Talk:Henry Morgan/Archive 1

WP:MILHIST Assessment

Could afford to be longer. The intro sentence is beautifully succinct, but I wonder too about that. What else can be put here? LordAmeth 11:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Africa

I doubt the part about the 20 women in Africa. In everything I ever read about Morgan, I don't remember him visiting Africa at all. I'll leave it in for now, in case somebody here can substantiate it. In the meantime, though, I'm going to move the tale to some place where it doesn't mess up the narrative of the Portobello attack. --Pirate Dan 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have discovered that the story about the African women was added from a shared college IP address with a long history of vandalism. I'm going to delete the reference. Anyone who can find a source for the story is welcome to add it back in. --Pirate Dan 13:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

German Origin

A documentation reported, that his full name was Johann Henry Morgan, and that he was the son of a english officer in germany and a german woman. They reported, that he was born an raised in Germany. --DarkScipio 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What "documentation"? Who are these "they"? Morgan is a Welsh name. Descendents of Sir Henry's brother still live in Clwyd. --Wetman 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

DNB says son of Robert Morgan of Llanrhymny, early education unknown; suggestions, but no evidence that he came to Jamaica as an indentured servant or a soldier in Cromwell's capture of Jamaica (and quotes his surgeon as saying he came there as a "private gentleman" in 1658, when he was about 23, and rose by valor.) If there were evidence for a German mother, or a kidnapping, they would say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call. DNB is reassuring: could you edit the reference into the article? --Wetman 06:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; both DNB and this article are long, so making them jibe will be a job of work. I'll put it on my agenda. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I marked the assumption that "Therefore it is more likely that he was the "Captain Morgan"..." who fought with Myngs with {{who}}. A perfectly reasonable speculation; I have no doubt someone made it, and it may well be consensus. More important than attribution is the wording: is this Henry or Edward Morgan? I would edit, but I'm not quite sure myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

umm?

"In late 1665, Morgan commanded a ship in the old privateer Edward Mansfield's[3] " does this mean henry morgan's uncle or was this pirate so notorious that at 2 years of age he commanded a ship? or perhaps the date is wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.146.227 (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that "De Americane Zee-Roovers" is not the dutch translation for "History of Buccaneers in America". I don't know what the right one would be, so I'm not going to touch it. 76.205.98.99 (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin

The Early Life section says that he was born in Germany, yet the infobox says Wales. Which is it?

I moved the pirate back here because Special:Whatlinkshere/Henry Morgan makes it clear that he's the primary topic. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One of the introductory paragraphs currently reads "Therefore it is more likely that he was the 'Captain Morgan' who joined the fleet of Christopher Myngs in 1663 and accompanied the expedition of John Morris and Jackman when the Spanish settlements at Vildemos, Trujillo and Granada were taken." This is confusing. "More likely" than what? Or, "he" who? Anyone with the expertise to clarify is encouraged to edit. Robert K S 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"He recaptured the island of Santa Catalina"--which Santa Catalina? The link currently leads to a disambiguation page, so it is impossible to tell which Santa Catalina is being referred to. Robert K S 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"When Thomas Lynch died in 1684, his friend Christopher Monck"-- Whose friendwas he? The way it is written sounds like he was Lynch's friend, but this doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the rest of the paragraph. Was Monck Lynch's friend or Morgan's friend, or should "friend" be dropped entirely? Demonbug 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In a documentary i heard he was born in Germany to his - there stationed - father and his german wife "Anna Petronella", who was the daughter of Lippstadt's mayor. source (german): http://www.prosieben.de/lifestyle_magazine/galileo/spezial/karibik/

Have added the missing parts of his half-German origin. Marcuse7 09:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that my 2008 July 17 revision on "Distinction between Morgan the pirate and Morgan the privateer is blurry" has been undone. Based on historical accounts, I doubt that Morgan was only a privateer. The categorical statement at the beginning "Morgan [..] was a Welsh privateer" needs citations for verification. I wonder if his 'letter of marque' could be found somewhere. Were all Morgan's actions covered by his 'letter/s of marque'?. If citations for verification cannot be found, I propose that the introduction says "was a Welsh privateer and pirate" Grein (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I undid it because it was an unencyclopaedic entry and poor grammar. You illustrate everything that is wrong with that edit with the phrase "I doubt that Morgan was only a privateer", that is original research and completely unacceptable on wikipedia. Morgan had letters of marque, he was a privateer, that is more than adequately supported by the references. And in reality I really don't understand why you feel there is much of a distinction between privateer and pirate, he was a brutal thug, and being a privateer does not change that. Justin talk 17:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

privateer or/and Pirate?

I propose that a new section is created where the different views of 'Morgan the Privateer' and 'Morgan the Pirate' are presented. This is an ongoing debate in countries like UK, Spain, Peru, Colombia and Panama. Regardless of the material stating that Morgan had letter/s of Marque, at least some of his most well-known actions have been seen by many as the actions of a pirate. The supporters that Morgan was only a privateer can provide their references allowing the others to inform from different references.Grein (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think thats appropriate, Morgan WAS a privateer. He had letters of Marque and was acting with endorsement of the English crown. That said, that doesn't in any way reduce the fact he was a violent thug (in a way it makes it worse). Do you think being a privateer somehow makes his actions legitimate? Justin talk 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, accordign to at least some sources, Morgan never had a letter of marque to attack Panama in 1671. Modyford only authorized him to defend Jamaica from raiders. Furthermore, England and Spain were at peace at the time of the Panama attack, so a reasonable argument can be made that the attack was piratical. Pirate Dan (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are they reliable sources? There is plenty of POV material out there, I still don't understand why people feel it makes a difference. Justin talk 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What references are available regarding Morgan's Letters to Marque? It will be interesting to see the conditions, dates and objectives of these letters. Grein (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

reference for the battle at Maracaibo

Information about the battle at Maracaibo (where H. Morgan defeated the 3 Spanish ships and escaped Lake Maracaibo) can be found in pp 166-180 of The Buccaneers of America: In the Original English Translation of 1684 by John Esquemeling, Cosimo Classics Edition, ISBN: 978-1-60206-100-2.

I have no idea how to edit that into the page however. I hope someone can put it in, there is a "citation needed" thingy there now. (:

71.87.210.217 (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)EN

Its OK I'll do it for you later. Justin talk 10:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

yoyoyo waz up my people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.45.17 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Morgan's arrival in Jamaica

Although I am pretty sure the History Channel claimed Morgan arrived in Jamaica with Penn's fleet, my understanding is that most people who studied Morgan concluded that he arrived later: we need a proper cite. Pirate Dan (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Tone of article

Much of the article sounds as if it's been lifted from some hagiographic bio. It needs to be toned down for an encyclopedia, and sourced.--Parkwells (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Basic Standards

The only citation given for Morgan's invasion of Panama is "Carribean" by James Michener. That book is a novel, a work of fiction. Works of fiction, even when based on or referring to historical research, are not sources of factual information. Proper citation, at the very least, would refer to the sources Michener used to create his work of fiction. 76.23.157.102 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Loss of English support?

When and how exactly did Morgan "lose English support"? As a matter of fact, he was rewarded by his destroying Panama! I think that is very clear from all consulted sources. Kind regards, AndeanThunder (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The section finishes with his loss of support by the English crown and descent into drunken ignomy. That is why, the title now makes no sense whatsoever. Now I don't know what bee is in your bonnet about Morgan but the article is not written to excuse or laud him in anyway and your changes are not improving the article. Justin talk 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Andean Thunder, it appears that you're hijacking this article in order to make people think badly of Henry Morgan. Yes, he killed people, but that doesn't mean we should change the encyclopaedia to say "ZOMG he liek killed ppl wtf he's a pirate!!!". WP:NPOV is an important policy and should not be ignored just for the sake of your personal agenda. (Huey45 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Stanlee Kelly

There's a new unreferenced article at Stanlee Kelly, which claims to be on one of Henry Morgan's officers. Can someone more familiar with the topic please take a look at it. Is it genuine? Can it be expanded and referenced? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Now at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Henry Morgan was both a privateer AND a pirate.

Just a bit ago, I added the word "pirate" to the lead graf's description of Morgan with this edit. I sourced it to History International's documentary "The Caribbean Pirates." It was reverted, with an edit summary that seems to imply that one can only be a pirate OR a privateer. In that documentary, they addressed that very issue, discussing the fact that Morgan had been both over the course of his seafaring adventures. I would like to initiate a bit of discussion regarding this, particularly by way of explanation as to why the word "pirate" is not to be allowed into the lead paragraph. LHM 08:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No that source is incorrect, Morgan was a privateer, his actions were authorised by Letters of Marque. Now my edit summary implied no such thing, that is your spin on the matter and you don't initiate any discussion with such an obvious presumption of bad faith. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I in no way intended that to imply bad faith on your part. I was simply relaying my own personal understanding of your edit summary of "privateer not pirate", and nothing more. It seemed you were saying that there was a dichotomy there. Clearly my interpretation was wrong. However, saying "that source is incorrect" is not sufficient. He is identified as such in other places as well. As I look into it further, there is clearly some disagreement amongst historians upon the matter, but simply dismissing that descriptor out-of-hand doesn't seem like the best way to go here. LHM 17:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And this is where editorial judgement comes into play, many sources do not make the distinction between the two but they should. Sloppy research in sources is no excuse for editing to repeat the same; the example being the source you just named. In the sack of Panama, Morgan had full approval and carried letters of marque authorising his action. He was acting as a privateer. I am not dismissing the descriptor out of hand but I see applying it inappropriately as sloppy practise. Repeating sloppy research is not the hallmark of a quality encyclopedia. Can you actually name one incident involving Morgan for which he did not possess Letters of Marque? Therein lies your answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You make it seem like Morgan not acting as a pirate on some of his adventures is a settled fact. That's not how I read the history, nor does every historian read it that way. Do you deny that Letters were often questionable in their authenticity? If Morgan was raiding using such letters (and knew that they were inauthentic) would you still call that privateering? I would not, and I don't think I'm alone in that view. LHM 20:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My question was "Can you actually name one incident involving Morgan for which he did not possess Letters of Marque?" Noticeably you failed to answer.

On what basis do you now claim his letters of marque were forgeries? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The article itself states that letters were issued that were not authorized by the king. LHM 22:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that your response? Clearly you're unaware that colonial governors could issue letters of marque. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A quote:

When Morgan did return, Modyford had already received letters from the King of England warning him to force all of the pirates to return to port. Modyford chose to neglect these warnings and continue to issue letters of marque under the guise that it was for the King’s best interest to protect Jamaica, and this was a necessary element in that goal.

That's just from this very article. There are other sources (including the documentary I cited yesterday) that refer to the fact that rogue governors did whatever they wanted to do regarding issuance of these letters. The debate, it would seem, is whether or not the issuance of letters from these corrupt governors absolves Morgan from ever having acted in the capacity of "pirate." I can find sources (and have done it) that say it does not absolve him of this. Why the resistance to including the fact that he sometimes was a bit "off the reservation", and may have crossed the privateer/pirate line at some points? LHM 22:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your speculation and WP:OR is not the basis for a quality article, so I won't join you. As you're still avoiding it, I will ask again. Can you actually name one incident involving Morgan for which he did not possess Letters of Marque? Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am neither speculating, nor doing original research. I quoted the article itself, and pointed out that historians disagree on whether (and how often) Morgan crossed that line. I've pointed out to you a couple of times now that simply possessing letters of marque does not necessarily mean he was acting as a privateer, if those letters were not valid. I'm weary of arguing this with you, though, as we seem at an impasse. Perhaps we can wait for some outside input? LHM 22:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly sure Morgan did not have letters of Marque for any cruise he took before 1665 under Thomas Hickman-Windsor. Also letters of Marque only allow you to attack enemies of the crown, so if they were not at war he could not have used them for justification of his attacks on Spanish properties. Since he was arrested for piracy and sent back to England I can see no reason not to use the term. The fact that his punishment was waived does not mean he was not a pirate. Also there are many, many, sources that call him a pirate, such as: Under the Black Flag, Buccaneers and Pirates of Our Coasts, The Buccaneers of America, and Great Pirate Stories just to name the first few that come to mind. While I understand why this is a tricky subject I also accept that if the sources use the term so should we. Colincbn (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"I am fairly sure" is not the basis for an edit, you need an authoritive source not your idle speculation. Whilst he may have been arrested, he was acquitted as he held Letters of Marque authorising his activities, Drake also conducated privateer activities against the Spanish with the full consent of QE1, at a time when there were not at war, aside from anything else that is WP:OR territory on your part. I really don't understand this obsession with labelling him pirate, as being a privateer his activities were state sponsored and that makes the atrocities he perpetrated worse IMHO. Labelling him simply a criminal is letting hom the state off the hook. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (terms in bold corrected a typo)

I'm not sure how you get to "labelling[sic] him as a criminal is letting hom[sic] off the hook." That is false on its face. Calling a pirate a "pirate" is simply following what many of the sources say, and does the exact opposite of what you claim. It labels him for what he was. LHM 14:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not labeling him anything. I am simply reporting what the sources say. Because this is Wikipedia, and that is what we do here. Colincbn (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That was pretty much the point of my reply to WCM as well. LHM 16:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my post came under yours but it was also in reply to WCM. I would say one would be hard pressed to find any article on the man that does not use the word Pirate. If anything is WP:OR here it is the idea that his letters were legal, in spite of the fact that two governors were recalled for issuing them, and therefore they negate all references that use the term pirate. But I am not even debating if they were legal or not, I am just reporting what he is called in the sources. Colincbn (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

He was not a pirate he was a privateer, his activities were licensed by letters of marque its that simple and there is a distinction between the two terms. The WP:OR is speculation as to whether his letters of marque were legal or not and whether this means he might have been a pirate or you're "pretty sure". He was acquitted after all was he not. Can you show me a conviction for piracy? The answer is no.

I repeat what I said at the start, one of the responsibilities as an editor is to evaluate what sources are saying and not to simply report them verbatim but to present a balanced view. IF an author does not make the distinction between the two terms a quality encyclopedia does. I ask you gentlemen what do you want to do, help build a quality encyclopedia or get your own way and tag team edit war an imposition of your preferred wording? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And again gentlemen I ask you both, can you name an incident in which Morgan was not authorised by Letters of Marque? Backed up of course by a reliable source. One of your examples was the sack of Panama, in which you presented a source that referred to him as a pirate. Yet the sack of Panama is noted, precisely because it was authorised by Letters of Marque. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not every person who was a pirate was convicted of piracy. The sources referenced call him one, and you have no right to scrub that from the article, no matter what your personal views are. LHM 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• WCM is now edit-warring to remove sourced material from the article. That behavior needs to stop while this discussion is on-going, or blocks may follow per WP:3RR. LHM 18:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, you are now edit warring to impose your preferred wording on this article. This behaviour needs to stop or you may well be blocked per WP:3RR. Threatening to use 3RR to attempt to intimidate an editor risks WP:PETARD. It is appropriate to discuss a disputed edit in a mature manner, I have earnestly engaged you both in discussion. See also WP:TAG

Further I have not scrubbed information from the article, I have removed information that is incorrect as I have outlined above. Now if you insist on inserting the pirate word, it would be appropriate to say that he is labelled by some as a pirate but as he held letters of marque he was a privateer. A similar approach is taken on Francis Drake. That is a sustainable edit, the simple label you're insisting on is not. I won't do any further reverts but I will tag any further attempt to insert this edit as dubious and POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To add: If you review the article, every incident/voyage that involved Morgan includes a reference to the commission that authorised it. I asked you both to name an incident for which Morgan was not authorised by Letters of Marque, you did not reply. Equally I invite you both to note that the converse has already been provided. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly your view, and you are quite incorrect. You're repeatedly removing extensively-sourced material, with no justification other than "I really really think I'm right." There's sources supporting inclusion of the word "pirate", and there's nothing to support your view that he was not one. Being a privateer does not preclude his also acting as a pirate. And you are out of line with your repeated removals of sourced material. LHM 20:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I had the courtesy to talk to you here about your continued removals, and yet you chose to template a good-faith editor to make some kind of point. You need to simply disengage from editing this article, and discuss here why you think sourced material should be kept out of the article. Do not place pointy templates on my talkpage again. LHM 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Now you're getting angry and placing point-y tags all over the place. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. LHM 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No not at all, I am perfectly calm, you're edit warring to impose a solution. I make the point there is a distinction between a Pirate and a Privateer, the first being a criminal and the latter authorised to act by letters of marque. A quality encyclopedia notes the difference, whilst some authors do not make the distinction. I've repeatedly asked you to point to an incident that would merit the sobriquet pirate and notably you have declined to do so. On the other hand as I have pointed out, in every incident described in this article there was authorisation for Morgan to act; ie I have justified my comments whilst you have not. Further I have suggested a quite reasonable compromise, which you did not comment on. You threaten me with 3RR as intimidation, yet you label an entirely appropriate 3RR warning as "vandalism". You are out of line and have been right from the very start with you presumption of bad faith, which you have continued. If you do not self-revert or justify dubious material I will remove it presently. Further, if there is further edit warring to impose a solution against WP:CONSENSUS I will not hesitate to resort to report this matter for edit warring. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't been calm at any point. You've removed sourced information again and again and again. You've left point-y warnings (the "vandalism" tag was a misclick using Twinkle to remove it) and refused to brook any disagreement. You set up a false "privateer OR pirate" dichotomy, and then edit war with the only two other editors editing this article right now. You slap tags all over the article after you don't get what you want. And now, you really need to step back, and look at how you've been acting at this article. LHM 20:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been perfectly calm all the way through, please do not project your emotional response on to others and for the last time I ask you to stop presuming bad faith. I have not set up a false "privateer OR pirate" dichotomy, that is your strawman. I pointed out that your justification for pirate was not sustainable as in the sack of Panama (your example), Morgan's activities were authorised by letters of marque. Equally I have pointed out that in every incident described in this article his activities were authorised and there is nothing to justify the sobriquet pirate. I applied tags to this article instead of indulging you in an edit war as there is good reason for labelling that material as dubious. So far, you've accused me of bad faith, edit warred and persisted in describing reasonable discussion as WP:POINT. Further I have suggested a quite reasonable compromise you have not even deigned to consider. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

People reading through this discussion can likely tell who's been calm and reasonable, and who has not. You slapped two tags on the article after both Colin and myself had placed the word "pirate" into the article, along with credible sourcing. One tag was so haphazardly placed that it completely broke up the lead, and I had to fix it myself. That was a pointy act by you. You accuse me of stalking you when I commented on Colin's talkpage--in a thread that I myself had started! WCM, I think you are editing in good faith, I just think you're very wrong about this issue. I also think that you fling angry words around, and accusations like the stalking one, far too quickly when you're challenged. Please stop acting in that manner. It will make wikilife a lot easier for all three of us involved at this discussion. Best, LHM 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And to answer your request, there is no record of him having letters of Marque before 1665 when he was given them by Thomas Hickman-Windsor. Also he did not just step off the boat from England and take over a vessal. He worked his way up in other captain's crews. None of them had letters therefore they, and everyone in their crews, were pirates. But this is a moot point. I don't care wheather he was a pirate, a privateer, or a pink petunia. All I am doing is referencing the sources that claim what he was. Before you edit to remove sources please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Colincbn (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure anyone reading this discussion will note who is perfectly calm and who is bandying around bad faith accusations like WP:POINT. Equally I pointed to WP:STALK because you were commenting on my talk page message to Colin which did not concern you. Furthermore I have attempted to discuss content and you have repeatedly made it personal.

And neither have in fact answered my question, that is pure speculation on your part and WP:OR. You should also care about the difference between Pirate and Privateer, because that is the mark of a quality encyclopedia. A good editor should evaluate his sources and not simply mindlessly parrot what they say when they are incorrect. For example Spanish sources denounce Francis Drake as a pirate but he was not a pirate. Now I suggested a perfectly reasonable way of resolving this by suggesting that if you insist on including the pirate word we take a similar approach to what was done in the Francis Drake article.

I tagged your edit as {{dubious}} because your logic is incorrect and you've both chosen to tag team edit war it into the article. Your conduct is quite frankly ridiculous when a reasonable discussion could so easily resolve the matter. Now please stop removing tags until the dispute is resolved or I will seek admin intervention and really this is a WP:LAME dispute, editors of your experience should know better. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The dubious tag is used when the source is of dubious quality. Not when you don't like what it says. One of them is by Frank R. Stockton a man we have an article about and who's quality as a researcher has never been questioned. However I can add more refs if you like. And it is not OR to point out that Morgan's first letter of marque came years after he began sailing. But note I am not adding the term because of that. I am adding it because that is what the sources say. Colincbn (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And the dubious tag is also used when a claim made by a source doesn't stand up to scrutiny - like here. I don't doubt that the source may say so - I have assumed good faith on your part even if you have not reciprocated. Again I will make the point to you that people like Francis Drake are labelled pirates in sources but they were privateers. Again I make the point that whilst some sources do not make the distinction between the two, a quality encyclopedia should and does. And removing tags without the matter being resolved is disruptive. Please stop doing so.

So questions. A) Do you accept there is a distinction between privateer and pirate? B) Do you agree and its a yes/no answer that for all the incidents in this article Morgan was authorised by Letters of Marque? If you can actually give me a concrete sourced example of Morgan acting as a pirate, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But all it seems at this point is you parrot my sources says this and I'm not going to respond to your argument. Now could you actually respond to my comments please. I mean really, how difficult is it to actually engage someone on the talk page? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You have ignored the fact that he did not have letters for any of his attacks before 1665, you are claiming that all three sources don't stand up to scrutiny when in fact they do, I am not discussing Drake per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you ignore the fact that the Encyclopedia Britannica is a quality encyclopedia (from his own nation none the less) and refers to him as a pirate. So I have answered all of your points. In addition to this I put forth that all those points are moot because we are only here to report what the sources say, call it parroting if you will but that is WP Policy. Colincbn (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything, as the article acknowledges there is no reliable record of Morgan before 1665. Speculation that his activities were piratical is just that speculation. I have also looked at your sources, Frank R. Stockton was a children's author not a bona fide historian. The first source is a TV documentary, the last being a google books page. As I do not have access to either perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a quote from both to sustain your edit.

And the comments about Drake are more than pertinent to this discussion. Sources do use these terms inappropriately and it is a matter of editorial judgement to redress the balance.

I note that you have conspicuously failed to answer my points:

A) Do you accept there is a distinction between privateer and pirate?

B) Do you agree, and its a yes/no answer, that for all the incidents in this article Morgan was authorised by Letters of Marque?

I would be grateful if you would do me the courtesy of responding.

And you're wrong about policy, we do not simply parrot what sources say, as editors we use editorial judgement to evaluate sources. Equally your actions in removing tags whilst a dispute was not resolved is disruptive. Edit warring to remove them will earn you a block and you can consider this a warning that I will report this. Really do you want to be blocked for a WP:LAME dispute or can we discuss this in a mature manner. Please I prefer the latter. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A) Yes, and he was both.

B) No, he did not have letters for any cruise he took before 1665.

C) These points are irrelevant to the fact that we are here to report what reliable sources say, not to interpret those sources. WP:VERIFY. Colincbn (talk)

This is quite succinct and, I think, a very accurate description of the current situation. LHM 19:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

One more point to directly answer your request for an example from the article of an action he did not have orders for; In the article we find this:

Mansvelt was given orders to attack the Dutch settlement of Curaçao, but once the crew was out at sea it was decided that Curaçao was not lucrative enough for the impending danger associated with attacking it. With this in mind, a vote was taken and the crew decided that attacking a different settlement would be a safer and more lucrative alternative. Unhappy with this decision, many of the buccaneers deserted the expedition and headed back to port while others continued on with Admiral Mansvelt and Vice-Admiral Morgan to attack the Spanish island of Providence.

So their orders were to attack the Dutch but instead they attacked the Spanish, against their orders, i.e. Piracy. Colincbn (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you have a point there, I would agree that would constitute piracy. How difficult was that?

If I may make a few points before laying the matter to rest.

A) There is a clear distinction between Pirate and Privateer.

B) Although there is a distinction, many authors mix the two terms; even in otherwise reliable sources.

C) The source given by User:Lithistman concerned the sack of Panama. Panama was authorised by Letters of Marque and that was clearly an incorrect use of the term.

D) Where a term is applied incorrectly editorial judgement should be used.

Both of you escalated an otherwise WP:LAME dispute by tag team edit warring rather than discussing the matter. It could easily have been resolved by a mature discussion

BTW I would still be interested to see what David Cordingly said, if you would oblige please. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(A) I've made that distinction from the start.

(B) That was never an issue with the documentary I cited.

(C) No, it didn't. The source I cited simply supported the descriptor "pirate." It was a History International documentary.

(D) The term was never applied incorrectly. You just kept claiming that, first my source, and then Colin's many sources, were wrong somehow.

Finally, as regards escalation, you escalated things when you templated me, dragged Colin to ANI/3RR, slapped tags on the article when your view did not carry the day, and kept removing the word "pirate" (and all of the accompanying sources) without any justification other than your claim that they were "wrong." Uninvolved editors reading through this thread, combined with the edit history of the article, can clearly see who was involved in escalating the dispute. LHM 18:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure uninvolved editors who are sad enough to feel the need to wade through this WP:LAME dispute will be able to see who escalated this dispute and feel it a worthwhile endeavour. Just as sure as I am that its important for you to justify yourself with the last word. Do you feel better for getting the last word in? Fondest regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 18:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

^{Irony is ironic. LHM 18:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)}

Were you having the final word again? You'll find irony just before the end [1]. Ciao. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

^{I truly hope you see how humorous this is. LHM 19:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)}

Henry Morgan ship found.

Captain Morgan's Pirate Ship Found 06 Aug 2011

The cargo has yet to be opened, but funder Captain Morgan USA hopes it's rum.

http://news.discovery.com/history/captain-morgans-pirate-ship-found-110806.html Wloveral (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

English/British

Don't bother arguing with User:English_Bobby about his English/British BS. He'll forget about it in a few days and most people don't even realise there's a difference anyway, so having the article say "English" for a week won't do any great harm. No doubt he's already scavenging through biographical articles, looking for a new one to hijack. (Huey45 (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Possibly, for background reading see English Defence League. Justin talk 11:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I don't know what you mean. Maybe he's a member of that group, but they seem to be based around immigration; it doesn't explain the English/British issue. (Huey45 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Oh he admitted to being a supporter of that group, the issue is that I'm Scottish and a "unionist" and he is pro-English independence. Go figure that one. Justin talk 11:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Justin i am getting very tired of you trying to spread around that i am a member/supporter of the EDL seemingly to attack my contributions on wikipedia. When i said i support them i meant in the same way i would support UKIP, in that i like some their issues but wouldn't go out and join them. If you're going to spread lies about people then at least try to get them right kuntz. The EDL are part of a group that includes the Welsh Defence League and the Scottish Defence League are in no way, to my knowledge, connected to English nationalism. Anyhow you can keep spreading it if you like but sooner or later i will contact wikipedia about you since this is harassment. Also don't think i will go anywhere. What's really pathetic about what you're both doing is that the main change i made was something that you both were moaning about above to another user. If neither of you two can grasp the difference between English and British then thats your problem don't bother against other user's who can.--English Bobby (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:PETARD before running off to claim harassment when you've followed me to an article; given your frequent bad faith and uncivil comments. Don't complain about being called a supporter, when you say you're a supporter either. Justin talk 14:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol bad faith and uncivil comments you'd know all about them wouldn't you since it got you banned from certain articles for three months. Following you around too, seems you've been whining at other user's about that with little substance to back it up. Kettle, pot and black Justin. But to the issue, if every time you mention a user and then immediately mention their political views, based of one vague comment they made, then you are harassing them. So keep it up if you must and we will find out.--English Bobby (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I do know the difference between English and British. The correct word is still "British" though, since it was the British Empire. (Huey45 (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

Actually, in Morgan's time it wasn't the British Empire yet. The kingdoms of England and Scotland were separate, had different laws, different governmental systems, and two separate parliaments. They just happened to have the same king since James I. Not until the Acts of Union in 1707, after Morgan's death, were the kingdoms fused into a single "United Kingdom." Thus it appears to me that the article's use of the words "England" and "English" are correct.

Morgan himself was Welsh, of course, not English, but the article never says he was English, so that's OK. Pirate Dan (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct but there are shades of grey. The two crowns were united more than a century before the official union was imposed (by a Scottish king). Thus many historians lump this period into the British Empire. Wikipedia's policy is WP:V not truth. Justin talk 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Truth: Wales had, by Morgan's time, signed the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 and was fully under English Law. While the Welsh did run a Naval force at the time, it would have been under the direct control of the British military / Crown meaning that any commission (especially to Admiral) would have to be ratified by the British Navy. Furthermore, the term "Britain" was first used by King James in 1604 (see Britain#History) so the use of the term "British Navy" would be applicable. Henry Morgan was Welsh but he was also British and served the British crown. And the term "Welsh Admiral" sounds like a type of butterfly.Angry Mustelid (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Same guy as this Johan Morgan?

Johan Morgan

This portrait is from the book "The buccaneers of America" by Alexandre Exquemelin, who is mentioned at length in the article and apparently knew Henry Morgan personally. The resemblance with the engraving in the infobox is so strong that it almost seems like it was traced from this. The caption says that this Johan was born in Wales and lead the "roovers" (buccaneers?) in Jamaica.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Morgan

Major-General Sir Thomas Morgan (1st Baronet 1604-79)' etc...'

Why is he relevant to this article? The entire paragraph says nothing about a relationship to Henry Morgan. The thing about *a* Henry Morgan being an indentured servant also does not state that it is the subject of this article. If no one comes by to show relevance, I'm going to remove that paragraph. ScarletRibbons (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Curious about who wrote some passages in this article

Upon reading, one might well imagine that none other than M. Proust has arisen from his heretofore eternal slumber, and finding the condition of both contemporary literature as well as the clear statement of facts within Wikipedia well and sorely lacking, took it upon himself to write - in his truly singular style, of course - an enlightening, entertaining, and most importantly, utterly factual account of the adventures of the renowned (and reviled in some quarters) privateer and pirate, Henry Morgan, the very same Morgan in whose name so much good rum is brewed and enjoyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.254.170 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Henry Morgan reference in Henry_Morgan#Film_and_television section

I removed the reference to Forever's Dr. Henry Morgan for two reasons:

1.) More information about the past of Forever's Henry Morgan had been revealed since this edit. In the subsequent episodes of the series, the writers revealed that the character was the son of the owner of a shipping company and that the family had engaged in the slave trade. Forever's Henry Morgan boarded his father's trading ship to end the family's involvement in the slave trade and to free the slaves aboard the ship. That explained the presence of Forever's Henry Morgan on the ship.

2.) During a Twitter question-and-answer session, a fan asked Forever series creator and executive producer Matt Miller about the origin of the character's name. Miller responded that he just liked it. (I know that Twitter is not a reliable source, but the Twitter Q & A is the only place that I have seen any reference to the character's name.) SciGal (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)