Talk:Batavia (ship)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: Contents 1 To Do 2 Done 3 Mutiny/ barratry 4 Barratry? 5 Vandalism 6 WA Maritime Museum v Geraldton Region Museum?? [edit] To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve Grammer Add any additions if needed Discuss disired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion [edit] Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article

	Batavia (ship) is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history.
WikiProject Australia To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia: The current Australian collaboration of the fortnight article is Torres Strait Islanders. Requests: Bicentennial Heritage Trail, Daintree Reef, George Adams, Insurance in Australia, Poppy Industries, Sports Rorts affair, State Orchestra of Victoria, Yarmirr v Northern Territory Attention: Aboriginal Protection Act, Australian Payments Clearing Association, Coral Sea Islands, Qantas, Peter Foster, Reg Ansett Expand: Barossa Valley, Coorong, South Australia, List of Australian military memorials, Palm Island, Queensland, Rossiter Bay Juanita Coco Stubs: Australian Racing Museum Australian women's cricket team, Barry McKenzie, Calgardup Bay, Western Australia, Mortein, Prospect Creek, Russian Jack, Yabbying, Younghusband, South Australia Images: Darwin beer-can regatta, Darwin International Airport, Dingo Fence, Driza-Bone, Eucalyptus coolabah, Esky, Four'N Twenty Pie Quality watch: 37 FA-Class Australia articles - 21 GA-Class Australia articles.

"As an example, Cornelisz's second in command was broken on the wheel as Cornelisz himself had already been executed."

This sentence is ambiguous; does the second "as" mean "in the same way" or "because"? So should it be "...in the same way Cornelisz himself had already been executed" or "...because Cornelisz himself had already been executed"? If someone who knows could fix it, please do.

It's 'because Cor nelisz was already dead'. I have changed it.

[edit] Mutiny/ barratry

This wasn't a mutiny, it was a barratry; the theft of the ship and/ or her cargo by the master and/ or officers, rather than a rebellion against lawful authority.

[edit] Barratry?

Hardly. Wikipedia's own definition of barratry is: 'a fraudulent act committed by a master or crew of a vessel which damages the vessel or its cargo, including desertion, illegal scuttling, and theft of the ship or cargo.'

What Cornelisz did was hardly fraud. Mikedash 18:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

A lot of people have been vandalising this page recently, it stems from a school hisotry class using this page for a project.I'm not sure what the protocol for this is I'll try to stop all the people doing it personally, but I don't think that it will take too long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.168.39.12 (talk • contribs) .

Don't use wikipedia as your only source of information, and don't vandalize pages. --Jemijohn 03:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WA Maritime Museum v Geraldton Region Museum??

"These two museums are presently engaged in a dispute over the rights to the remains - including a stone arch, currently in Gerlandton which was intended to serve as a stone welcome arch for Batavia."

I really would like to see a citation for this, as I can find nothing anywhere to back this up and it doesn't really make sense. The portico or arch in question was salvaged by the WA Maritime Museum and is being exhibited in Geraldton - at the WA Maritime Museum's Geraldton site. There are no plans to move it anywhere else.

My understanding is that under Australian law regarding shipwrecks and their artifacts, WAMM has jurisdiction over the portico. There is no dispute to be had. Legally it falls under their jurisdiction.

In any event I can find no evidence anywhere of any kind of dispute. There are some in Geraldton who would like to see all Batavia artifacts based on Geraldton, but that's it. Can anyone shed any light on this?

172.205.134.197 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The arch was originally displayed at the main WAMM site in Fremantle. Then, when WAMM Geraldton was reopened, hugely expanded, it was transferred there and a replica put on display at WAMM Fremantle. There was some dispute at the time about the wisdom of making the transfer, as the Geraldton museum is substantially less well visited than that in Fremantle - the argument for Geraldton, of course, being that the Batavia wreck is local to the town and that salvage was carried out in part by Geraldton residents. This seems to be the dispute referred to, but as the poster above points out, the matter is decided by the management of WAMM, it's not in effect a public dispute between the two towns.