Talk:Endurance (1912 ship)

Untitled

Wasn't this dude originally a stowaway, who Shackleton decided to put to work rather than turn around and put off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.105.38 (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

George Marston

I tried to put [[ ]] round the name on other page in order to create a new page.

I was going to put this external link into it....

http://www.enduranceobituaries.co.uk/marston.htm

[I grew up in East Lyng and his grave is in churchyard there, and was endless fascination for us as children! Why on earth was he there?! Anyway - the above link explains]

When I clicked on what I thought would be a new page for "George Marston" i was directed to a page for another person of same name.

I've no idea how to unpick all this, but no doubt someone else has skills to achieve this!

Good luck!

carena (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

William (Bakewell or Blakewell)?

Under 'Crew', the list contained a William Bakewell, while the description beneath it regarding Blackborrow addressed an aid from William Blakewell. Please identify the true name and change it, thanks. 175.142.49.235 (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Modern copy in Sydney

I think there is a modern copy of the ship on exhibition in Sydney. Is that worth writing about? 194.176.105.138 (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Endurance Statistics

Does anybody know the overall lengh of the ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.204.130 (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect link to William Stephenson

Hello, people who know how to edit Wikipedia pages!

I don't know how to remove the link on Endurance crewmember William Stephenson's name. The link directs to a different person of the same name.

Thanks! Janeneimeyer (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Mrs Chippy

There should be a small sentence of some sort toward Mcnish’s cat since he was a member of the crew. I was curious whether or I should add beside “all the crew survived” except for a Miss Chippy a very dearly loved cat be belonging to Mcnish? Alec.Checkmate (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mrs Chippy's demise is not yet mentioned or sourced. It seems Shackleton had him shot. Were the dogs (and pups) not also part of the crew? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

See Mrs Chippy (includes sources). Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

And what about the dogs? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The prominence given to the cat in this article (with hardly a mention of the dogs) is ridiculous. Mhkay (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

None of the dogs are named as crew members. And we don't have any article for Ship's dog. Additionally, Mrs Chippy has his own article. So maybe unbalanced, but not necessarily "ridiculous"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The Escape

The article does not explain how the crew got home. Shackleton's own wiki page says:

The crew escaped by camping on the sea ice until it disintegrated, then by launching the lifeboats to reach Elephant Island and ultimately South Georgia Island, a stormy ocean voyage of 720 nautical miles (1,330 km; 830 mi) and Shackleton's most famous exploit.

By rights, this page would provide a more detailed account of the escape. Valetude (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If you cannot find cites why not just delete all the uncited stuff?

Chidgk1 (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Because cites may be found? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Because that would be bludgeoning an article simply to try and say "it's good enough for ITN" (which it wouldn't be if whole sections were removed, as there wouldn't be a broad enough coverage left) rather than fixing the actual issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Coords were added in this rev, but they lack a citation. @Abductive: please could you add a citation for where you got these numbers from? — JThistle38 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The coords were in the NBC report already cited in the article. In the video at 00:45 it gives the coordinates with a reticle, and in the upper right corner it says "Data SIO, NOAA, US Navy". A bit tricky to cite if one were trying to be thorough... I patched it up as best I could. Abductive (reasoning) 18:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Unfortunately, I believe that these coordinates refer to the location which the ship sunk at, which was recorded by the ship's navigator. The expedition hasn't released the coordinates of the wreck, as far as I can tell. That said, they did say that they found the wreck 3.5nm south of the original location, so those coords probably aren't far off. — JThistle38 (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@JThistle38: In the article it says "Worsley fixed the position as 68° 38.5'S 52° 58'W." These are not the same as the 69° 39′ 30″S, 52° 26′ 30″W that were in the source. If you like, WP:Routine calculation allows the addition of 3.5nm south (which is 3.5') to Worsley's coordinates to obtain the final position. Abductive (reasoning) 20:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. My mistake, good spot. — JThistle38 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi, @Implacable18:, thanks for your work on this article. I think this reference [1] may have gotten its information from this article, meaning that we really can't use it to cite some of the unreferenced content here! What do you think? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I took a closer look at it and the wording seems very similar to this article, so we should probably remove it just to be safe. Implacable18 (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Citation: 'Design and Construction' section.

Cited to page 20 of the 1959 McGraw-Hill edition of Lansing's 'Endurance: Shackleton’s Incredible Voyage', the last sentence of the 'Design and Construction' section currently reads:

"Endurance, on the other hand, was designed with great inherent strength in her hull in order to resist collision with ice floes and to break through pack ice by ramming and crushing; she was therefore not intended to be frozen into heavy pack ice, and so was not designed to rise out of a crush."

Page 20 appears to verify the last part of the sentence, but not the first. Nor have I managed to find anything anywhere else in the book which does. The cited text on page 20 reads:

"The Fram was rather bowl-bottomed so that if the ice closed in against her she would be squeezed up and out of the pressure. But since the Endurance was designed to operate in relatively loose pack ice she was not constructed so. as to rise out of pressure to any great extent. She was comparatively wall-sided, much the way conventional ships are."

My search was triggered by reading a letter in The Times of 14 March 2022 which read:

"Sir, Ben Macintyre’s article on Scott and Shackleton (Weekend essay, Mar 12) is quite right: both were heroes. But Shackleton undoubtedly pushed his luck, not least with the Endurance. She was on her maiden voyage having been built to take summer tourists to the Arctic and he bought her unseen at short notice. He wrote home from South America saying she seemed much less robust and suited for the ice than his earlier ship, the Nimrod — a Dundee-built whaler. His support party’s ship, the Aurora, a 40-year-old Dundee whaler, was locked in the ice and blown from McMurdo Sound on the other side of the Antarctic. She survived nine months in the ice and reached New Zealand in April 1916, when Shackleton was on Elephant Island. Most of Shackleton’s knowledgeable contemporaries thought that his transantarctic plans were too ambitious. Vivian Fuchs, who led the transantarctic expedition that was first to achieve Shackleton’s dream in 1958, believed that it was highly unlikely he would have succeeded even if he had managed to land. Fuchs wrote “it may be permissible to comment that the loss of the Endurance may have saved a worse disaster”."

In fairness, it should probably be mentioned that the letter writer, being from Scotland, may have had a prejudice in favour of ships built in Dundee.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that's my mistake! I meant to tag the first part with a {{cn}} but missed it in while doing all the rest. The part that's not really verified by pp. 19-20 of Lansing is "in order to resist collision with ice floes and to break through pack ice by ramming and crushing" because the part about her being designed with great inherent strength is essentially a condensing of p. 19 (and actually elaborated on earlier in the section). I think it would be good to simply reduce the sentence down to: "Endurance, on the other hand, was not intended to be frozen into heavy pack ice, and so was not designed to rise out of a crush." Dropping the part about the hull strength bc that is already described earlier. It may be worth adding a note about what did happen, was that the strength of her hull tended to crack floes pressing against her per Worsley's observation via Shackleton 72 (or via Lansing 54, it's the same quote slightly differently rendered). Worsley does describe that the ship was used for ramming floes pretty well in his Endurance p. 34, but I'm not sure how useful that is to include in some form. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I considered adding a {{cn}} tag myself, but decided that would be overkill in a situation where the text in question is stating something which looks plausible and has the appearance of having been sourced, just not sourced to the book page cited at the end of the sentence. Hopefully I've attained my objective of flagging the sourcing issue without antagonising anyone, albeit rather wordily.     ←   ZScarpia   18:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, oh no! You're fine. It's really good keeping out, especially since the page was a mess before, and things should be cited to where they claim to be. I'll just excise the unreferenced part since it's not even necessary after the rest of the section anyway. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You can also use Template:Failed verification in cases where a source has been cited, but does not support the text to which the citation has been attached. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Lifeboat versus ship's boat

Shackleton simply refers to the boats in which they escaped to Elephant Island as "boats". At no point were they described by him as lifeboats. Technically, to meet Board of Trade regulations, the boats had the necessary buoyancy tanks to be legally called lifeboats, and so comply with the rules. The James Caird in particular was more lightly built than the standard lifeboat. Since Endeavour was going to somewhere without any established port, the boats were not primarily to fulfil the role of lifeboats, but to do all the mundane work of a ship's boat - carrying supplies and people to and from the shore. Another reason to think of them as ship's boats is that they were not of uniform size, with the James Caird being the largest. This is typical of the working ship's boats of the era. Furthermore, when Endeavour was lost, the buoyancy tanks were removed to accommodate more men. So the boats were no longer legally lifeboats anyway. You can get this from the account by Frank Worsley.

Describing the boats in the article as "lifeboats" is misleading. They were at one stage legally lifeboats. They were intended for use as ship's boats. They ceased to be lifeboats once put into use as they were modified. They were not referred to as lifeboats, but just as "boats" by the people who used them. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This is all fair, and all references to lifeboats have already been removed from the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Shipwrecks

See here, pls: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Lists_of_shipwrecks#Findings_and_raisings. 41.58.236.133 (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)