Talk:John Franklin

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

(Cause of death)[edit]

This article in Polish states that the main cause of their death have been the metal (lead) poisoning from the canned food.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also had heard that lead was the cause of death. When it says that lead migrates to the can itself, does this mean that any dissolved lead (Pb2+) is reduced by iron or other metals in the can?
In "Frozen in Time", the author postulates that an English food canner who was given the contract to provide canned food for the expedition cooked the food for less than an hour as opposed to the required 6+ hours, and at just above 200F instead of the 400F+ required, after he was pressured by the expedition organizers to produce the food before the northwest passage froze over for the season. The resulting food rot was a well-known result, but lead was only considered a useful building material and the toxic effects were little known. The author also proposes that the upper brass on board got sick first, as they accessed the tinned food first believing the contents to be of better quality than the raw (and less "luxurious") ingredients stowed on board. The Inuit who meet with the stranded expedition members noted that they were attempting to drag very expensive Victorian furniture and equipment and refused to learn Arctic survival skills. Merosonox 09:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"postulates" is the key word here. Theoretical at best. The canner was an immigrant who was made a scapegoat for the expedition's loss, which provides motive for such speculation. It also has to be noted that the "brass" (i.e. representatives of Western European upper classes) also left the memoranda, which exhibit no sign of "lead poisoning madness". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buckboard (talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Goldner's process for preserving the tinned food was actually quite a sound one, and a genuine innovation. The main problem was that the Royal Navy postponed the awarding of his contract until much too soon before the ships sailed, and the process had to be done very quickly as a result. Speed in production may have led to too-low temperatures or too-short heating, and definitely lead to large, hastily-applied beads of lead-containig solder on the cans. If by "memorada" you mean the notes left by the officers, they actually do exhibit signs of early lead poisoning, such as short-term memory issues and mis-remembered details. Rapotter 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "HMS Erebus | HMS Terror | Crew". the sentence "They had used a new and untested idea, putting solder in the food cans to preserve the food." doesn't make sense to me. Solder would have been used to seal the cans, not put in the cans. Anklefear 01:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that cans then were basically strips of tin, curled into can shape and then soldered on *both* edges; due to haste, the interior edge of Goldner's cans had much more solder on them than they should, allowing the lead from the solder to leach into the food inside. Thanks for noticing this' I've corrected the phrasing. Rapotter 12:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead solder generally does not cause lead poisoning, unless the lead content is well above 20%, or the solder is heated to 100C or more. Fresh solder will leach lead for several hours/days until the surface matrix is eroded, but the amounts are well below those required for toxicity. In cases of severe leaching the solder joint will quickly fail. Lead poisoning was understood even in Roman times. The designers of the distillation system would not have let the superheated steam contact soft solder. It would melt. (Some types of silver solder contain poisonous flux but these types were not available then. Red lead paint was not around in 1820.) To prove lead poisoning the bones of all the deceased explorers should show high levels, and not just one.220.244.84.193 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Objective)[edit]

I think the main objective of the 1845 expedition is searching the Northwest passage, rather than "gathering magnetic readings" as edited in 26 March 2006. Mewaqua 11:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was commonly believed, but the evidence of the time, as highlighted by Andrew Lambert's book last year, suggests otherwise. Franklin's whole career was built around magnetic readings and finding true magnetic north. The eventual location of where he was found backs this up - strangely, however, many that were searching for him seemed to think that Franklin was looking for the passage, and that has been the misconception ever since. 142.20.215.33 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Mummy found)[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, they found a mummy that was one of the members of the expedition. 24.43.218.30 02:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is true - deep frozen burials of seamen on beechy island

Three bodies were exhumed -- they were frozen, but not as completely as one might think; inside the bodies a good deal of decay had occurred through cell autolysis, despite the lifelike faces. I have read several studies in which these bodies referred to as "mummies," which is a term not limited to Egyptian desert tombs ...

  • The body of John Torrington was exhumed from the Arctic permafrost in a mummified state and appears on the cover of "Frozen in Time" by Owen Beattie and John Geiger Merosonox 05:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to what i've heard, the levels of lead in the soft and bony tissues of John Torrington were about 10 times the "normal" value found in humans.

cleanup[edit]

though the article isn't terribly written, it could use some cleanup to conform to wikipedia's quality standards. There is frequent use of the same or similar scentence structures throughout the article.

Deletion of trivia[edit]

I'm about to delete the following, none of which appears to add to our understanding of Franklin. Perhaps some of it can be usefully recycled elsewhere. -- Hoary 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Popular culture==

  • In the early 1960s, the Canadian poet Gwendolyn MacEwen wrote, and broadcast on CBC radio, a verse play titled, Terror and Erebus that told of the failed expedition from various perspectives.
  • "Buried In Ice" is a popular children's book about the Franklin Expedition.
  • James Taylor and Metallica have both recorded songs inspired by the excavations of the graves of some members of the Franklin Expedition.
  • The short story Age of Lead, by Margaret Atwood, included in the collection "Wilderness Tips", was inspired by "Frozen In Time: The Fate of the Franklin Expedition", by Owen Beattie and John Geiger. Atwood has also written several essays on Franklin, including in her book "Strange Things", and an introduction to "Frozen In Time".
  • "The Ice Child", a novel by Elizabeth McGregor, was based on the research described in "Frozen In Time".
  • The book The Terror, a novel by Dan Simmons, will feature a supernatural take on the events of John Franklin's arctic expedition. It will be released on January 8, 2007.
  • The song "900," the B-side to the Breeders' 1993 Cannonball single, has lyrics based on the Franklin expedition, particularly referencing the unnecessary luggage they carried south.
  • In William T. Vollmann's novel The Rifles, the narrator tells his own story of fatal fascination with the Arctic alongside John Franklin's, whom he imagines as his "grave twin."
  • In Robert Edric's novel The Broken Lands, a Novel of Arctic Disaster, a fictionalized account of the final expedition aboard Terror and Erebus.

This is what happens when the page for the "Franklin Expedition" redirects to John Franklin's biography. The 1845-48 Sir John Franklin Northwest Passage Expedition is an article in it's own right (along with all the controversies). The redirect needs to be removed and a proper "Franklin Expedition" article crafted instead. Franklin Researcher 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1845-48 Sir John Franklin Northwest Passage Expedition is an article in it's own right -- I think you mean that it needs an article. The redirect needs to be removed and a proper "Franklin Expedition" article crafted instead. You can do this. But mere trivia about the expedition would be just as unsuitable in that article as it is in this one. -- Hoary 09:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not trivia but highly relevant material on the popular reception of Franklin's exploits, I am reinstating it. Rapotter 04:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word "trivia". Guess who is re-deleting it? --76.224.78.226 03:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's material that's relevant to the popular reception of Franklin's exploits. But it's just that: material. Imaginably, somebody might craft the most important parts of it into a coherent paragraph or two that would be worth preserving, Right now, though, it's just a list. People can use the "What links here" button. -- Hoary 03:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not unfamiliar with the definition of triva -- I simply feel that most of the information here is relevant to the literary and cultural interest in Franklin's expedition. I agree with Hoary that it would be even more valuable if re-written in narrative, encyclopedic form; rather than delete it wholesale, let us do that. Clevelander96 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Historical and Forensic Information[edit]

I'm a Franklin Researcher for 20 years with reams of research materials (some coming from Dr. Beattie and his research team) and have edited this Wiki to accurate standards with cites. My time is limited so I can't at this time make a seperate entry for the 1845-48 Sir John Franklin Northwest Expedition (please feel free too and I'll add the cites), so included as much information (dates, names, locations, and resources) as I can without hijacking Sir John's biography itself. Please, if you must edit the Wiki to be more brief, do so without removing the resources. It's important that the 1845-48 Franklin Expedition is accurately documented online, instead of just adding more folklore. Thank you. Franklin Researcher 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being prepped to split the 1845-48 Sir John Franklin Northwest Passage Expedition section to it's own Wiki. Will appreciate if a kind soul will help reduce it's length, but keep the cites, as it's critical: FYI, source research material for the Franklin Expedition is locked down by research "agreements" (copyrights pale to them), which makes relying on public material (books, journals, papers, documentaries) more than necessary -- why I citing viciously.Franklin Researcher 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to split Franklin's entry here from an account of his last expedition -- but if such is proposed, it should be flagged on the article's main page and some discussion had by wikipedians here. I've spent many years on Franklin as well, but would caution that, alas, on Wikipedia use of original research is against a clearly stated policy. Perhaps "Franklin Researcher" would be interested in conributing to the entry I'm writing for Citizendium?? Rapotter 04:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jon franklin era bueno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.51.103.2 (talk) 14:07, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Two separate articles required[edit]

There is an obvious need to separate the biography of Sir John Franklin and the NW Passage expedition details. Sir John (and his wife) were significant individuals throughout their lives, and the current article drowns his biography in details on the research into the expedition. --Mikeh 13:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible volunteers for separate article[edit]

Two of us who have worked on Ernest Shackleton, which made FA yesterday, would be interested in helping to develop a separate Franklin Expedition page if consensus can be reached here that moving the expedition material to its own page is a good idea. You could let us know here what you think. We are User:Lazulilasher and User:Finetooth. Finetooth (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, we propose moving most of the material from Section 5 to the end of the John Franklin biography to a new article, Franklin Expedition. Following the guidelines in WP:SUMMARY, we would write an appropriate summary or summaries for the material moved to the new page. This would allow the John Franklin page to develop as a biography and would allow the expedition page to develop as well. We have not worked out further details yet because we are not sure if the other editors of the John Franklin biography page agree with our proposal for a spinout. We would like to hear from you. In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that neither of us has done a spinout before, and we would be learning as we went, and we would appreciate help and advice. We would like to proceed by consensus, if possible, and in a spirit of cooperation. Finetooth (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a separate article on Sir John Franklin's last expedition would be preferable to the lengthy and (in places) disorderly treatment given in the biographical article. It would also be good to go over the claims and generalizations in this section, as many of them are misleading, unsourced, or poorly sourced. My own time is somewhat limited, but I would be glad to look over the resulting article with an eye to organization and accurate citations. In my outside-the-wiki life, I've been described as a "world authority" on Franklin -- but here, given WP's rules on original research, which makes it impossible for me to write the kind of article I think would really be ideal, I'd be glad just to 'vet' the collective entry for accuracy and contribute in smaller ways. My website at http://www.ric.edu/faculty/rpotter/SJFranklin.html is a good place for wikipedians people to get information, and I'd be glad to license images there if people would like to use them in the entry. Clevelander96 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new page is Franklin's lost expedition. I replaced it on the John Franklin page with what I hope is a reasonable summary. Finetooth (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of middle name "Alexander"[edit]

I am unsure where and when the middle name "Alexander" was added to this entry -- it's not a recent edit, at any rate. However, it is a claim without support in authoritative print sources; a search for "John Alexander Franklin" in Google Books shows no print examples in its database. The Oxford Dictionaty of National Biography gives his name simply as "John Franklin" (see here). I think that, unless some reliable earlier source gives this middle name, that the mistaken insertion of "Alexander" here is the likely source for its repetition elsewhere online (there was also a totally different "John Alexander Franklin" in the late nineteenth century, and this may have amplified the confusion). Clevelander96 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in the news[edit]

Ben Franklin conection ??[edit]

Australian ABC Radio National broadacst a dicumentar this week re some Canadian & US "patriot" rebels in 1830's, deported to Tasmania penal colony for thier anti_british activities. Among other things, the piece claimed that Franklin was *nephew* to Ben Franklin - which disappointed the rebel/convicts who were perhaps hoping for more favorable treatment from a nephew of their hero. Could this be true ? Feroshki (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin and Sir John are completely unrelated. Benjamin did have a brother named John Franklin, and a sister named Jane Franklin, but there is no family connection whatsoever. Clevelander96 (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Franklin. 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) 19:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Franklin. 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) 18:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Franklin&oldid=1194824792"