Talk:Francis Drake/Archive 2

Infobox
I have a reference for the Slave trading paragraph in the "Controversies" section. How can I add it? - tllehman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tllehman (talk • contribs) 08:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (Hopefully) everyone who edits this article knows that Francis Drake was a famous privateer. So instead of the biography infobox which had only had when and where he was born and when and where he died I changed it to the Infobox Pirate. This infobox included his nickname, rank, commands, and battles. I also added the Pirates template where he is the first name under Famous Pirates and Privateers. This was reverted as "wrong infobox" by 156.34.219.175. So I was wondering what everyone else thinks since. My opinion is that the Pirates template needs to be there since he is a notable Privateer and also the Pirate infobox is more accurate then a biography infobox. Thoughts? ♣ Deflagro ♠ 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was readded by Wikiproject Piracy. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 03:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We may look forward to an "Infobox Slaveholder", to appear at the head of the article George Washington, then? What an intrusive waste of space.--Wetman 20:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you think that since the article focuses on his circumnavagating the world and his privateering career. Or do you just think that infoboxes in the first place are "an intrusive waste of space"? I don't really understand you thinking there.  Def lag ro   C/T 23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree it's not suitable. One box is at least enough. Drake was many things besides a privateer. Intrusive templates like this should be horizontal at the end of an article. Johnbod 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or simply presented in the form of a category: the user who actually wants a list of pirates, just clicks on the category, instead of a big box listing pirates that appears on every page. Making disinfoboxes is a hobby only peripherally connected with the reader service that is Wikipedia. This one is a particularly self-indulgent example. I've reproduced it so we can see what we're discussing. --Wetman 23:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)--Wetman 23:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ohhhh. Okay. I thought you were talking about the other infobox, because that's what the first post in this section was talking about, an IP had changed the main infobox to a different type. I will work on changing that to horizontal over the next couple of days. Thanks for your thoughts!   Def lag ro   C/T 00:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnbod 00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Spanish edition claims that Drake was killed in action during his last disasterous expedition against the Spanish Main off of Panama, while English language texts, Wiki's included, claimed he died of dysentry during his last voyage. Who's is version is the correct one? --Charles A 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

Spanish version is the correct. You search "Méndez de Cancio" or "Gonzalo Méndez de Cancio y Donlebún". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.85.120 (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination quick-failed
I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed it at this time. The article has several "citation needed" tags and the rest of the article requires more sourcing as some sections do not have any citations at all. Once you have addressed the sourcing issues and have looked over the rest of the GA criteria, consider renominating the article again. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Flaws
The article in it's present form contains several factual mistakes: It was Drake's cousin, John Drake, who fell into the hands of the Spaniards- in 1582; he spend the remainder of his life in Spanish captivity (possibly up to 1650). (It had been him who spotted the "Cacafuego" and earned the reward offered by Drake to the first lookout to spot her) The ship which returned to England via the Magellan Straits was the "Elisabeth" under the command of John Winter; Thomas Doughty can hardly have been in charge of the ship, since Drake had him executed for treason before the ships sailed into the Straits, at Puerto San Julian. ( Source : John Sugden, “Sir Francis Drake” , Touchstone – Book , published Simon + Schuster,ISBN 0 – 671 – 75863 – 2)          86.41.251.1 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

While reading the "Birth and Early Years" section, I noticed that at the beginning sir Francis Drake is the "eldest of five known children", while later towards the end of the third paragraph in the same section it is mentioned that "Francis was the eldest of 12 children". I have no clue on what is actually correct (five or twelve children), but one way or another this should be somehow straightened out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.251.85.55 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked and I see what you are talking about. I guess it would be reasonable to say that he was the eldest of five since that one is cited to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Since the other one is not cited and it doesn't even really fit into that paragraph (it's at the end of a passage talking about uncertanty of his age), does anyone object to removing it?  Def lag ro   C/T 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Locked?
I see no "Edit this page" tab. Neither do I see an explanation for why it is locked. I can contribute a citation that is noted as missing. Please let me know whether and how I can contribute; thanks. --Deangup 15:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It was semi-protected a few days ago because of repeated vandalism. Since you are a new user, you can't edit a semi-protected page until you have been here for a little bit. For more information review the protection policy. If you want you can post the citation here or on my talk page and I'd be glad to add it in for you!  Def lag ro   C/T 21:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bowling myth
Here is a revision that I would like to post. Since I am a new user and the page is locked, I am placing it here. I would strike the "high point" remark because it has nothing to do with this incident. It might be moved to a more appropriate place. For that matter, moving the bowling myth to the start of the battle would put it in proper sequence.

Strike: delete

Bold; add

The most famous (but probably apocryphal) anecdote about Drake relates that, prior to the battle, he was playing a game of bowls on Plymouth Hoe. On being warned of the approach of the Spanish fleet, Drake is said to have remarked that there was plenty of time to finish the game and still beat the Spaniards. This battle was the high point of the remarkable mariner's career. In fact, There is no known eyewitness account of this incident; the earliest retelling of it was printed 37 years later.(1)   tidal conditions Adverse winds and currents caused some delay in the launching of the English fleet as the Spanish drew nearer(2) so it is easy to see how a popular myth of Drake's cavalier attitude to the Spanish threat may have originated.

1. Harry Kelsey, Sir Francis Drake; The Queen's Pirate, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1998, ISBN 0-300-07182-5

2. Same.

Deangup 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added those in. Also when adding a new section to the talk page, click the + by Edit This Page because new posts are supposed to be at the bottom and that button will automatically add a new one.  Def lag ro   C/T 20:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

La Coruña ¿sacked?
''He sacked the city of La Coruña..." ¿Are you sure? Hispa 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, I signed unlogged)
 * I changed the statement from saying he failed to he sacked it. I also added a reference to the Encyclopedia Precise about A Coruña.  Def lag ro   C/T 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, sorry my poor english.

I'm afraid Britannica is not as precise in this point as it should be. Anyway, if you change this data, you should change also Anglo–Spanish War (1585), where it's explained that Drake's incursion to La Coruña and Lisbon wasn't as success as you say. I'm not going to change the article again, but I want to offer some referencias that could take some light about this issue:
 * Museo Naval de Madrid
 * ''También fracasaría la respuesta inglesa sobre La Coruña y Lisboa a cargo de Drake y Norris (1589)

''
 * The Beginning of the End: The Drake-Norris Expedition, 1589
 * As the destruction of the ships was a principal objective of the expedition, Drake attacked La Coruña and sank a few ships there. But the delays he encountered made it impracticable for him to proceed to Santander, where most of the Armada survivors had been taken, and he then went on to Lisbon, his next objective. (Nothing about a "sack". I must remember that these "delays" consisted in about 12000 english marines dead below La Coruña Walls; more than all the Spanish losses in his armada, and enough to become the expedition in a partial failure)

It's true that the English army took "La pescadería" during some days, it was part of the city of La Coruña, but out of the walls, and at a high cost.

Again sorry my english. Hispa 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * After looking at several books using Google Books I found that most of them talked about him destroying the ships/stores there but not sacking the town. Is that what you are talking about? I think you are right when saying that the reference I added in wasn't as correct as I originally thought.  Def lag ro   C/T 19:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for your considerate advice in my talk page. Now, I'd like to call your attention about This Spanish wikipedia article. It's about a woman who became famous for her opposition to Drake's invassion of La Coruña. She's a "national heroine" in Spain, and she worth a royal maintenance for life for her bravery in the battle. I'm not able to translate it to English, but I think it's a necessary article that could contribute to understand this historic fact.

Thanks! Hispa 19:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, what I posted in your talk page was just a notice that I replied. So is what I posted what you were talking about? That he sanked ships and destroyed their supplies, but did not destroy the city?  Def lag ro   C/T 23:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, not only that Drake did not destroy the city, but also that he never crossed their walls. It can difficulty be named a sack. Hispa 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Drake's Cadiz adventure
This episode is skimped in this article. It would be well to expand it. --Wetman (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did he ever go there besides "singing the King's beard" in 1587? I looked and what is in the article is all I could find.  Def lag ro   C/T 22:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a text that provides some detail of the raid of 1587. A notorious episode, skimped, I'd say, in the Wikipedia article. --Wetman (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at that earlier and didn't see that much that we could add. After rereading it, something I thought was a differen't think appears to actually be the Cadiz raid. I will add this stuff in over the next few days, or you can if you want to. Thanks!  Def lag ro   C/T 04:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How does that look? I added in information from that page and a quote from King Philip II.  Def lag ro   C/T 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nova Albion: Colony?
Hey about that citation needed tag. I've looked and could not find anywhere mentioning he left men as a colony. It would be a very illogical thing for him to do because he would've needed all his men onboard and working on the ship. Since it doesn't make much sense and there are no sources, any objections to taking it out? (By the way I did not tag it as needing a citation, someone else did).  Def lag ro  C/T 20:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In passing, I just saw your note and quickly checked the ODNB. It says this: "Drake had his ship repaired by July or August 1579, when he abandoned the captured bark and perhaps a dozen of his men and set sail across the Pacific in the Pelican." So although ODNB doesn't reference individual statements, there's clearly some evidence that he left men there. —S MALL  JIM   11:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then, can you add an inline citation for it? If you are not sure how too I would be happy to show you how or do it myself. Thanks for checking!  Def lag ro   C/T 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I don't think that such a passing mention as that in the ODNB would be a good reference for an evidently disputed statement. If a better reference can't be found (maybe Bawlf, the source cited lower down?) I think you should remove the text as you originally planned. —S MALL  JIM   09:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't have Bawlf's book so I can't help there. Any objections to taking out the statement?  Def lag ro   C/T 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections I guess I will go ahead and take out the statement.  Def lag ro   C/T 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Relative question =P
My grandmother claims that I am related to SFD on her side (mother's) and my grandpa claims that I am related to Queen Elizabeth I on his side (father's). The two were supposed to be really good friends. Does anyone know of a website where I can research my family tree and find out if my parent's ancestors really met? I'm also supposed to belong to the Scotch-Irish royal family as well, because my last name is Ferguson. Can anyone help me with either claim??? Snick&#39;s Friend (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Drake was a cool guy when he was alive.Hey,drake guess what we are learning about you.It is so fun learning about you.

Thank you for everyting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.25.28 (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vital Articles list
I have proposed re-adding Francis Drake to the list of "Vital Articles", the deabte can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles. DuncanHill (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Monetary Conversion
I'm not sure about what the propper conversion rate of ducats to US dollars is, but two very different values are given in the article. In the second paragraph 20,000 Ducats is roughly equal to $10 million, but down in "Entering the Pacifc" 37,000 Ducats are only $4 million. Which is correct? Skolor (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, in "Entering the Pacific", the value is given as "4 million" - no currency specified. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked the first one and the reference says that 20,000 ducats were offered, but it does not say how much of modern money that is.  Def lag ro   C/T 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the ducat article says a gold ducat is roughly $2. So then both would be wrong....  Def lag ro  C/T 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Too cheap, i think. Nowadays 0.11 troy ounce of gold (i.e. a Spanish ducat) costs about $100 US. According to Measuring Worth, gold cost ~£3 an ounce in times of Drake. The inflation rate in UK since 1580 is 1.25%. Applying the Compound Interest formulae the ounce may cost £603.67 and the ducat £66.40 or ~$130 US.


 * "37,000 Ducats are only $4 million" sounds right to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.179.72 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By that math, 37,000 ducats are around $4,810,000. So still $4 million is incorrect becsuse it is a lot more than that. And also 20,000 would be around $2,600,000. I might troll through the history a bit tomorrow to find who originally add it and try to contact them. It's been somewhere between 1000 and 1500 edits since then.  Def lag ro   C/T 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take into account i don't know if Measuring Worth speaks on "modern" ounces (~28.35 grams), on troy ounces (~31.10 grams) or on ounces in those times. I am interested in order of magnitude: around $100-$200 US rather $2 US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.179.72 (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The ducat figure in the intro paragraph was added by 70.88.228.205 on May 11, 2007. So I think contacting them wouldn't help. I'm going to leave a message at the Reference Desk to see if anyone can help us. Also 87.220.179.72, please add four tildes ( ~ ) after your message to sign your name. Please consider creating an account (sign up). It seems you've got a lot to offer. Accounts are free and then you won't have to be identified by your IP address. Thanks!  Def lag ro   C/T 00:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked at the help desk and this is the response I got.  Def lag ro  C/T 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Over at the Francis Drake article we've run into a problem. At one point in the article it says "King Philip II was claimed to have offered a reward of 20,000 ducats (about $10 million by 2007 standards) for his life." but then later it says "37,000 ducats of Spanish money (almost 4 million by modern standards)." This was recently noticed and a what tag was placed. It's been talked about a little on the talk page, but we can't find how much a ducat is compared to modern US money. The first event with King Philip II offering it was in 1582. Not sure the exact date of the second mention but it is ca. 1589. Thanks for the help!  Def lag ro  C/T


 * Currency calculations over such a timescale are going to involve lots of handwaving, but you can compare the price of gold. Our ducat article says a ducat was 0.1107  troy ounces, so 20,000 ducats would be 2214 troy ounces. Gold seems to sell for around 900 USD per troy ounce, so that's about $2M.  Of course currencies haven't been tied to the price of gold, and the relative costs of everything have risen or fallen so much over half a millenium that quoting a modern currency figure is of questionable value. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just on a worldwide-view point: unqualified usages of "$" to represent US dollars in articles about non-US subjects is questionable. It makes more sense to convert this sum to Euros or, given the nationality of Drake, pounds. If the USD is to be used on the grounds of international standard of conversion, it should at least be labelled "US$". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay and then for the second instance, 37,000 ducats is 4095.9 troy ounces. Multiply that by 900 USD is $3,686,310. So it would be better to say 3.5 million USD. I'm going to make those changes. Thanks everyone!  Def lag ro  C/T 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Im american but i think that pounds would be better to use here, as for the current monetary equivalents, i dont know their accuracy but i will convert the ones that are there to pounds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylant07 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Slave Trade
What is the purpose of the sentence: "Drake's role in laying the technical, legal and political foundations for the slave trade cannot be overlooked."?

Primarily the phrase "cannot be overlooked."

Is it to make sure that the reader forms the proper opinion of Drake? Is it to inform the reader that they "cannot...overlook" this fact? Is seems very much like a moral judgement of Drake, just as if the contributor had written "and that is why we must think of him as a wonderful guy."

Is this common practice in the Wikipedia? Jsminch (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jsminch...if we are to condemn every person on what happened hundreds of years ago, then I suspect a lot of edits are about to be made to a lot of listings. I'm quite sure no one has any doubt of the wrongness of slavery, and I would hope that we don't need to "educate" every random person who visits this site as to the immorality of enslaving another person...it's possible that territory was already covered in said visitors' education and moral upbringing, which is not our purpose here to undertake. Hitcharide (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)hitcharide

Death
Wikipedia's Spanish edition claims that Drake was killed in action during his last disasterous expedition against the Spanish Main off of Panama, while English language texts, Wiki's included, claimed he died of dysentry during his last voyage. Who's is version is the correct one? --Charles A 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)


 * I looked at the Spanish Wikipedia and it says "The British tend to say he died of dysentery, but it has been confirmed that it is an incorrect assumption." (Los ingleses suelen decir que murió de disentería, pero ha sido confirmado que es una hipótesis incorrecta.) Or at least, that is how Google translated it for me. It doesn't provide a reference for this so it would be better to say that he died of dysentery as that is referenced.  Def lag ro   C/T 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article contradicts itself on the topic of his death. "He died of dysentery after unsuccessfully attacking San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1595." and "In 1596, he died of dysentery, at age 56 while anchored off the coast of Puerto Bello, Panama where some Spanish treasure ships had sought shelter." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.128.4 (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's another contradiction. The lead para says he died on 27 January 1595.  I've also seen his date of death as 28 January 1596.  We really need to establish once and for all:
 * whether he died in 1595 or 1596
 * whether it was 27 January or 28 January, and
 * whether the date was from the Old Style (Julian) or New Style (Gregorian) calendar. He may have been English, but he died in Spanish territory, which had started using the Gregorian calendar in 1582.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing I've noticed is that Drake was with his second cousin John Hawkins. Both fell ill and died off Puerto Rico.  Hawkins died on 12 November 1595.  It seems much more likely that Drake in January 1596, a little over 2 months later, rather than in January 1595, ten months earlier.  That's assuming we have the date of Hawkins' death correct.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Marriage?
Did Drake ever marry I never seen any reference to a wife in any thing I habe read about him? Penrithguy (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He was married twice; his first wife was called Mary (Maiden name unknown), his second wife was Elisabeth Sydenham. See John Sugden- 'Sir Francis Drake'.86.41.216.238 (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

John Drake
The article mentions John Drake, who was captured by the Spanish, and ended up spending the remainder of his life in captivity. While Drake also had a brother called John (who died during the raid on Panama in 1573, trying to capture a Spanish vessel by going alongside it in an open launch, while being armed with a broken-off rapier and clutching a pillow for a shield), this particular John Drake was Francis' younger cousin, who joined him at the age of about thirteen some time after his return from Panama. (Source- John Sugden, 'Sir Francis Drake') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.216.238 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia in the Cultural Impact section
The section or most of it is non-encyclopedic and has little or nothing to do with the biography. IMO it reduces the credibility of the article, and thus the encyclopedia. Before being bold and cleaning up I think a discussion here is indicated. -- Alexf42 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'm not fond of the trivia lists that tend to accrue like cultural barnacles, anyway. In this case, the first (which needs a cite) and possibly third paragraphs are of some interest. But do cut away at any and all. JNW (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for some opinions for a couple of days then hack away. I am meaning to do this in other historical articles too. It's getting out of hand. -- Alexf42 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Alexf42 01:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Final Years.
Someone clever has inserted a little ditty in the Final Years section that doesn't seem to contribute much to the article. Shutupwinking (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed it. Alexius  Horatius 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Far East and the Pope at Rome
At the end of the paragraph "A most consequential action", the Far East is referred to as "a concession which had been awarded to the Portuguese by the Pope at Rome." Should the "Pope at Rome" not be replaced by "the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 and by the Treaty of Zaragoza in 1529"? --AHert (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Admiral Drake knighted by Queen Elizabeth' (Sir Francis Drake) from NPG.jpg
Recently the file File:Admiral Drake knighted by Queen Elizabeth' (Sir Francis Drake) from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. I realize that Drake was not actually knighted by the Queen, but it's interesting how it reflects the beliefs of the time of its creation. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)