This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jonas Poole. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
1. No. I haven't yet done the article on Basque navigation or mariner actvities or whichever name it may eventually have. The reason for it is that I don't feel now equally motivated to work for/in Wikipedia in general (mostly for reasons of Anglo/US-centrism. I would feel more at ease in a encyclopedia that has a clear globalist viewpoint, not an ethnic one).
2. My most available sources for what I wrote are:
La Navarra Maríitima of T. Urzainqui and J.M de Olaizola. Pamiela, 1998. ISBN84-7681-293-0
Les Basques dans l'estuaire du Saint-Laurent by R. Bélanguer. Les Presses de l'Univeristé du Quebec, 1971. ISBN0-7770-0026-1
Itsasoa encyclopedia, vol.3 (Los vascos en el marco del Atlnático Norte. siglos XVI y XVII). Etor argitaletxea, 1992. ISBN84-85527-29-1
The most important source is probably the first one, elaborated by Navarrese historians. Its chapter XIII is dedicated to the "Activity of Navarrese harbours", including those that were annexed by Castile in 1200 and those of Labourd that were under English and later French rulership but that served Navarre anyhow (as did Bayonne after the loss of Gipuzkoa) or were otherwise of Basque ethnicity. It reads (page 214):
Existe un documento, una factura, que se remonta al año 670, época de los ducados de Aquitania y Vasconia y mucho antes de que los vikingo-normandos se apoderaran de Baiona en el año 844. Este documeto representa un envío hecho por vascones de 40 moyos (barricas de unos 250 litros cada una) de aceite de ballena para el alumbrado de la abadía de Jimièges. Dicho documento lod io a conocer Joseph Garat a Marcel Heruper en la Revue Maritime [footnote: Garat, J. Itsasoa, vol. 6, p. 313], añadiendo que dada la lejanía de Jimièges -que se encontraba a orillas del Sena entre Ruan y El Havre-, para que se hiciera un pedido de aceite tan importante era necesario que la fama de los balleneros de Vasconia fuese antigua y bien asentada, no dependiendo de presas ocasionales.
Garat señala también que el documento no indica como fueron transportados los 40 moyos de "sain" (grasa de ballena), pero dado que en aquellos remotos tiempos no existían caminos transitables que enlazaran puntos muy distantes, habrá que pensar que el transporte se hizo por mar desde Baiona hasta El Havre, para continuar por tierra hasta la abadía de Jumièges.
Brief synthesis in English: There's a bill note of the year 670 that registers a delivery of 40 "moyos" (barrels of 250 litres) of whale fat, sent by Basques to the abbey of Jumièges, between Le Havre and Rouen, for its use in ilumination. J. Garat, the one who revealed this important document (in the Revue Maritime and later in Itsasoa encyclopedia, vol. 3) suggested that due to the large distance the delivery was surely made by sea to Le Havre. He also suggested that such an important request by such a distant monastery could only be done if Basques already had a well estabilished fame of whale hunters, not depending in occasional prey.
The chapter follows with references to early sailings of Basques as registered or speculated by earlier historians:
Bertrand d'Argentré, who lived in the second half of the 16th century, was the first one who sustained in his History of Brittany that Basques, Bretons and Normands were the first ones to reach Terre Neuve (Newfoundland, but then applied to all North America, as registered by Oyenart in 1636) before any other people.
Belgian whale scientist Van Beneden claimed in 1892 that the Basques "in the late 14th cantury, year 1372, turned to the west and saw the whales numbers increase due to the approach to the Newfoundland Banks". This belief is sustained by other scholars such as Dr. Camino y Orella (History of the City of St. Sebastian), A. Irigaray (1971) and Robert de Loture (1946). But is not supported by any document AFAIK.
Several old sources suggest that Cristopher Colombus drew his knowledge from the existence of some lands at reach by the west from these fishermen of Newfoundland, mostly Basques but also Bretons and others. This seems to be the opinon of Etienne Cleirac (Us et costumes de la mer, 1661) and of Esteban de Garibay (1571). This last one says:
Siendo Cristóbal Colón hombre avisado y práctico en el arte de la navegación y viendo de hacer cartas de navegar, casó en la isla de Madera, a donde una nao vizcaína, o según otros andaluza o portuguesa, avía los años pasados aportado, aviendo con tormentas y tiempos contrarios descubierto parte de las tierras que agora dezimos Indias Occidentales o Nuevomundo, antes Terranova
Translation: Being C. Colombus a knowledgeable and practical man in the art of sailing and wnating to make naval charts, he resided in the island of Madeira, where a Biscaynne ship, or according to others Andalusian or Portuguese, had in previous years docked, [and] due to storms and difficult weather discovered part of the lands that we now call Western Indies or New World and before Newfoundland
A. Irigaray also says (1971) that:
In 1412 there were Basque fishermen in Iceland, to where the chased whales fled. Of the long stances of these sailors a Basque-Icelandic vocabulary [dictionary] is preserved in the Library of the Gipuzkoan Government.
I think it's this last one about which you were asking.
Sure, you can use what I quoted/excerpted as source for whatever you wish.
Regarding the presence of Basques in Iceland in 1412, there's that Basque-Icelandic dictionary as evidence (though I'm not sure how well it is dated). Anyhow, I must mention that while most sources seem to emphasize whaling (somehow capriciously), it was probably cod fishing what most motivated the travels of Basque sailors. Also it's maybe worth mentoning that Basques don't seem to have ever been consumers of whale meat, that they considered inferior and sold to French and Castilians, but they did and do consume often all kind of fish, including (salted and de-salted) cod, that is still a star of Basque cuisine.
This discrepancy between the historians' emphasis on whaling and the real dominant activity of cod fishing is probably part of the reason your Icelandic reference talks of fishing ships and not whalers.
I'm not sure about this but it seems to me that long distance whaling then only could produce whale oil, while cod fishing conservation problems were solved easily by salting its meat, proccess that I suspect not so easily applicable to whale meat. --Sugaar12:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about Iceland, but there's aboundant documentition about Basques being in Newfoundland and other areas of Atlantic Canada in the early 16th century. Before this date, everything is speculative. Again it seems cod fishing pre-dated whaling in that area.
Itsasoa encyclopedia recopilates a lot of said documents and agrees with you in the glossary being dated to the 17th or 18th centuries, wich is also included.
Anyhow, Trausti Einarsson, author of one of the articles on Basque presence in Iceland in said encyclopedia, argues that, while documentation is incomplete, it's very likely that Basques visited the island since the late Middle Ages, the same that English did (heading to Bourdeaux at the end of their journey). Nevertheless he argues that Irish and American waters were enough for Basque fishing demand until the 16th century. In any case, in 1615 the wreckage of a Basque ship is extensively documented at Iceland, with a massacre of part of the survivors by local troops. It seems there was real animosity between Basques and Icelanders by this time. --Sugaar07:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
On the use of my real name, I really see no reason for which it would be more authoritative than "Sugaar from Wikipedia". After all i'm just some unknown Basque guy whose name would not add any authority to anything, really. --Sugaar07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I can't find anything specific to Ireland or the Irish banks, apart of the already mentioned references above and a beautiful map of the island in double page. Most of the volume is a succesion of legal documents of the period, along with historical articles and many illustrations (charts, drawings and modern photos mostly), almost all focused on Newfouland. Nothing specific on Ireland.
For your illustration I'll add a simplified index of this 3rd volume of Itsasoa (the rest of the volumes, not the full work, as he bought it 2nd hand, is in my father's home and verse mostly on other issues):
Newfoundland an Labrador: physical geography
The whales that were captured by the Basques
Basques and transatlantic fisheries, 1517-1713 (main body):
Prologue
1. From the European coasts to the province of Newfouland and the Granbaya (1539-59)
2. The Belle Isle strait during the apogee of Basque whaling (1559-79)
3. European conflicts, with royal embarkments and the role of Burgos consulate
4. Folowing the route of Detcheberry along the western coast of Newfoundland
Epilogue
Naval construction in Zumaia 1560-1600
Echoes of Newfoundland in poem-like style (in Basque language mostly)
Also I must correct an earlier assumtion I made in this conversation: whale meat was actually that main product of Newfoundland whaling early on and it was preserved in salt. Oil was only exploited later when ovens were built in the Canadian coasts. Still the early travels to Newfoundland were "cod journeys", not whaling ones. --Sugaar11:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This section needs to be rewritten, as Black Tusk did not carefully read through his source. Because of his/her hasty writing it is currently inaccurate. When I have the time I hope to fix his/her mistakes. Jonas Poole02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
All of wikipedia is inaccurate, to some degree, and there is no need for above message: if you think there is something wrong, fix it. This might have taken you less time than writing the above. Wikipedia works as well as it does because editors add and correct data wherever they feel they can contribute. If every specialist starts to insult well-meaning non-specialists because they were not fully accurate or misinterpreted something, the first will end up having to do everything him/herself (which usually doesn't happen, because most experts like to get credit for their writing and scholarship). You could have complimented me on the correct spelling of Spitsbergen or the fact that I've tried to explain why it is known that Hudson did not discover Jan Mayen rather than saying “There is no evidence for Hudson discovering Jan Mayen. You know why? Because HE DIDN'T.” And, believe it or not, experts make mistakes too. The second line on your “accurate and reliable” website ("What archeologists found were Neolithic rock cravings..."), for example, is one for the ages... In wikipedia well-meaning passers-by not shied away by angry experts would have corrected this. Afasmit04:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I think you've immerged yourself in a fascinating subject and your website is a great source of information. And I'm not saying that it is full of typos; I just started reading it and wondered how they figured out that the ancient Chinese had a craving for rocks;-) I wrote my text mostly to record the history of discovery (and found some interesting family relationships of Jan Mayen to boot)., the whaling base text I extended since the text "Commercial whaling took also place between 1614 and 1640 by the Dutch but ended when the Dutch team of seven died of scurvy and the Greenland right whale nearly became extinct." seemed wrong and a bit short for the only period it was of some importance. Now have learned that your alias is that of a British whaler of the 1610s, "had effectively monopolized whaling in most of the Arctic Sea over those years" must have been the offending sentence of my text. That's an exaggeration; I meant to write "dominate", but I may still be misinformed. I also wonder if the three weeks to reach Jan Mayen from Holland (which is supposedly how long it took De Ruyter at least once) is normal. Seems like a lot. Afasmit00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Whaling station on Deadman's Island
Hi Jonas. My source for that was Mark Leier, Red Flags and Red Tape: The Making of a Labour Bureaucracy. He gives 2 citations for the paragraph that was mentioned in. One was Vancouver by Eric Nicol. I have that book, and the whaling station reference doesn't come from there. The other was W. C. McKee, "The Vancouver Park System, 1886-1929: A Product of Local Businessmen," Urban History Review 3 (1978), 33-49, which I don't have. But you're probably right that there's confusion, likely originating with McKee. That point stuck out at me because I'd never heard of that before and I've read a lot of Vancouver history. On further reflection it seems unlikely, especially so if there was a whaling station on another Deadman's Island. I also recall reading somewhere that the last time whales were spotted in the Burrard Inlet was in the 1860s. I'll remove it until such time I come across a more definitive source. Good catch; it illustrates an advantage of Wikipedia over "more reliable" published sources. bobanny (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this new article, and looked at some of your others. impressive work in an unusual area. Keep it up--we need articles like this. DGG (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for the comment on my talk page. No worries -- those links aren't hard to dab at all. If you remember to do them in the future, that would be great; if you miss some, it's no big deal. Best regards, Tkynerd (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
hi there
Hi Jonas,
Just felt like I should introduce myself as I've been making a ton of edits over at the whaling page (responded to one of your points on the talk page too, incidentally) and it looks like you're one of the topic's senior editors :-)
Seems there hasn't been much action on there for quite a while? Most of the edits and talk-page discussions are pretty old...
Well, hi as well. I haven't been on awhile, so I haven't seen the recent edits. Damn internat died on me for a few days. Senior Editor? Nah, I try to stay away from editing the whaling page. Too much emotions involved with people over the subject. I'd rather deal with past whaling. Can't be as angry about something that happened a few hundred years ago, you know. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha! True that... especially when the anti-whalers' own countries were the biggest offenders! :-)
Actually things look like they have been pretty quiet on most of the articles I've seen (whaling, specific-country-whaling articles, the IWC).. You looked like one of the few editors who was still active. But who knows, maybe the emotions are just lying in wait, like a submerged whale waiting to come up for air (ah, sorry about the attempted humour) Jonathanmills (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oops
Sorry about the undo. It is just that the signal to noise ratio for edits committed by IP addresses is very very high. Thank you for taking the time to update the statistics. OliAtlason (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. It's quite the fascinating subject. I make it a habit to ask for refs when some these type of edits come up, and I am sure the data is out there somewhere. Thanks for clearing it up though. --travisthurston+23:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Whaling#Poole edits. As you know, you deleted a reference to 8th century Japanese poetry in Whaling. In your view, the in-line citation support was inadequate. I've rectified that problem; and it crossed my mind that you might appreciate scanning an English translation of one poem from the Japanese literary classic, Man'yōshū:
A substantive discussion about what to include or exclude in Whaling may be more appropriate on that article's talk page; but the poem is perhaps more appropriately shared here. --Tenmei (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
whaling article
Hi mate,
Nah, I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while (my enthusiasm comes and goes; most of the stuff I tend to edit on is so controversial that I get burnt out very easily!)
I did have a quick squizz at the article; in some ways the structure looks a little better to me, although I'm not sure who's doing what. The intro did need beefing up, but I think it's a bit crap now... What do you see as the current problems?
I found it extremely annoying that a sentence was added to EVERY European whaling section on how each contributed to the depletion of bowhead and right whales in the North Atlantic. By only mentioning the European contribution to the depletion of whale populations it looked as though (in my mind at least) that someone (perhaps a Dutchman living or somehow associated with Japan) was spewing out propaganda about how Europeans were solely responsible for the depletion of whale populations, etc. I (rather immaturely at that) added in the Japanese section that they were responsible for the depletion of many whale species in their waters as well. Had to make it balanced. I know it appears irrational, but it just pissed me off to see that. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I think that was my edit which caused annoyance? Please allow me to apologize for the unintentional offense and for the unintended imbalance that edit created. I intended to imply no POV nor to cause an avoidable problem for you or anyone. The European countries were simply in the cited source and other countries were not; but perhaps the best thing to do is simply to remove this citation as a gesture of good faith and as proof of the sincerity of my apology. --Tenmei (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, I'm also the one who "beefed up" the intro. My intention was to draft wording which was unassuming, inoffensive, unremarkable and scrupulously neutral. By all means, I would have no regrets if you were to edit the text extensively or delete my words altogether if my prose appears to diminish the perceived quality of this article. --Tenmei (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Historic Baseline for pre-whaling North Pacific Right Whale Population
Hi Jonas,
Thanks for all your work on the No. Pacific Right Whale article. I am a newbie on Wikipedia and fumbling my way around.
I did feel compelled to undo one of your edits in the 1st paragraph where I had said that right whales were abundant in the North Pacific until 1840, and you had changed that to 1850 and made a comment that right whales heavy exploitation had not begun before 1840. It is correct, that heavy exploitation did not begin before 1840, but there was a huge amount of whaling between 1840 that almost certainly dramatically reduced the population numbers.
I did a scientific paper on the magnitude of the pelagic catch in the North Pacific (Scarff 2001). My estimates for the total kill of right whales in the North Pacific, Bering Sea, Kamchatka and Sea of Okhotsk were:
These are totals within that 5 year period, not cumulative totals. As you can see, after 1849 the fishery collapsed, and the whalers shifted over to hunting bowheads. Seeing how between 20,000-30,000 right whales had been killed before 1850, I think one has to go back to 1840 to get a pre-pelagic whaling population estimate. NPRW4ever (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I just reverted to 1850 to give a nice round number, as I felt 1840 was much too early. Perhaps we should change the date to sometime after 1840 but before 1845. Perhaps 1842 or 1843, as I doubt the population would have declined significantly enough to be designated as not being common prior to that time. If it had been so many ships would not have been active in the following years. Jonas Poole (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jonas, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I suggest leaving the date at 1840. The points I was trying to make were that (1) as late as 1840, populations of right whales in the North Pacific and Sea of Okhotsk were probably at or near the "natural" carrying capacity of the oceans, not having been significantly reduced by Japanese shore whaling or aboriginal takes, and (2) those populations were much larger than most folks realized - right whales were about as abundant, or more abundant, than the more familiar gray whales.
I realize your focus tends to be on whaling and a desire for precision in that history, which is commendable. There is much that can be said about right whaling in the North Pacific, and I highly recommend Webb's book "On the Northwest" which is superb on the subject. I would suggest that any expansion on the subject of whaling of this species be written in an article on whaling and cross-referenced here.
You had wanted a copy of my article on historic takes of No. Pacific right whales? I don't have that in pdf format, but may be able to scan it into that format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NPRW4ever (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Sperm Whaling
I;ve been adding references to the Sperm Whale article in hopes of restoring it to its rightful place as a Featured Article, or at least a Good Article. I see you recently added alot of great information on Sperm whaling. I found sources for much of the information, but there are few items which cite specific statistics (the kind of statements that particularly need references) which I was unable to find. Can you let me know the source(s) (or add in line citations, if you prefer) for each of these 3 statements:
American sperm whaling soon spread from the east coast of the American colonies to the Gulf Stream, the Grand Banks, West Africa (1763), the Azores (1765) and the South Atlantic (1770s). From 1770 to 1775 Massachusetts alone produced 39,390 barrels of sperm oil annually, compared to 7,650 of whale oil.
In the 19th century ... being sent to ... the Indian Ocean (1780s), and as far away as the Japan grounds (1820) and the coast of Arabia (1820s), as well as Australia (1790s) and New Zealand (1790s).
In the 19th century over 230,000 Sperm Whales may have been killed by the various whaling nations, while nearly 800,000 were caught in the modern era, the majority between 1946 and 1980.
Also, there are a couple of statistical/factual statements in the "Description" section which I think need references, and which I am hoping you can help me identify sources for, given you expertise about whaling:
Further evidence of larger bulls in the past resides in New Bedford museum, a 5.2 metres (17 ft) jaw of a bull that could have been about 21.7 metres (68 ft) long, with a maximum mass of about 100 tons.
In addition, logbooks found in the Nantucket and New Bedford museums are filled with references to bulls that were, considering the amount of oil they yielded, about the same size as these two examples — although whalers were notorious for exaggerating the yield of oil and length of whales they caught.
I was actually just at the museum and saw the jawbone that everyone bickered about. Although I can't tell you its actual size, it was big. I contacted the museum and I should be hearing from them shortly. I'm with you in the dispute and I know that you settled it. Its just so sad how a minor dispute can turn into an all out verbal war. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Its too bad that i'm not going this weekend, otherwise I would've done it. I can see though where you come from on the arguing side, since I am sometimes like that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I just nominated Sperm Whale for a Good Article review. We'll see how long it takes for someone to review it, but I figured you'd be interested in knowing this since you worked so hard on this article. Rlendog (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The GA reviewer raised some questions about the Whaling section of the Sperm Whale article. Since you pretty much wrote that section, I wanted to get your reaction before addressing these. Rlendog (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jonas. I notice you restored the relative length of the jaw bone from 20-25% to 25%. I'm not contesting your knowledge of sperm whales, but your edit has created 1 problem, - what's the source for 25%? -- Philcha (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The source that is listed states 20 to 25%. If there is no reliable source for specifically 25% it may be necessary to equivocate, either by going back to the 20-25% range, or at least say "approximately 25%" or "nearly 25%", which would be more consistent with the source. Rlendog (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
One other issue that was asked was to explain better the distinction between spermaceti and sperm oil. I'll try to address it, but you are probably more knowledgeable than me on that. Rlendog (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jonas. I like your list of the marine mammals you've seen in the wild. :) I'm jealous of a few, especially the ones you saw in Juneau. When I was in Juneau, the Killer Whales weren't. The guide claimed the Killer Whales are only there about once every two weeks, so you may have lucked out. Also, seeing Harbor Porpoises must have been cool. They live near me on the east coast, but I've never seen them, either here or in Alaska. I'm not even sure I'd recognize one if I saw one, if it's true that they only show their dorsal fin. And I would really like to see a Blue Whale - maybe one day I'll go to Loreto. Anyway, a good place to see Minke Whales is Boston (or any of the nearby areas, such as Cape Cod, that also go to Stellwegen Bank). They have lots of Minkes and Humpbacks, and often Fins as well. There is even supposedly a shot at seeing migrating Right Whales early in the season (like May), but I never have. Rlendog (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll see the Minkes one of these days. But you may be disappointed. They don't really seem to do much. At Stellwegen they just surface every so often among the Humpbacks showing some fin and back. That said, on my last trip on the way back to Boston a pair of Minkes swam slowly at the surface right across the front of the boat. It was pretty cool, and I got some good video. But not as impressive as a couple of years earlier, when a pair of Fins did the same thing (unfortunately, both my camera and camcorder batteries were dead by then). I was considering going to Patagonia at one point to see Southern Rights, but the trip (which was being organized by the guy who organized my Gray Whale trips to Baja) got cancelled, and now I don't know when I'll have another opportunity. By the way, I forgot to mention before, Dominica is a great place to see Sperm Whales. If you get a chance to do a Carribean cruise that stops in Dominica you may want to try it (I think you also have a shot in St. Lucia and Grenada - my ideal cruise would stop at all three). My wife took the picture of the Sperm Whale arching its back to dive there, and I got some good video of the dive sequence that I'll post to Wikipedia one day if I can ever figure out how. Rlendog (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
References
Your comment on Talk:Gray Whale:
"Put up the references yourself, I don't feel like learning how
Yeah, I don’t feel like putting references. My sources are Gaze (1936), Henderson (1972), Tonnessen and Johnsen (1982), Kasuya (2002), Weller et al (2002), Brownell and Swartz (2007), and some others I don’t feel like typing. Oh, and Brownell and Swartz estimates on how many gray whales the California took are way off, so I didn't bother use them. Jonas Poole (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"
Is pretty annoying - how is anyone supposed to work out which pieces of information you got from where? Here's a demonstration of how to provide references. Click edit on here and you'll see how.[1] Please reference your edits in the future.
Hello, Jonas Poole. You have new messages at Reuv's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Basques and Alan Sallows
Thank you for your kind words, Jonas, though i am but a translator of the dutch article on the Noordsche Compagnie. I did look through the external links provided. [[2]] seems to be a very thorough work on the Noordsche Compagnie, though i assume you cannot read dutch :P
I browsed through the source. From what i saw about Alan Sallows, is that the Dutch were familiar with the route to Spitsbergen, but they were unaware of the best places for whaling. They took on Alan Sallows, who had worked for the English Moscovic Company, but who had left England because of Debts, and was not well-liked by the English. At Bear Island the dutch expedition encountered English ships, who initially wanted to arrest Alan Sallows as an interloper, but eventually decided to let him go.
From what i read about the basques: They were taken on as harpooners very regularly, apparently they had a very good reputation. They even made contracts that gave them a larger income then the rest of the crew. The Basques were also known to be pirates. I cant find any specific sources for the basques - they seem to have been pretty standard for whaling ships, it seems they were considered experts at it. Omegastar (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Spitsbergen
Hello, Jonas Poole. You have new messages at Bazonka's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Actually, the paragraph is not needed at all.It showed bias the way it was written but again only the result is needed for the article.If you don't agree, that's fine, but that is how articles should look.It actually looks congested when every detail is written out.The sources can further explain fights.(MgTurtle (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)).
Actually my first removal was because of bias language I saw.The subsequent removals is because the information is not necessary to the article.It adds nothing to the article.That's the only reason.(MgTurtle (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)).
Well, I disagree. You keep reverting it and I'll keep reverting it back. Go look at the GSP page. There's one huge paragraph alone on the GSP-BJ Penn II fight. Jonas Poole (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Hi Jonas,
I found a good reference. Günter Schilder wrote a 14-page biography in a probably hard to get book. The dates appear in the title of his chapter. (check this site) Afasmit (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. That's definitely a book I would like to purchase then. My Dutch is coming along pretty well. It's been over six months now. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
PQ 18 OOB
-
Hmm
"you can only use the Dutch spelling Spitsbergen in English..."
That's news to me; and the source I was using (in English, with a British author) used the "Spitzbergen" spelling. Still, it certainly isn't something I want to fall out over, so fair enough, but... where did you get that information from? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
PS Thanks for taking an interest, BTW; I sometimes wonder if anyone actually reads the stuff I write... Xyl 54 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well if British authors have been spelling it with a "z" since the 17th century, and still do so today, then there’s no “mistakenly” about it; that makes it the British/English spelling. It wouldn't be the only place-name spelt differently in English to the local name; like Tromso (for Tromsø), The Hague (Den Haag), Munich (Munchen), and so on.
And I don’t know it’s the German spelling so much; the word is pronounced as having a "z" in English, so the spelling is consistent.
I was curious when you said the "s" is correct in English; a lot of words that used a z when I was younger use an s nowadays, having been modernized (modernised!)
Again, I’ve no objection to you preferring the Dutch spelling (or the Norwegian spelling anyway!): But I'd be interested to know; do you have anything that says "Spitsbergen" is the correct English spelling? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
From the wikipedia page on Spitsbergen:
"Spitsbergen is the only correct spelling; Spitzbergen is a relatively modern blunder. The name is Dutch, not German. The second S asserts and commemorates the nationality of the discoverer." – Sir Martin Conway, No Man’s Land, 1906."
The official Spitsbergen page describes itself as Spitzbergen for German readers, and SpitSbergen for English readers. The airship museum there is Spitsbergen in English, Italian and Norwegian. And the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica entry starts off by saying "SPITSBERGEN (the name being Dutch is incorrectly, though commonly, spelled Spitzbergen)". Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I had already directed him to Conway's quote on his talk page, but he apparently didn't go to it. You explained it perfectly. Saved me a lot of grief. Jonas Poole (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Weakopedia; the Britannica quote goes some way toward answering my question, though I'm not sure how helpful the others are, the official page (this one?) being German and the airship museum [3] being Norwegian.
But: my issue was (and is), if the majority of British sources use the z form (all the source books I’m looking at for the arctic convoys do so) who is to say what is "correct"? Also, aren't we getting into the realms of common names anyway?
Incidentally, Jonas, “he” did go to the Conway quote; it’s just that “he” wasn’t particularly persuaded by it. 1906 was a while ago, and it's one opinion.
And as far as I can see all I did was ask you to back up the dogmatic assertions you made on my talk page; if that gives you grief, the problem, I suggest, is at your end, not mine. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is the site. The point is that they describe themselves as Z for germans, but S for english speakers - because S is the common spelling for englishers. The other site similarly uses S as it's preferred spelling for english speakers. I think the difficulty might be that you are reading lots of books about the war, when the germans made a claim to spitsbergen, so perhaps the german spelling is used based on some of the records those people used for their books, but looking at the totality of sources it seems that S is more common. Britannica still call it S, 100 years later, as do the telegraph, travel guides endorsed by michael palin, the barents observer, studies in glaciology, holocene glacial variation studies, and, my favourite, the rand mcnally illustrated atlas of the world. That's not to say there are no examples of Z in use -but on checking, many of those are german, copying germans or use both S and Z on the same site, even in the same article. And, to cap it all, you have the general consensus on wikipedia and amongst editors who have commented that S is the way to go.
I don't see that the assertions made on your talkpage were so very dogmatic, but either way it is often best to concentrate on the editing and not the editor. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again; the Telegraph article is persuasive, being a British source; I don’t know I’m convinced by what German writers tell me a the word should be in English. And I’m not clear why British authors would be influenced by “a German claim to Spitsbergen” during WWII; that’s the sort of thing the Brits were fighting against.
Anyway, I searched Google books for both spellings. There were a number of British books using z, but all written in the 19th or early 20th century; and the sources I was referring to are older as well (60’s, 70’s etc) (Though I also found an American source from the 40’s using s ) so I’m coming to the conclusion it’s an older usage that may well be dying out. It happens, I suppose; we generally use Haarlem instead of Harlem, or Koblenz instead of Coblenz, these days.
It was the spelling when I was at school, but I can concede it mayn’t be anymore. Which doesn’t make it wrong, just archaic. Nor does it get me any closer to accepting that I "can only use the Dutch spelling", or that the older usage is intrinsically "German", or that all those British writers were "mistaken" in some way. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, heres another way to approach it - let's try just one source, the BBC, and see how they treat the subject. Theres an expedition to Spitsbergen, a piece about cold war effects on Spitsbergen, a report about arctic sea bed methane... in fact several pages of results for article discussing Spitsbergen. By the way the last uses as it's source the National Oceanographic Centre, Southampton, and they also have a lot of articles about Spitsbergen - they don't have any about SpitZbergen.
The BBC, however, do. This is a piece about glaciers, and calls it Spitzbergen. But it is a subpage of the first article I quoted you, the expedition to SpitSbergen. There are other examples of the BBC using Spitzbergen, but you can see the problem. The BBC is as British as you can get, yet they freely use Z and also S, sometimes even in the same article. They have no prejudice and, it seems, no preferred version. So the best thing you can say is that both S and Z are freely used in English.
Now, out of all the many sources that use both S and Z we have two that give you the same reason for picking S over Z, and none that give any reason for picking Z over S - those two sources are old but we don't seem to have any reason to doubt their authenticity. At this point I would venture to say that most people simply do not know which is the preferred spelling, and probably not many of them even asked the question until wikipedia came along! But since we have a similar spread of sources using both, and the two sources saying why we should only use one, I think it best to maintain the internal wikipedia consistency of using Spitsbergen until the balance of usage changes greatly in favour of just using Spitzbergen. Weakopedia (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - See talk page. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
