A fact from Peggy Stewart (ship) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 May 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
A fact from Peggy Stewart (ship) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the HMS designation because it would not be used on a privately owned and operated ship. It was reserved for vessels of the Royal Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llleveque ( talk • contribs)
The article is a bit fuzzy. If Stewart did what the crowd wanted, why did he have to flee? Was he just a loyalist? If he were a loyalist, why did the burning become "an act of heroism" (strange passive voice)? Was Stewart heroic for avoiding the tax, or heroic for standing up to the crowd? Seems to early for a revisionist outlook; isn't it more likely that the city celebrated the burning itself, and only later came to add the "heroism"? The article perhaps unnecessarily raises these perhaps unanswerable questions. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If "the Peggy Stewart was a brig owned by Anthony Stewart and James Dick, two Annapolis merchants," how is it a "British ship"? British-built? -- Wetman 12:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above two, and i have to say that the article did not deserve to be listed in the "Did you know" column because now I know less, except that apparently in Maryland it is considered "heroic" to burn ships. This still the case today from time to time? I cannot believe this to be the viewpoint of all Marylanders, or: The article smells bad of NPOV gbrandt 12:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for not knowing that HMS was only for the Royal Navy, I thought it was applied to all ships. As for the comments listed in the section "Hero or Zero?", I am sorry for any confusion that I caused. I come at the article from my heavy background in US and Maryland history, so I suppose I failed to explain some aspects of the burning that seemed common sense to me. I hope that I have rectified all of the issues raised, if I haven't please respond and I will fix anything more as soon as possible. Cool3 13:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that the Tea Act abolished the tax on tea, are the statements here certain? The Boston Tea Party was a protest by smugglers that their prices were being undercut by legal tea. Was it the same in Maryland? -- Henrygb 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The article as originally written was less NPOV (and less accurate) than a New York Times article written over 100 years ago. I've rewritten almost the whole thing, with additional references- including that NYT item, and many original sources from 1774-5. David Trochos 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I started reading this article, I realized that I wasn't sure who was doing what in the very first paragraph. Then I looked back a ways, and saw that the older versions addressed this a little more directly. I get that NPOV is a big deal, the first paragraph should have some sort of idea as to who was doing the burning as punishment. Had it made delivery before or after getting burned? Docked, in port or in high seas. Was it burned by state officials, organized militia, unorganized mob? is this a transatlantic vessel, or a brown water cargo ship? This is a huge run on sentence with all sorts of ambiguous meanings.
This information can be found in the article, but the summary should give an outline to someone unfamiliar with US history a clue as to what was going on.
Is there a good reason "The Customs collector at Annapolis" has weird capitalization? What's with the "tax-"
The run-on sentences, make them stop.
"Customs" capitalized again? "River"?
This is getting to be a rant, I don't know enough about what's going on to properly edit this, but I think that this article could use a merciless editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.183.208 ( talk) 06:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A fact from Peggy Stewart (ship) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 May 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
A fact from Peggy Stewart (ship) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the HMS designation because it would not be used on a privately owned and operated ship. It was reserved for vessels of the Royal Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llleveque ( talk • contribs)
The article is a bit fuzzy. If Stewart did what the crowd wanted, why did he have to flee? Was he just a loyalist? If he were a loyalist, why did the burning become "an act of heroism" (strange passive voice)? Was Stewart heroic for avoiding the tax, or heroic for standing up to the crowd? Seems to early for a revisionist outlook; isn't it more likely that the city celebrated the burning itself, and only later came to add the "heroism"? The article perhaps unnecessarily raises these perhaps unanswerable questions. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If "the Peggy Stewart was a brig owned by Anthony Stewart and James Dick, two Annapolis merchants," how is it a "British ship"? British-built? -- Wetman 12:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above two, and i have to say that the article did not deserve to be listed in the "Did you know" column because now I know less, except that apparently in Maryland it is considered "heroic" to burn ships. This still the case today from time to time? I cannot believe this to be the viewpoint of all Marylanders, or: The article smells bad of NPOV gbrandt 12:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for not knowing that HMS was only for the Royal Navy, I thought it was applied to all ships. As for the comments listed in the section "Hero or Zero?", I am sorry for any confusion that I caused. I come at the article from my heavy background in US and Maryland history, so I suppose I failed to explain some aspects of the burning that seemed common sense to me. I hope that I have rectified all of the issues raised, if I haven't please respond and I will fix anything more as soon as possible. Cool3 13:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that the Tea Act abolished the tax on tea, are the statements here certain? The Boston Tea Party was a protest by smugglers that their prices were being undercut by legal tea. Was it the same in Maryland? -- Henrygb 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The article as originally written was less NPOV (and less accurate) than a New York Times article written over 100 years ago. I've rewritten almost the whole thing, with additional references- including that NYT item, and many original sources from 1774-5. David Trochos 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I started reading this article, I realized that I wasn't sure who was doing what in the very first paragraph. Then I looked back a ways, and saw that the older versions addressed this a little more directly. I get that NPOV is a big deal, the first paragraph should have some sort of idea as to who was doing the burning as punishment. Had it made delivery before or after getting burned? Docked, in port or in high seas. Was it burned by state officials, organized militia, unorganized mob? is this a transatlantic vessel, or a brown water cargo ship? This is a huge run on sentence with all sorts of ambiguous meanings.
This information can be found in the article, but the summary should give an outline to someone unfamiliar with US history a clue as to what was going on.
Is there a good reason "The Customs collector at Annapolis" has weird capitalization? What's with the "tax-"
The run-on sentences, make them stop.
"Customs" capitalized again? "River"?
This is getting to be a rant, I don't know enough about what's going on to properly edit this, but I think that this article could use a merciless editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.183.208 ( talk) 06:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)