Talk:Ernest Shackleton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
a WikiProject related to the continent of Antarctica. |
Contents |
[edit] Historical images
The historical images are rather dark. If only for the sake of clarity I think they should be brightened up a bit lot. Lee M 01:54, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not only are they dark, the image at the bottom is not of Shackleton at all, but rather depicts the last expedition of Robert Falcon Scott. The image was taken January 18, 1912 and is of Oates, Scott and Evans (standing); and Bowers and Wilson (sitting). --Gabbe 18:22, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
Has the picture issue been resolved? Lisiate 21:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- It looks like it has been - the offending picture has been removed. Mark Richards 22:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Does anybody agree with me that the most recent edit about Lennard Bickel's book is superfluous and possibly not appropriate ? No Guru 19:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that it doesn't work. Certainly the topic would fit here, but not in the form of a book review cut-&-paste. Joyous 02:45, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Since no one has objected to the idea in lo, these many months, I've removed the offending paragraph. Joyous 00:54, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Miles
I fixed the error in the distance where the article said
"reached 88°23'S: a point only 156 km (98 miles) from the South Pole"
correcting that distance to 180 km.
I'm sure many of the readers of this article could go out and find hundreds of sources on the internet, and in printed books, to support the figure that was there (though most of them will say 97 "miles" rather than 98).
All I can say is that people who don't know what "miles" are in this context should not be using them. Since they are the root of the problem, I omitted them completely from this particular measurement.
Hint: look at that latitude. Subtract it from 90°0'. Convert the degrees and minutes to minutes of arc. Does that number look vaguely familiar? Now, what does that mean with regard to these miles? Gene Nygaard 02:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- To explain what Gene is talking about slightly less sarcastically, there are two kind of miles. Statute miles are 5,280 feet and are the miles used to measure distances legally in the UK and US - for example, on freeways and motorways. A nautical mile, derived from the similar geographical mile, is equal to one minute of latitude (technically, one minute of arc along a meridian), which is a hair over 6,076 feet or exactly 1,852 meters. And given that there are 60 minutes in a degree, Shackleton's furthest south latitude of 88º23' left him 98 minutes of arc, or 98 nautical miles from the South Pole. 98 nm times 1.852 km equals 181.496 km from the Pole. Given that the mode of navigation available to Shackleton was not accurate to this many significant digits, 180 km is a very solid, approximate figure for the distance to the Pole. 156 km - the erroneous figure - was obviously derived from using statute miles conversion. Mariners such as Shackleton always use nm and express speed in knots - nautical miles per hour. I have updated the measurement with nautical miles and km. Kgdickey 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intro
Previous edit has mangled the introduction so I've reverted and am placing the content here for others to review
([[Februaryhas become one of the world's most famous advertisements in the Times of London in December 1901: "Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages. Bitter cold. Long months of complete darkness. Constant danger. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success." (Some historians have claimed that this ad was placed, although they do not all agree on when or which newspaper, but no one has yet been able to locate the original newspaper clipping; see [1] for a full discussion.)
No Guru 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sadly I've edited the above to make it clear that it's a delightful story but a myth. Nobody's been able to track down the original advert and it appears highly likely that it was thought up in the post -war period by the editor of a book collection of "the world's greatest advertisements". Given that the Times was published daily, this means no more than 30 copies to look through in a newspaper archive, and with the popular appeal of this myth and Shackleton himself, I am afraid I'd have to say if it's not been found by now I'm inclined to believe it doesn't exist in the Times of Dec. 1901 :-( --mgaved 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discrepancy in information
In the article about Ernest Shackleton, it is mentioned that his party reached a "furthest south" point 180 miles from the magnetic South Pole. However, in another Wikipedia article on the subject of Antarctic explorers, it is mentioned that Shackleton and his party were the first humans to reach magnetic south. There is no mention at all in the Shackleton article that he ever reached magnetic south.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.45.18.28 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 June 2006.
- Presumably this editor is talking about List of Antarctica expeditions, which says that Shakleton reached the magnetic South Pole. I agree that the discrepancy should be addressed.--HughGRex 22:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Members of Shackleton's expedition reached what they claimed was the south magnetic pole but Shackleton himself did not go there. See South_Pole#South_Magnetic_Pole. Dabbler 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
