Talk:William Kidd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

comments[edit]

The dates I used were from The Pirate Hunter which is already cited in the article and is a biography on Kidd.--Drake44444 08:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, someone needs to remove some of those unneeded internal links, per MoS. I'd do it myself but at the moment I have no time. --Every1blowz 07:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drake44444, please cite your sources in the references section, otherwise there is no way for people to verify the dates you've entered. The dates I used in the article are all from the book Pirates of the Spanish Main, but if you have reason to believe that this book is inaccurate and your sources are better then please cite them. Thanks. --Every1blowz 07:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so full of inaccuracies it is unbelievable. Kidd should not be classified entirely as a pirate, and the circumstances of his pirate hunting voyage are wrong. There are also problems with dates, that I have tried to correct, and chronology. I will be working to improve this article more shortly. --Drake44444 20:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Should Kidd be described as a pirate? I was under impression that his role as a pirate in actual history (not legend) was a matter of dispute.

No, you're right. Kidd wasn't a pirate; he was merely an inept pirate-catcher. He was wealthy, so there would have been no reason for him to turn to piracy. Though it's true he was hanged as a pirate, in point of fact he was framed. The trial was a travesty. The evidence needed to clear him was concealed by the prosecution, and found after his death. Today it can be viewed in the London Hall of Public records.

-c.neron

Birthplace[edit]

OK, I don't have any book in front of me, but I am going to question the change from Dundee to Greenock as his birthplace. Can somebody get a 'final' answer? I see references to both in Google, main reference for Dundee is here. -- RevRagnarok 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Official Website of Greenock. Captain Kidd was born here, Dundee is shit.

It would explain why he left


The Greenock website actually states "..is reputed to have been born in Greenock around 1645. Although there are no local records confirming this fact, it is stated in the 'Newgate Calendar...".
The Newgate Calendar (which is well known to include many embellishments - typically how the man repents all his sins etc before being hanged (see Last Words below), being based on earlier broadsheets and handouts that were distributed at fairs etc.) is also used by other biographers citated by this article, none of whom seem to have checked primary sources.
An article in the May 2008 Family Tree Magazine states "In October 1695 Kidd appeared as a witness before the HCA (High Courts of the Admiralty) in London and stated that he was aged 41, born in Dundee, a shipmaster who had lived in New York for seven years. A check through the baptismal records soon confirmed his claim that he had been born in Dundee during 1645 and revealed that his father, John, was a local seaman...". The article also states that no records are listed in Fastii Ecclesiae Scoticanae of anyone called Kidd being a minister anywhere in Scotland at the time, which would seem to disprove the claims about his father.
I have not checked the HCA records for Kidd myself yet, but have added links to this article to some HCA images at the National Archives and I will check the next time I am there. (I have beem researching Admiralty/Coastguard Records for several years in connection with family history). Ray3055 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Death and Age template, but I have no idea whether the changed birth and death dates are correct. I see webpages listing either 1645 or 1654 for birth. Perhaps someone with a good reference could cite it. This page refers to the May 23rd death date: [2] Smallpond (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace 2021[edit]

It's been 10 years since the last talk about his birthplace and new information has come to light. Specifically, the source article currently cited in the article now claims Kidd's birthplace as Dundee.

Further, a convincing case for the Dundee birth has been made by the fine folks at PardonCaptainKidd.com, using original source documents including a sword statement from Kidd himself. I'm going to edit the article accordingly. --Kennethsime (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace 2022[edit]

Unregistered Wikipedia users seemed to have edited Kennethsime's changes. There are new multiple sources which suggest it is the case that he was born in Dundee, Scotland including a letter from him which stated he was from the city. There is also a visitor attraction in Dundee, Discovery Point which has factual information on Kidd which confirms he was born in Dundee. I have added the references in the article. As mentioned, there have only been changes from Dundee to Greenock from unregistered Wikipedia users who cited no sources to suggest it was the case. If there is any disputes around this, please do continue the discussion in this topic. --KeyKing666 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last Words[edit]

hey does anybody know what Captain Kidd's LAST WORDS were??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.83.79 (talk • contribs)

"Fuck Paisley" if I remember correctly.

"My name was Captain Kidd, when I sail'd, when I sail'd, And so wickedly I did, God's laws I did forbid, When I sail'd, when I sail'd. I roam'd from sound to sound, And many a ship I found, And then I sunk or burn'd, When I sail'd. I murder'd William Moore, And laid him in his gore, Not many leagues from shore, When I sail'd. Farewell to young and old, All jolly seamen bold, You're welcome to my gold, For I must die, I must die. Farewell to Lunnon town, The pretty girls all round, No pardon can be found, and I must die, I must die, Farewell, for I must die. Then to eternity, in hideous misery, I must lie, I must lie." It was what i found for his last words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.178.86 (talk • contribs)


Acooring to Zacks' book, Capt. Kidd didn't say anything as last words

Captain Kidd Treasure Reference[edit]

The Pirate Hunter

The Pirate Hunter

Hampton Star --MichaelGray 13:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the references in the main article, not the talk page. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Pirate[edit]

We currently have this sentence in the first paragraph: It is more likely that Kidd earned his reputation through circumstance and did not consider himself to even be a pirate. Is this a settled matter? I believe this is a controversial subject, and I'm not sure we need take a stand on the issue. (BTW, I agree that the evidence is compelling in this case, I just don't think we should portray it as a settled issue.) Does anyone have a reason this should stay? Levi P. 04:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph includes the sentence, "He achieved perhaps more fame in song, story, and legend than any other pirate to sail the seven seas." As per the link provided in the paragraph itself, "the seven seas" are essentially notional, and the phrase in this context is rather fanciful, provides no real information, and wouldn't qualify as encyclopedic. I think it should be changed, but am reluctant to do so without input from other people because "seven seas" is kind of a fun article and it seems like maybe it should be linked from somewhere in the Captain Kidd article. Woodstein52 04:24, 4 Sept 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. "The seven seas" has no place here. It is now 2014— apparently someone figured this out. KDS4444Talk 08:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism[edit]

Why is it that this page attracts so much vandalism? It gets removed right away by ever vigilant Wikipedians, but this page attracts more vandalism than any other page on my watch list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbutler (talk • contribs)

Dunno, but it is a moderate vandalism on my watch list as far as I can tell... maybe because "pirates is dope." ;) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy[edit]

Why was he found guilty of 5 counts of piracy?Never was it mentioned that he had actaully been a pirate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.178.86 (talk • contribs)

French ship[edit]

What does it actaully mean when they said he won a french ship?Was he in some privateer vessel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.178.86 (talk • contribs)

Dates do not line up properly[edit]

The article describes Kidd as being appointed by Richard Coote in 1691, to carry out some privateering attacks, and refers to Coote as being then-governor of Massachusetts, New York, and New Hampshire. Coote didn't receive that appointment until 1697 and did not arrive in New York until 1698. -- william turner, independent scholar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.136.203 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ordering of sentences illogical[edit]

If I read the "Early life" part, I learn that when he was 5, his father died, he met three governors and captured a privateer. And being 6, he was stolen his ship in Antigua. I can imagine that he was very young, but not that much! Particularly considering the fact that he appears then to have done nothing noticeable in 44 years... -Bilbo pingouin- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilbo pingouin (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have changed it to show that all this activity occurred much later, after he moved to New York. Pirate Dan 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we seem to left with a hole. Kidd's father dies when he is five and/so he moves to New York? Quite an accomplishment for a five year old. Did his remaining family move? Something doesn't seem right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.181.224 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quedagh Merchant found[edit]

Researches from Indinana University made the announcement today [[3]]. To busy to add it to the article, I'll leave that up to you guys. Ulises (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kidd's Grave[edit]

Does anyone know what happened to Kidd's remains after it was gibbetted? Is there a grave of him today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.99.80 (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Citations?[edit]

Why does this article have "This article needs additional citations for verification."? What are those links, references and notes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.84.137.165 (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. This article reads more like a kid's (no pun intended) drama novel than a NPOV, scholarly article. Apart from a general insufficency of citations to REAL bases for fact (too many are to wannabe encyclopedias and vanity websites) we "can all do without" such dramatic (uninformative) phrases like he "weighed anchor and set a course for" - one expects that any vessel weighed anchor before setting a course (duh) and we don't care that he "set a course" but rather care where he actually traveled; the article ought simply state that "he sailed to....". Sorker (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems a bit revisionist[edit]

Any serious historical reading of Kidd will suggest that Kidd, though not the typical low-class "pirate," was very much interested in money. The claim that Kidd was forced by his crew to ransom the Quedagh Merchant is not credible. I recommend a rewrite based on Robert Ritchie's book, "Captain Kidd and the War Against the Pirates" (1986).Ryoung122 10:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--

Your comment leaves me wondering "Who isn't interested in money? Does an interest in money make one a pirate?"

IMHO, a rewrite shouldn't be based on a single book. One might be enlightened by others.

Page needs protection from persisent vandalism[edit]

I suggest that if this article is to remain, it should be protected. There are thousands of page viewers, many revisions, and persistent vandalism.

I myself have just corrected a piece of vandalism that occurred on 16 November 2008. I noticed it simply by paying attention to the references, and finding a handful of notes, with no reference. My immediate assumption was that the references had been deleted either accidentally or deliberately.

It didn't take long to find a version with the references in. View the revision history by list of 500, and just pick an early version. Anyone who pays attention to references could have done that bit. I then went the extra step and pinned down the change to blatant vandalism by 65.2.121.203. That took a bit more effort, although the process was simple enough. Go forward by a few months to a version where the refs are missing, then back to a period where they're present. Keep narrowing the gap, and the date is found. Not everyone would want to be bothered with that, and fair enough.

The real pity is that of the thousands of visitors, and lesser number of revisionists, either no one noticed the missing refs, or no one seems to have cared to check whether they previously existed and reinstate them. I'm writing here of course to the wrong audience. The viewers of this discussion page are measured in single digits, so it's likely only to be noticed by the few who do care. And of course those who do care don't have infinite time and energy (or if they do, I'd like a bottle of it please).

The point is, there appear to be a handful of constructive contributors, and a number of anonymous vandals. So it's no wonder that the missing sections got lost in the clutter - with the caveat that of thousands of readers, someone should have noticed three footnotes without references. But these things happen, and not just in this article. I've even stumbled on the occasional article where the evidence points to an editor plagiarising one or two pieces of work, and hiding behind the assumed obscurity of foreign language citations on the assumption no one will check them out, or if they do, they'll be bluffed by the language barrier and forget to use basic logic. I guess that's easy to do in Wikipedia, although I'd like to think it's getting more difficult.

The bottom line is, how about getting this page protected. There is ample material to substantiate it, including my own very belated detection of material lost in the clutter. The vandals appear mostly to be I.P. address users, some transient at that. For example, 65.2.121.203, whose sole foray into Wikipedia was the vandalism of this article on 16 November 2008, although clearly the person could be stuffing things up via other avenues. So why not just get the page protected, and narrow down the range of potential vandals.

By the way, I don't include in my definition of vandal those editors who simply take issue with each other oveer interpretations etc, even if it escalates to edit-warring etc. No, blatant vandalism of the narrowly defined kind I've detected and which I refer to, cannot possibly be mistaken for anything else. Blatantly blanking out sections, or writing sheer, unadulterated crap in place of text, is impossible to miss. This article appears doomed to that sort of thing as long as it exists.

So I suggest protect the page and be done with it. Editors can then narrow down efforts to more genuine issues. And even if that does include differences of interpretation or opinion etc, that's not vandalism. It's business. Wotnow (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow[reply]

There is a procedure for protecting or semi-protecting pages, but having had a quick look at the page history, the level of vandalism is nowhere near that which would justify semi-protection, you would have to be looking at a large number of edits over a few days. Also protection tends to be for short periods, a few days or a few weeks, except in drastic cases. PatGallacher (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I thought I'd put my thoughts out there, but they don't have to be right. And it's always good to know that a problem is not as bad as one thought it was. In those situations, it's a pleasure to be wrong. Wotnow (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow[reply]

Bad Text and Bad Cite re commission from "New York, Massachusetts"[edit]

The article states " During the War of the Grand Alliance, on orders from the province of New York, Massachusetts, Kidd captured an enemy privateer, which duty he was commissioned to perform[4] off of the New England coast." Because there is no "Province", or even a Colony, of "New York, Massachusetts", I went to the citation to clarify the facts. The citation (A) does not support the Wikipedia text and (B) is to a sloppy, unscholarly, unfootnoted, wannabe online "encyclopedia" that is not not a proper or sufficient source of citations for Wikipedia (else we have the blind leading the blind). I must suggest that the sentence be deleted or, if anyone knows a GOOD citation to TRUE facts, let's get it right.Sorker (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Just noticed, loads of citation needed subtexts so can someone cite them! Shaun (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

haunts of rovers[edit]

what does haunts of rovers mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.225.74 (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrick van der Heul[edit]

The reference to van der Heul as the highest ranking black pirate on record would seem to be inaccurate, if Wikipedia's own article on Black Caesar is to be believed. 82.32.160.97 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William Kidd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarised content[edit]

I have been looking for the source or sources of the plagiarised content and speculative sentences that constitute the largest part of this article (lede and Biography, at least).

Here, I will list the sources that I have checked that do NOT appear to be the source for any large block of the content appearing. Of particular concern are the ambiguous but generally far-reaching conclusions appearing in the weasel word-containing lede and opening to the Biography section. Note, the goal is to verify the content appearing, not to place longstanding tags. Sentence by sentence, as I and others verify content, the inline tags will be removed (and when the issues are substantially resolved, the section and article tags can be removed as well).

Sources checked:

  • 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article. Will yield some inline citations, but the material was not appropriated in bulk.
  • Self-published 2002 Captain William Kid website. In process of reviewing.

Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on William Kidd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Birth[edit]

This article give 1654, but most other sources give 1645. Is this just a transposition typo? Thisdaytrivia (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Kidd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date conflict[edit]

The intro gives his birth as c. 1655, while the infobox says 22 January 1645. Can these be reconciled? Assambrew (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New book about Sarah Kidd[edit]

Daphne Palmer Geanacopoulos has just published the first-ever book-length biography of Sarah Kidd, entitled The Pirate's Wife: The Remarkable True Story of Sarah Kidd. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William Kidd (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Kidd&oldid=1194475407"