Talk:Franklin's lost expedition/Archive 2

worries

Too much weight on the lead poisoning, which isn't at all a consensus outlook (the English population was "awash" in lead back then), too little about the Inuit testimony (Hall, much more lately Woodman, Strangers Among Us) which strongly hints there were many and sundry groups of survivors, the sledges were loaded up with stuff to trade with the Inuit, along with carrying food for relay caches, but the NW end of King William island was so desolate even the Inuit didn't go there, that survivors may have been spotted as late as 1854 and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

These are all indeed valid issues, but are addressed -- to one extent or another -- in the entry. We have an obligation to try to balance these issues with others, especially given the uncertainty and conflicting evidence about the final days of the expedition, but as a friend of Franklin authority David C. Woodman (who emphasizes the Inuit testimony and is skeptical of the lead poisoning hypothesis for the same reasons you give), I think the article in its present form is fairly closely balanced. The chronology of the last years is the most difficult area to handle, the more so given WP's guidelines on references and verifiability Clevelander96 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hall and Woodman together lend lots of verifiability to the Inuit tales. I think the article can safely carry a few more, which I think could at least pull the article's undue weight out of the 1980s (that cartoonish dream of a single hoard of 100 crazed, lead-poisoned sailors dragging a copy of Vicar of Wakefield about in the snow so they could carry on with their shipboard reading lessons or whatever). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we could use more detailed coverage of the Inuit testimony, as long as it is presented in a balanced matter and sourced appropriately. I have Woodman's books in hand, and will work toward adding something along these lines. Clevelander96 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ta! As an aside and only for the fun of saying it, I do think the main wreck of the Erebus could be lurking somewhere in here, a bit further south than anyone has looked so far, what with some likelihood of southerly drift under all that shallow water, 160 years of storms and all. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

immediate consequence

The article says: « The most significant immediate consequence of the last Franklin expedition was the mapping of several thousand miles of hitherto unsurveyed coastline »

How can this be since no one ever returned? I would guess it is rather a later consequence of the search expeditions. Or should the sentence be clarified?

Thanks, Calimo (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Many search expeditions looked for Franklin's lost expedition and as they did so, thoroughly charted the whole, skeinish Canadian arctic (which has shown up so keenly on globes and maps of North America for almost a century and a half). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes more sense now. I wasn't sure if it was the search expeditions or if I had misunderstood something in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calimo (talk • contribs) 09:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction in chronology

The note says:Having wintered in 1846-7 at Beechey Island in Lat 74° 43' 28" N. Long 91° 39' 15" W. after having ascended Wellington Channel to Lat 77° and returning by the West of Cornwallis Island.

But the text and timeline say that the ships wintered at King WIlliam Island 1846-7 and at Beechey Island for the 1845-6 winter. Where is the evidence to support the article's text?--194.75.159.78 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. You have an eagle eye. Since the transcription of the second message on the Commons image-description page at Image:Franklinexpeditionnote.jpg says, "25th April 1848 HMShips Terror and Erebus were deserted on the 22nd April 5 leagues NNW of this having been beset since 12th Sept 1846", I suspect that either the first message contained a dating error or (more likely) the editor who entered the data at the Commons made an error. User:Clevelander96 is more expert than I on these matters and has better resources; he might be able to say for sure if I've pinpointed the problem. If that is indeed the problem, I can easily fix it. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The note is in error. True, it is a primary source, but the evidence of the three grave markers on Beechey Island itself are all from the winter of 1845-46 (see for example that of John Torrington) is clear and certain. With the ships having been abandoned, this note had to be written "in the field" and from memory, and the officer who wrote it (James Fitzjames) made an error in recalling the year. He made several other, mostly slight errors, which with the mistake about the date has been taken by some as evidence of memory problems associated with lead poisoning. The error on the date was noted when it was first discovered, and is mentioned in Cyriax and many other books in the article's bibliography. But perhaps a note should be made of this discrepancy so that future versions of the entry will not raise this question. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a note to the image description, as follows: "(The first message includes an error about the date of wintering at Beechey Island. It was written 'in the field', under duress, and from memory. Its dating discrepancy was noted when it was first discovered, and is mentioned in Cyriax and many other books in the article's bibliography.) " Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Finetooth! Clevelander96 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A few remarks:

The first message (when the writer said: "All well") was written on 28th May 1847 - the ships weren't abandoned until 22nd April 1848 (nearly a year later) so it was not written "in the field"; there is no reason to suppose that it was not written aboard ship.

I think that something other than "under duress" is meant - that phrase would imply the writer intentionally wrote the wrong date but was forced or intimidated to do so.

The National Maritime Museum [1] mentions another note:

"Captain McClintock and his men reached King William Island in 1858 and found the remains of Franklin’s crew . . . Their search uncovered a few personal papers and just two official records – Standard Admiralty forms. One gave a progress report followed by the words, 'All's well'. The other was almost identical except that in the margins was scrawled the following message:. . . "

So the other version did not have the marginal note but was similarly worded to the one found at Ross Cairn - did this also have the same error for the Beechey wintering?

(Incidentally the note reproduced in the Wiki article is held by NMM; catalogued as: "MSR/C/9 Record noting abandonment of the ships, death of Franklin and indicating that the survivors heading south for Back's Great Fish River. Ross Cairn, Point Victory, King William Island, 2 June 1859")--88.105.95.60 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to remarks -- the note was written on twice -- the first, standard "All Well" message was indeed done aboard ship. "Under duress" is probably not the right phrase; it certainly doesn't apply to this part of the note. But the second message, written in the margin in 1848 after the abandonment of the ships, was certainly written under less than ideal conditions, setting aside any conjectures about the mental or physical state of the writer. Both notes, incidentally, were written by Fitzjames, with the exception of the very last few words ("and start tomorrow ... ") which were written by Crozier.

I will tweak the language here in hopes of finding a better solution.

To clarify the note itself: it was one of two such notes recovered; the second had only the central text giving the ships' progress and the "All well"; it was presumably not removed from its cannister prior to recovery. Clevelander96 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

p.s. and yes, both notes have the error in the dates for the first wintering at Beechey Island. Clevelander96 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)