strained, but again I have no great alternative.

Found a slightly better wording. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"during the period of his captivity." Suggest shorten, "during his captivity" - Yes, OK, done.

"were allowed on deck only twice". I had to read this several times to guess that they were not actually in Batavia, but in a ship in Batavia harbour.

Clarified that they were held on a ship in Batavia harbour. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Portsmouth

'his narrative contained what he later described as "the errors of an imperfect recollection".' Perhaps a little more info on why this was a problem. I'm gathering, with my lawyer hat on, that what he said then varied from what his lawyer and him agreed he should say later, and far worse than that, was in writing?

You are about right, there. I have expanded a little. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"of the Hector," This is the first time I've seen a ship name with "the" before it. I merely note it as something for the MilHist brigade member to look at.

For consistency I have delete "the" before ship names (I may have overlooked the odd one, of course) Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"ardent poems" Ardent carries to me a suggestion of romance, which of course was not the case. Perhaps another word?

I'm not sure you are right - read the stuff in here. Ardent means passionate, and the poems are surely that. Would "passionate" be a better word? Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Court martial

Ah, the good stuff, when Queeg finally gets his. Oh sorry, wrong epic.

"Heywood opened his defence ..." Might want to mention he had his counsel read the statement. - Agreed & done

"Under cross-examination " Lawyer hat (wig?) back on. If Cole were called by the defence, defence questioning of him is not cross examination. Perhaps things were different in 1789. Perhaps "under questioning by Heywood" (or Heywood's counsel) Is it customary in Britlish to put a hyphen in cross examination?

Cole et al were prosecution witnesses - remember there were 10 defendents being tried together. Cole and Fryer may have partly exonerated Heywood but their evidence was crucial to the condemnation of others. We do put a hyphen in "cross-examination", but to avaoid difficulty I have removed the word. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Heywood also managed to cast doubts ..." Probably would be helpful to mention that Heywood was talking about Heyward's testimony that Heywood had laughed at Bligh.

Wording clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Muspratt. Wouldn't take many words to say that it was a legal technicality that reprieved him. OK, done.

"A belief that" Suggest "A report that" OK, done

Later life

Naval career

"facts in the Appendix were substantially accurate" Suggest "allegations" or "assertions" rather than facts (gets you a nice bit of assonance too!) OK. done

"In 1803, at the early age of 31, Heywood was promoted to Post-Captain". Does Alexander say it was an "early age"? It seems to me that promotion is always swifter in wartime! And the RN in that day had very hidebound promotion practices.

Alexander doesn't say earlier, be she draws attention to the fact that Heywood became a captain at a significantly earlier age that Bligh.

Adams and Pitcairn: From what I can see in a quick search, Pitcairn was rediscovered in 1808, not 1809, though the sentence is ambiguous, it may suggest that Adams gave that statement in 1809. Can you clarify? It is helpful to know when Adams gave the statement as a considerable period of time had passed, during which Adams had certainly had other things on his mind.

You are right about discovery in 1808. Thestatement quoted by Alexander was given by Adams much later, in 1825. This has now been clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Retirement and death

"wrote papers relating to his profession" Naval officer? Hydrographer? Mutineer?

Source doesn't say, but I guess not the last of the above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's all I have. Very nicely done. Can we look forward to a series of mutinous articles? Back to Dief.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, most helpful. I had to use Google to tell me who Diefenbaker was, so well known is he over here (and I was a politics student, too). Further mutinies - well, not hte Caine, but...maybe. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I had time to kill at the airport in Regina and they had an exhibit on him, and my reaction is "Gee, wonder what his Wikipedia article's like". I don't think we have an FA for a Canadian PM yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that, though Trudeau's on my long-term radar (that will be a project, mind you). Be happy to see someone beat me to it with Dief. Some comments on this article to follow in the next few hours. Also, what in God's name were you doing in Regina? Steve Smith (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am away until 27 December, and won't be able to respond to comments before then. Please don't let that stop you from making them. Thanks, and happy hols. Brianboulton (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read this for map making purposes. The one thing that struck me was the relative lack of coverage of his post-pardon life in the lead. The other was the significance of being made a Post-captain - the term is linked on first usage, but it might help to add a brief description to explain why this was a big deal. Will try to add more later, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No other issues on a closer read. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to the lead, briefly summarising summarising Heywood's post-pardon life. As to further explanation of the significance of his being promoted to Post-Captain, I don't want to clutter the text but have added a suitable footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)