Talk:Black Swan Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vernet's Shipwreck 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:
WikiProject_Gibraltar
Gibraltar Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, which aims to expand and better organise information in articles related to all aspects of Gibraltar on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

Contents

[edit] $$$

What is the policy with using $? Shouldn't it be US$? After all a lot of other countries use $, even though the US may be the largest. PseudoEdit 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's OK so long as every $ symbol is wikilinked to United States Dollar. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"USD" - with no "$", anywhere - would be preferable, as per ISO 4217 jiHymas@himivest.com 64.231.52.192 04:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a page on this - WP:$ - but I don't have the time to read it - anyone around who can go through it slowly and carefuly? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Beautifully sprung, sir! I have examined the cited page carefully - very carefully - and suggest that somebody who can still be bothered editing articles may wish to bring the reference to Sterling into compliance with the standard. jiHymas@himivest.com 216.191.217.90 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was the Gold stolen?

This article, backed by a BBC news citation, says the Merchant Royal gold was stolen from the Spanish. Merchant Royal says that it was being carried to Antwerp for the Gold's owners after the original carrier caught fire. A Google search reveals a number of different theories? Does anyone know is any of these are backed up by Primary sources? Kaid100 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Going by this site, there are several sources which are both obscure and conflicting. They indeed took on the gold in the Azores under the agreement to return it to the Spanish in Antwerp, but other sources say they were en route to England with it. Specifically they only mention a document in the British Library. In any case the ship sank during its voyage so we can't really know for sure. --Idda 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The BBC article is hardly a reliable historical source, and anyways it says "stolen", not "captured". Spain and England were at peace at the time. Stammer 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Correct - this piece by the BBC article contains a number of factual errors, such as the comments purportedly made by Pepys and to Parliament. The reporter was clearly confused and I have brought this to the attention of the BBC. My 'understanding' from speaking with acknowledged experts in maritime history and archaeology, as well as English divers local to the area, is that the Merchant Royal was based in southern Spain and took on a commercial contract with the Spanish government to transport the money to its troops in the Spanish Netherlands. There is a case to be made in maritime law that the cargo is the property of Spain and that as the vessel was armed, the ship could possibly be regarded legally as a Spanish warship and therefore sovereign to Spain now. Extramural

[edit] Colonial era

I imagine "colonial era" is a term used in the US to refer to the period before the American revolution. But has this ship got anything to do with North America? The link behind colonial era doesn't really help much either. Surely '17th century' (or whatever) would be more useful. Jooler 07:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Support that -- the phrase really jars and is obscure outside U.S. --mervyn 09:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a quote what else do you want? Find another rare coin expert that gives a more exact date and stick it in. And 17th century wouldn't be proper since the 'colonial era' spanned more than a 100 years. --149.101.1.120 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
As used in the first para it is not a quote. "Colonial era" is ambiguous for the very reason you state above. But the timeframe of the wreck is known to be more precise. Jooler 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If it is indeed the Merchant Royal then I would assume the implication is the Spanish Colonial era. The gold most certainly is from the Americas in any case. --Idda 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valuation of coins

I understand that caution is a good thing, so it's wise to say that there is a range of valuations. However, wouldn't it also be appropriate to say what the range is, and that the upper figure could rank it as the richest-ever shipwreck recovery? It's important context that is noticeable by its absence. Canuckle 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public Domain?

The article currently states:

"The recovery entered the public domain on May 18, 2007 when the company flew 17 tons[2] of coins, mostly silver, from Gibraltar to a secure location of unknown address in Florida, USA. The company has not yet released the type, date or nationality of the coins."

What does "entered the public domain" mean? Became public knowledge? Can this be reworded to be clearer? Ruyn 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In effect, yes. It essentially means that it is in a condition of being openly known or revealed as opposed to being kept a secret. Nonetheless, feel free to change it if you still find it ambiguous. Chris.B 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Since "public domain" tends to refer to rights or ownership (or lack thereof), I will change it to "became public knowledge", especially since the rights and ownership are contested. Ruyn 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Much clearer, thanks. Kingdon 15:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description of Gibraltar

I think its fine to briefly describe Gibraltar's status in the article, but shouldn't it be on the first mention of Gibraltar? Gibmetal 77talk 08:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that strongly about it I guess you could remove the information from the later sections and replace it at an earlier mention of Gibraltar, however, the context of the first mention of Gibraltar in both articles would seem a little strained IMO if the international status is mentioned there. Doesn't seem to really fit. To me it seems that the status only really becomes relevant when a ship is seized in what Spain considers its waters and the UK considers international waters. Spain has seized the ships citing its ownership of the water, which no doubt will not sit well with the UK. The first seizure resulted in charges dropped if I understand events correctly. If seizures continue, the territorial status of Gibralter's waters could increasingly become an even more strained point of contention between the two nations. Also, we got 4 nations (UK and the territory of Gibraltar, Spain, US (civil court), and the Bahamas) all involved in a sticky property and rights issue - not to mention a number of archaeologists and history organizations. You do have a point in the Black Swan Project controversy article. The territorial dispute is more elaborated in that one under section "Gibraltar's territorial waters". I just want the readers to understand the connection between Gibraltar and the UK in relation to territorial disputes with Spain. I don't think this article expresses this important aspect of the situation clearly enough, so I think Gibraltar's status should be stressed should international debates become inflamed. Personally I think they will if this keeps happening. Depending upon exactly what/where was found it may perhaps lead to a pacification/extortion/compensation percentage of salvage going to Spain, or the UK could continue with the agreement already established if in fact the salvage is the Sussex (which seems more likely than the Merchant Royal). But if you want to move the information up in the article, then give it a try. I just thought it disrupted the flow up there. Your choice, but I do believe Gibraltar's status is important to stress in the article. Appreciate the talk. --Trippz 09:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks for your reply. I do understand your point now and I agree with you. However, I'm not sure where to move it in Black Swan Project controversy article. Could you have a look at it? Thanks and sorry for any trouble. Gibmetal 77talk 12:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Gibraltar is not a colony. That term was dropped long ago by the FCO. -- Chris B • talk 14:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Far be it for me to challenge the FCO (even though they have absolutely no direct jurisdiction over me), but still, for some parts of the English speaking world the terms "oversees territory" and "colony" are still interchangeable, apparently a view shared by the journalist from which the info was cited. Though personally, I would agree that "colony" is becoming a more antiquated term and often more associated with Imperialism. But since both you guys are from the area, it seems the terms might be a sensitive subject and so I'll bend to your expertise and sensibilities which, in this matter, I honestly hold in higher regard than the FCO's. Probably best to stick to "official" designations. Actually, colony was the term used by the reporter that was cited, so I'll just blame him and recommend you guys write CNN a scathing letter and set them straight about the issue. As for restructuring the info as Gibmetal suggested, I'll take another look at it, I was thinking of just adding a follow-up sentence elaborating on the territorial issues, but that didn't work either because I feel I'm projecting some OR into the article by suggesting territorial disputes that may develop. I prefer to add info that can be directly cited from a source and not risk an OR flag. Might be best to see if any diplomatic action is taken and use that as a springboard to elaborate more on it. Like I said above, I do think the territorial waters issue is something that is just going to keep coming up (in one form or another) regarding this topic. Since this story is back page in my area, I wonder if it is getting much coverage there in Gibraltar? Anyway, I do hope "colony" is not becoming a bad word nowadays, my ancestors were all colonists, and I'm quite proud of them. Cheers! --Trippz 03:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)