Talk:Thomas Muir of Huntershill

Untitled
I think the term "revolutionary" is not strictly accurate when used to describe Thomas Muir of Huntershill. Revolution was not his intention. Political reform was. Some might comment that this is splitting hairs, but he never advocated revolution. Thomas Muir (no relation) Vatos 16.02.2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.214.107 (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2005 (UTC)

Vancouver Island
Landing him on Vancouver Island, around 1796, seems a very odd thing to do. It was then inhabited only by Native Americans, and was not to be "colonised" for another 50 years. This page gives his landing-place not as Vancouver Island but as California, which looks much more plausible. Maproom (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This has now been explained. Maproom (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Only just stumbled upon this page--never heard of the guy either. But for a merchant ship based out of Boston with the tell-tale name Otter to first anchor on the Northwest Coast in Nootka Sound in 1796 was practically standard procedure. See maritime fur trade for more on the trade. The Pacific was rapidly becoming less "largely uncharted" by 1796, and cross-ocean traffic was booming--although Australia was still rather peripheral. For a Boston maritime fur trading ship to sail to Australia first, then to the Northwest Coast is surprising. Must have been some kind of payback to offset the cost, I would think. Plus, arriving at Nootka in June was rather late in the trading season--quite a financial risk. Also, interesting early non-British visit to Port Jackson--just a few years after Alessandro Malaspina visited. History is such a tangled web. I like it when something I know about intersects with something I know nothing about. Pfly (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I stumbled upon Muir by chance in Tablet of the Times (Bennington, Vermont) Vol. I, Issue 7 (Thursday, Feb 16, 1797), where it says "Thomas Muir... has effected his escape from the place of his banishment to Nootka Sound, from whence he travelled over land through Mexico, and crossed to the eastern side of the Gulph, and thence to the Havannah, where he was taken up by the government there, and put in confinement as a British subject." Whether correct or not, this is the news as received at the time, though I would agree that Otter is a strong indication in favor of the story. Libaki (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

copyvio
About 26 May 2009 this article took a size jump from about 4k to over 40k. Most of the content was copied from here. I'll be filing a copyvio notice directly. Brad (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * THanks you ae correct. I have restored the article to the version immediately prior to the copyvio. It can be rebuilt from there.--Scott Mac 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have handled a ticket on OTRS confirming the release of material relating to Thomas Muir on that website. Anyone who wishes to readd the previously removed info is free to do so. Regards, MacMedtalk stalk 03:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

copyvio
not sure why its a copy vio. Michael Donnelly has give permission to use his research/article. dumgoyne Dumgoyne (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC

Wrong
Muir's fate following Sydney seems to be quite wrong. According to The Fatal Shore, the Otter was a trade ship that agreed to help him escape, not a "rescue" vessel; he voluntarily transferred to a spanish ship in Alaskan waters because they heard there was a British vessel in the area; he travelled overland from Monterey to the Caribbean; he went to Cuba hoping to find passage to the USA, but war broke out with Spain and he was arrested; he was sent back to spain as a prisoner but was captured by a British vessel, but was so badly mutilated from the battle that they didn't recognise him; he then escaped to paris with the help of friends. 60.241.84.118 (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

article restored
Michael Donnelly has generously given permission to use his article Dumgoyne (talk) 23;13 july 2012 — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

He got married at the age of minus one
See "In this business venture he achieved considerable success and by the time of his marriage in 1764 he was firmly established as a hop-merchant ..." in "Early Years" section.

It should read: "By the time he got married in 1764, he was already established as a hop-merchant. In the year following he achieved considerable success and was born ..." ? Georgeblake (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The image is not of Thomas Muir
The painting is of Pie O My from the HBO Series The Sopranos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.79.35.18 (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)