text:
Talk:Friday (novel)

Was Friday dark skinned
Was Friday really dark skinned? One of the points of the story was that she "passed" as white, so to speak, with one of her families. This became apparent when one of her kids went on to *date* a dark-skinned fellow and she discovers the prejudice of that family.

So, I'm not so sure that Friday was dark skinned, so much as she had many genetic components from all kinds of human beings. There's even a point where she lists them and is puzzled by the human drama.

But it's been at least a decade since I read the book, so I could be mistaken.

Having read this book several times, I believe you are correct. I could not find any mention of her actually having dark skin. There is mention of her various genetic backgrounds, including Native American, but there is nothing to suggest that she has dark skin. Djgranados 01:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Did some basic cleanup on the book, and deleted the "cleanup" tag. I've never read the book, so I can't improve the article too much. -Lampros, August 20 2005

 * Actually, in one of the scenes in the novel set in New Zealand, Friday's somewhat dark skin coloration comes up in discussion of why Anita (the head of the group) cut one of the group's daughters off from the family for wishing to marry a man from Tonga. The point was that she explained her skin coloration as due to Native American ancestry (she's actually a recombinant human with genes from about two dozen people of different races), and that in the vote to allow her into the family in New Zealand, it was a negative factor, but not a strong one (as she was also a well-paid woman with Native American ancestry who would be buying into the family with large monthly cash payments). loupgarous (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Skin-colour
[This section was totally without signatures. It must have been added before they got Sinebot working. --RoyGoldsmith (talk)]

(Spolier Warning. Are these needed on the talk pages?) I don't have the book to hand, but I am fairly certain Friday is not pure white. I think she is described as having a natural tan. I belive the S-Family she "passed off" as white in considered her as native american, something Friday only discovers after it turns out the question of her race was discussed by her family before she was allowed into the family. Will try and dig out the book later to get some page refs... Here we go Publisher: New English Library Pg72 ... (Friday says) "So? Vickie, this built-in suntan of mine - you know where I got it?" "Certainly, you told us. Amerindian. Uh, Cherokee, you said. Marj! Did I hurt your feelings? Oh, dear! It's not like that at all! Everybody knows that Amerindians are - Well, just like white people. Every bit as good."

Note that Vickie knows Friday as Marjorie Baldwin.

 * Sorry, I think whoever wrote this is wrong. (I can't address that person properly because they didn't sign their name.)

 * The full quote is (1st ed, p56-7, underline mine):

 * "So? Vickie, this built-in suntan of mine - you know where I got it?"
 * "Certainly, you told us. Amerindian. Uh, Cherokee, you said. Marj! Did I hurt your feelings? Oh, dear! It's not like that at all! Everybody knows that Amerindians are - Well, just like white people. Every bit as good."
 * (Oh, sure, sure. And "some of my best friends are Jews." But I'm not a Cherokee, so far as I know. ...)

 * More pertinent is "Boss"'s final letter to Friday (p260):

 * Before your records were destroyed, I once scratched my curiosity by listing the sources that went into creating you. As near as I can recall they are:

 * Finnish, Polynesian, Amerindian, Innuit, Danish, red Irish, Swazi, Korean, German, Hindu, English -- and bits and pieces from elsewhere since none of the above is pure.

 * So Friday is a genetic everywoman, probably with a skin color halfway through the normal human range. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 * For sure. It's often been pointed out that the cover is inaccurate as regards skin color.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the Microsoft comparison - it's right in the sense that Shipstone holds a monopoly on an intellectual property (Heinlein seems to think this means it isn't a monopoly for some reason), but the "sinister" aspect of Shipstone is more the huge number of companies it is behind, which on the face of it have nothing to do with Shipstone. An early "Sinister Mega-Global Corp". The uprisings in the book turn out to be a inter-departmental despute within Shipstone. I may try and improve the article a bit, but haven't edited any pages before, so will see.

 * General Motors, Ford, or Chrysler during their heyday in the late '60s- early '70s would probably have been Heinlein's inspiration, but a much better modern analogy to Shipstone and the corporate empire he founded would be Elon Musk and and the business empire he's building around Shipstone-like efficient batteries for his Tesla cars, the batteries he's making to store solar electricity in homes and his Solar City power company. Musk's work to rationalize our energy economy comes much closer to what Heinlein has Shipstone doing in Friday than anything Microsoft did. And Musk isn't actively restraining trade (neither did Shipstone in the novel) the way Microsoft was argued to have done in the historic Federal anti-trust suit before Thomas Penfield Jackson. loupgarous (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Musk' "work." Please, can we be serious? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:956C:1C35:22BF:46F1 (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Friday and feminism
Someone really dumbed down the analysis of the male chauvinist cliches that frame the beginning and the end of the book. I restored the point that the reality is the opposite of the cliches in both cases. This is important, because Heinlein's trick here is one of the most sophisticated and skillful he ever managed--in what is probably the most successful of his adult novels.--Dec. 30, 2005

 * I don't see the ending as a skewering of any cliche. It's known that Robert and Virginia wanted children but didn't have any and it seems to me that this seeps into Heinlein's works as the attitude that having and raising children is very important.  Also, a number of Heinlein's stories show pioneer planets positively.  The ending could very well be completely serious. Ken Arromdee 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It is clear throughout Heinlein's career from The Rolling Stones to the Tertius novels that he felt that true freedom comes only on the pioneer edge of a culture, that once the culture has built up for a while, government expands to strangle. Look at Time Enough for Love, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Red Planet.  So, Botany Bay, as a non-built-up planet with little government other than what is needed (in Heinlein's eyes) is a place where freedom can flourish.--Wehwalt 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Heinlein didn't entirely step out of the "man writing a potboiler about a woman" headspace in Friday, but the book shows us his evolution toward writing more dimensional women, along with the narratives which make up The Number of the Beast  and To Sail Beyond The Sunset. These later novels compare well with, say, Lois McMaster Bujold's women characters (and her ability to write across the gender gap to give us dimensional male characters). I mention Bujold (her Barrayar novels and stories, specifically) because Bujold was just beginning to enjoy success when Heinlein published the later novels, not long before his death.

 * Of course, Heinlein always had an eye for what his readers liked, and his characters reflect that, too. Friday might not have had the following it did if its main character were, say, more like Podkayne of Mars's, and less the uninhibited, libidinous, sexually fluid courier, polymath and trained killer Heinlein created in Friday.  But she's anything but a cardboard cutout or constrained by anyone else's notions of proper womanhood. loupgarous (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Now that we've all indulged in a round-robin festival of WP:OR about "Friday and feminism", let's look at WP:RS. If you go there, you have to go to sources which are disparaging about Robert Heinlein in general and Friday in particular.  Scott Timberg, in "The Descent of a sci-fi guru", a 2007 article in the Los Angeles Times, says:
 * "'L.A. writer M.G. Lord loves the juveniles and credits their strong, self-reliant females with making her a feminist. The tendency of Heinlein heroines to use initials led young Mary Grace to do the same. But Heinlein's adult books are not as good, she said, and some written during and after the sexual revolution are disturbing, including 'Friday,' in which a heroine falls in love with her rapist. 'The minute he could make his sexual fantasies explicit it was, 'Oh, gross!' '"
 * Which is a prodigy of poorly-considered literary criticism. Timberg manages to reduce the plot of Friday to "in which a heroine falls in love with her rapist". The whole subtext of Friday and the man who raped her as part of the novel's second chapter opening scene both being "artificial persons" without much say about their assignments curiously goes missing in the analysis.  Timberg didn't want to deal objectively with Heinlein, he was a prosecutor doing a voir dire to empanel a jury to convict Heinlein of sexism in the first degree with the aggravating factor of rightism.  It's the Left talking to the Left, again.
 * I'm not sure Timberg's article or its point of view is notable enough for our article. If we present it, it ought to be balanced against Spider Robinson's much more favorable assessment of the novel in the Mid-September 1982 issue of Analog.  Robinson's contemporary criticisms of how Heinlein chooses to end the novel are much more in line with contemporary feminist thought, not what Timberg's short list of modern-day feminists thought.  There are other perspectives on Heinlein and feminism, however, which line up roughly with Timberg's, such as Annalee Newitz's.  I'm not sure that Newitz's criticisms of Heinlein, given her association with the Gawker snarkery-for-profit online empire, are much more WP:RS than Timberg's - but we ought to have a conversation as editors about it.  loupgarous (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure how, “it’s the Left talking to the Left, again” reveals anything of merit to the Wikipedia article, except that you don’t think that the criticism from the published critic is valid because of supposed political leanings.
 * Later criticism of Friday brings to light that as a character she lacks agency, bouncing around until men tell her what to do, and feel. I don’t have a citation for that, sorry, beyond “late 80s, early 1990s”. 2600:1700:F90:6950:19C:2E7E:85C5:D895 (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Links to other novels
The conjecture that Friday might be in Timeline 3, is based on similarities between the other 3 stories canonically set in Timeline 3: The Rolling Stones, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and The Cat who walks through Walls. Of course, the problem is trying to set Gulf in Timeline 3 :-) Albmont 16:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm..I think this section should be reworked:
 * Friday is loosely tied to the novelette "Gulf", which appeared in Assignment in Eternity, since both works share characters — "Kettle Belly" Baldwin and "Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Green". (The latter two do not appear in Friday, but are mentioned as two of the title character's genetic progenitors.)
 * I would describe Friday as a sequel to Gulf. (In contrast, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls is loosely tied to Friday through references to Shipstones and the colony worlds, including Fiddler's Green.)
 * Kettle Belly Baldwin is the boss of Friday's organization, a central character in the novel.
 * And "Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Green" don't appear in Friday for the very good reason that they died at the end of Gulf.
 * -- Jim Douglas 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Where is it stated that Rolling Stones is in the TMiaHM timeline? Because there is a Hazel Stone in each?  The Moon seems very different from the overregulated state described by Mannie.  I suggest we hedge on this. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)

 * Hmm, I've never thought about it like that; you make a good point. I don't think Heinlein had come up with the Multiverse concept as early as 1966.  But you're right...there are significant discrepancies. -- Jim Douglas 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the unsigned. I don't have a copy of RS around the house, it is not one of my favorites, but I will lay my hands on one. But I do not think we would be justified in saying that RS is in the same timeline as Moon.--Wehwalt 22:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * No problem, I just signed it for clarity's sake. And I'm with you on Rolling Stones...at one point, I thought it would be interesting to read Rolling Stones -> The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress -> The Cat Who Walks Through Walls in order, but I dropped Rolling Stones after a dozen pages; it's not my favourite of the juveniles. -- Jim Douglas 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I would view Rolling Stones and TMiaHM as being in the same timeline, but I would take RS as a later work (despite being written earlier). Specifically Hazel Stone is 12-years-old in TMiaHM, and a old grandmother in RS. As for the different conditions on the moon in both stories, that is sort of the point of TMiaHM.  It goes from the over-regulated state run by Earth to the independent state that, while larded down with silly regulations invented by the revolutionists, is still more free than they were before.  And over the course of Hazel Stone's lifetime, one could expect an ebb and flow to regulation and government on the frontiers.  I see no real conflict between the two books.OnceUponAnUpdate (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Friday is a sequel to Gulf, The Rolling Stones is a prequel to TMiaHM, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls is a sequel to TMiaHM. The inconsistencies exist, but they are not fatal: there are even less inconsistencies among those stories then among the stories that canonically compose the Future History. My private heretic hypothesis is that Heinlein wrote Friday not only as a sequel to Gulf, but also as a sequel to TMiaHM and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, but now I see that I must be wrong: Friday was published in 1982, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls in 1985. It doesn't matter: the balkanization of the USA that is history in Friday is an important event in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. Albmont 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, Roger Stone move to Fiddler's Green is mentioned in TCWWTW, not in The Rolling Stones <:-( Albmont 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday is loosely tied to the novelette "Gulf", which appeared in Assignment in Eternity, since both works share characters — "Kettle Belly" Baldwin and "Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Green". (The latter two do not appear in Friday, but are mentioned as two of the title character's genetic progenitors.) The motif of a secret superman society in the latter work, however, is not mentioned in Friday. Apart from the things already mentioned by Jim Douglas, the superman society IS mentioned, in passing, several times in Friday with the references to the planet "Olympia". After the death of Dr. Baldwin, the attorney Mrs. Tomosawa explains "Olympia is where those self-styled supermen went". I am assuming those are the same supermen as in Gulf. WanderingSpirit 00:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This section might need a bit of rework:

(Irrelevant small-world observation: My wife used to play bridge with Bob and Ginny, back in the day...)  I think calling Friday a sequel to Gulf almost entirely misses the point. Like (e.g.) Poul Anderson, Heinlein became much more conservative as he grew older. The elder Poul referred to his young self as a flaming socialist and was reluctant to edit his early work, feeling that they were effectively the work of another person. His "UN-men" story, for example, is about idealistic United Nations agents laboring to save the world. Gulf is Heinlein's equivalent story, also about young idealists giving their lives to (in this case literally) save the world. Gulf may fairly be regarded as the terminal story of Heinlein's early period, since it was the last story he wrote specifically for Campbell, before their personal split over WW II patriotism issues. Friday, by contrast, is vintage late Heinlein, and its most essential feature is that it is a meticulous point-by-point retraction of every point he advanced in Gulf. Most essentially, in Gulf the protagonist Joe Green dies to save the Earth; in Friday the protagonist leaves Earth to stew in its own juices and goes off to maximize her personal life. A full list of oppositions between the two tales would take pages; a few other obvious highlights include: o Joe is male, Friday is female; o Joe is human, Friday is artificial; o Joe is trained to think super-rationally; Friday is trained to think purely intuitively; o In Gulf Kettlebelly states that his organization wouldn't even hiccup if he died, in Friday Kettlebelly's organization shuts down completely the day he dies. (My wife suggested at one point I check all this out with Ginny, but at the time I was too shy, and now it is too late...) 76.191.170.103 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Cynbe

From the New Future History section

"The Imprisonment of Dr. Hartley Baldwin - In "Gulf" Dr. Baldwin and the Greenes successfully prevent the launch of nuclear weapons by a group of politically motivated would-be tyrants from the moon. While the Greenes' actions are successful, and they die in the attempt, Dr. Baldwin is held accountable by the Lunar Government, who have him serve sentence on Earth. The ensuing Rebellion frees Baldwin, but by which time Friday is several years old, and cannot be rescued from her Creche."

All the copies of Gulf that I've read ended at the death of 'Mr & Mrs Greene,' with a paragraph or so mentioning a plaque on the site of their death. Where did all that about Baldwin's sentence come from? The-Dixie-Flatline (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed the Microsoft bashing
I removed this POV: "...eerily suggestive of today's Microsoft".

 * Specially because the Shipstone Corporation looks more like Standard Oil... And Shipstone might be a pun on Rockefeller.Albmont 22:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Heinlein once wrote nostalgically about the efficient way in which the Standard Oil trust provided its services before the Sherman Act was passed. I suspect he was skeptical about government's ability to protect the public's interests better than properly motivated capitalists. His descriptions in Friday of the books written about Shipstone and the tentacular network of holding companies formed after the worldwide use of his invention to convey energy efficiently are clever, low-key satires of the outrage some people feel for global capitalism and any other efficiently-run and successful business enterprise.
 * An even better analogy for our article might be Elon Musk and the business empire he's building around Shipstone-like efficient batteries for his Tesla cars, the batteries he's making to store solar electricity in homes and his Solar City power company. loupgarous (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, "properly motivated capitalists" such as Musk building an "empire" around "Shipstone-like efficient batteries" - are these loony ramblings to be taken at face value? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:956C:1C35:22BF:46F1 (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The Year of the Jackpot
This is sort of interesting. Friday's research into various cycles that led her to recommend emigrating off-planet is almost identical to the plot of The Year of the Jackpot, which was written thirty years earlier. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  04:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd call it similar in theme, touching on some of the same cycles. Probably Heinlein's idea of a bit of a joke, recycling his old material!--Wehwalt 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * agreed, although I am not sure is was meant as a joke. More generally, the power of maths is a recurrent theme. It appears he had a chip on his shoulder about it, being not as proficient as his "competent man" is supposed to be, and being rather naive about what can be done with it. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:956C:1C35:22BF:46F1 (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Widely theorized; by whom?
The story occurs against a backdrop of general social collapse, widely thought to represent the theorized decline of Western Civilization.

 * If someone can produce two references to such a supposition made by a reviewer or critic, I'll say that sentence can stay. If not, I will move it into talk in a while, or at the very least remove the qualifier "widely", as unsupported. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm just going to take it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Friday82.jpg
Image:Friday82.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

plot summary
The plot summary is terribly written. Not even sure what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.224.166 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just reread Friday, first-edition hardcover, and (as I suspected) never once is the year mentioned. Yet the writer of the plot summary has included dates for past and present events in the novel. Such dates are at odds with Heinlein's intent; if he'd wanted dates in his story, he would have provided them.

For example, in the novel, the "Second Atlantic Rebellion" is mentioned exactly once, undated, in Hartley Baldwin's posthumous note to Friday, whereas the summary says that it "concluded July 4th 2076." Moreover, Red Thursday is said to occur in 2093, thus dating most of the events in the novel. Where on earth do these dates come from?

Other similar suppositions are made without giving specific dates, such as that the Quito Skyhook sabotage occurred "5 years before the novel begins." Nowhere in the book is the date specified; we are only told that it occurred after Friday met Douglas (that is, some seven or eight years before the novel begins, based on Friday's description of S-group daughter Ellen's age then and now).

Better for the entire plot summary to be reduced to a few sentences than for this nonsense to remain posted. Plot summaries should include no inferences about dates or anything else not given in the story. (Moreover, it is pointless to contrast this novel with the "established" future history against which many Heinlein stories take place.) Gottacook (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody really went to town on this article a few weeks ago, and I really haven't had the time to deal with it. I'd agree, cut back the plot summary to bare essentials.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm going to look for contemporary reviews of Friday. I remember reading Spider Robinson's  review of the novel in the Mid-September 1982 issue of Analog but no longer own that issue.  The Speculative Fiction Database page on Friday has links to bibliographic info (but not the text of) nineteen different published reviews of Friday, each of which would be WP:RS-compliant secondary sources both for the plot summary and other areas of our article. loupgarous (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Lists
The vast majority of this article seems to be pointless lists. I think that these need to be trimmed right back or (preferably) removed altogether. Euchrid (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree, it would seem reasonable to delete the following sections completely: Solar System Locales, The Interstellar Colonies, Technology, The Shipstone Complex, Genetic technology, Religious References. The plot summary is where more detail is needed.  Some of this could be worked into the plot summary but with much less detail, in my opinion.  --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it, as I get time. Writing a plot summary shouldn't be difficult, though the story is slightly convoluted.  And the lists are trivial and in universe.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dedication
From memory, Friday is dedicated to a number of prominent female science fiction writers of the day, using their first names only. There's some controversy over what Heinlein meant by this. I think that this deserves a mention in the article - I'd do it myself but I don't have a copy on hand, and as such can't include the full list. Euchrid (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Sources and possibly In-Universe Original Research
Folks,

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but I think that the bulk of the article on Friday does not meet Wikipedia standards and should be removed. The problem is that most of the article has no reliable sources. In addition, my guess is that everything from A New Future History down to Religious references is based on original research with an in-universe perspective, which is also disallowed.

These sections were originally created by two anonymous users: 118.92.189.35 on April 7, 2008, and 203.97.21.90 on October 8, 2008. Unfortunately, many of you have added content to those sections over the past year. Unless we can find sources for your efforts, I'm afraid that all of the work will have to be deleted from Wikipedia. (It will still be available through the History tab at the top of the article.)

Everything published by Wikipedia should have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. You, as an Wikipedia editor, should not read a novel and then write how one portion of that novel relates to another portion. This would be original research. ("Original research" is something of a misnomer; perhaps "original thought" would be better.)

 * For example, you can say that "Approximately two-thirds of the book deals with Friday's employment in "the boss's" secret organization and the rest deals with her after her boss has died, including her interstellar journey." Since you're only counting pages, that would be allowed.

 * But, you cannot say "The Kingdom of Mexico is now no longer a republic, possibly ruled from Spain, or by expatriate Spanish Royalty, but either possibility is conjecture." That would be original research.

Unless the meaning of that paragraph was present, in some concise form, in the novel itself OR we had at least one source confirming this.

 * For example, if some Wikipedia editor did have (say) a review of the book and it said that "Within the timeline of the novel, Mexico is now a kingdom. This kingdom is possibly ruled from Spain although it is equally likely that it's ruled as a separate country, possibly by royalty from Spain, although I may be presuming too much." If we did have this source then we could cite it as a reference for that sentence in the article. (The best way is through an inline citation.) Then the judgment is by the reviewer, not you.

However, even if you had such a citation, we should probably not use it, unless there was something in real life that made the novel's description of Mexico pertinent. For example, if the government of Mexico lodged a formal complaint with the US State Department over that description, that would certainly be relevant to the article. But, of course, then we would have a citation (or many citations, like news reports and official State Department announcements) about the real-world incident.

I quote from our guidelines:
 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

and:

 * "An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, inviting unverifiable original research by relying on primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become."

In our case, the text of the novel is our primary source. Remember that we're editors, not contributors of ideas. Our job is to summarize and paraphrase information that is already documented, not to come up with new thoughts. For an example of reliable sources and a real-world perspective, see the featured article on Heinlein's Starship Troopers.

In conclusion, let me say that I really liked the treatment of Friday, especially the questionable sections. Friday is my favorite book and I read it about once every two years. It's just that I believe that those doubtful sections do not belong in Wikipedia and I think that most experienced Wikipedians would agree with me. I wish we could find some other wiki that allows original interpretations. Then we could cut and paste our material over there.

I'm going to leave this talk section around for several days, to see what comments I attract. Sometime next week, I'll begin adding warnings to the article, like:

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Five days later--

OK. I've inserted the three warnings above into a total of nine sections (see below). I'm not going to make any further changes to the article for at least several weeks.

If anyone is opposed in general to one or more of those nine sections being permanently deleted, please insert your objections here.

If anyone can cite sources (any kind of sources) for any material in those nine sections, please do so in the article itself. At a minimum, please insert a comment about your source(s) in one of the nine subsections that follow.

A New Future History

The Dominions of North America

Rest of Earth

Solar System Locales

The Interstellar Colonies

Technology

The Shipstone Complex

Genetic technology

Religious references

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Mr. Goldsmith
Dear Mr. Goldsmith : User 118.92.189.35 is myself, apologies for writing so much without logging in - my oversight. Subsequent corrections are my own, though other users have neatened up sections (such as the list of colonised stars) for which thanks to all.

Re references - Roy, this is Science Fiction story. I therefore submit that the only significant reference available is - the book itself. In addition - I am as an avid a reader as yourself. The sections detailed were taken as far as possible from my copy of the novel. Quotations are direct - it was not appropriate to distort the author's intent, as this article is of course a precis. I have been using the NEL Inernational Edition. I am also curious as to why you did not see fit to make corrections ? If there are inconsistencies that you felt would be best to be corrected, the Wikipedia is well designed to accommodate them. As an author I respect others opinions, and so try to build, rather than demolish. My own contributions were clearly appreciated until this point, or else they would not have been enchanced by others (see above). Other readers and contributors are invite to leave comments with regard to this. I will post a reference and ISBN number as well.

I further submit that a requirement for other sources of reference are not pertinent in this regard - as a work of fiction the story is independent, though comments above include references to real-world politics.

Within your own commentary, you have noted that other users have seen fit to leave the entry mostly unedited for over year - while legally speaking "silent assent" may not have great validity, I am personally confident that Hienlein Fans internationally are content with the content and depth of the article as written. Please put forward reasons over and above those written for your requirement for speedy deletion ! Your own opinion matters, but in the spirit of free speech please also do not presume that you are the all-powerful ogre, because that is extremely tyrannical behaviour, and Hienlien Fans in particular will take your actions very badly, I feel sure. I am taking it badly right now, and look forward to private conversation if you would so desire.

Kind regards,

Martin La Grange, Auckland, NZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepshark5 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Martin La Grange
Dear Martin (Deepshark5),

Thank you for your kind letter. I shall try to address your points down below. (I’m not indenting because it’s too much trouble for a multi-paragraph response. :) My reply is kind of long, I'm afraid.

First, I’m not talking about speedy deletion (or any kind of article deletion). That type of deletion would remove the entire article, even the name and all history. What I am talking about is a severe form of content deletion: the removal of 9 out of 16 sections. Even if these sections are removed, they still exist in the article's history tab and may be restored at any time, by any editor, through cut-and-paste or the Undo button. (I’m trying to avoid such an edit war; that’s why I created a talk section.) Look here for some of the restrictions on writing about fiction.

While this article is about a Science Fiction story, it is also a Wikipedia article. As such, it must meet the general consensus of all Wikipedian editors, not just science fiction fans or Heinlein fans. In other words, general consensus trumps the consensus of a particular subset. Please, please read the Five Pillars (our foremost rule), if you haven't already.

You must understand that most Wikipedians concentrate on Civil War battles or US politics or Rock Bands of the 1960’s or whatever. They regard science fiction as a somewhat illegitimate form of literature, like fairy tales or historical romances. Early on, there was a movement to eliminate all articles specifically on novels. Then someone pointed out that even an encyclopedia should have an article on, say, Les Misérables. But, if we wanted an article on Les Misérables, what about For Whom the Bell Tolls and The DaVinci Code and (more to the point) Friday? What about some unpublished novel the author posted on the web and so far has received less than a dozen hits. Where would we draw the line? What about films or plays or works of non-fiction?

The solution was to apply the Five Pillars to this problem. By consensus, the article's contents (not the existence of the article itself) had to pass Verifiability (specifically Reliable Sources) and No original research. Any published novel could be included but each significant statement in the article must be attributed (or attributable) to a reliable, secondary source, not the text of the novel itself. (“Attributable” means that you’re sure there is a secondary source somewhere, you just can’t lay your hands on it right now.) Many novels have dozens or hundreds of secondary sources; for example, see Les Misérables and/or Heinlein’s Starship Troopers.

We can use the text of a novel inside the Plot section but, even there, the plot must follow the book’s chronology. We shouldn’t extract fragments from various places in the story and assemble them to produce a meaningful whole. That’s original interpretation. Even the plot section should act like a linchpin to the rest of the article; it shouldn’t be the be-all-and-end-all of the article itself. (These are rules adopted by the editors of Wikipedia by consensus.)

Addressing your concerns specifically, you seem to want an exception to the Reliable Sources and the Real-world Perspective guidelines for science fiction (or, possibly, for all fiction). Before we continue, please read this and this. These guidelines apply to every article in Wikipedia.

This requirement for reliable sources and real-world perspective has been gone over dozens of times in the past. The problem is: where do we stop? Do we allow someone to add a section to the Battle of Gettysburg all about a recreation (in modern times) of the Battle of Gettysburg? I understand that such recreations happen several times a year. Do we permit a separate subsection for each recreation? Told as a first-person narrative (even if disguised)?

Our solution has been that we do allow a recreation to appear in the article providing that it has appeared in reliable, secondary sources. Let’s say the Harrisburg Patriot-News sent a reporter to a specific recreation and they wrote a fairly long piece in their Sunday edition. And the NY Daily News sent a stringer who produced a two-paragraph slug on Thursday. Then that would be “encyclopedic” enough to pass the reliable sources test for inclusion in the Battle of Gettysburg (probably in a small subsection near the back). If the first author expressed their opinion or interpretation, it would be OK if we included that judgement, making sure that the article is phrased in such a way that it's obvious that the judgement is the author’s opinion, not original thought on the part of the Wikipedia’s editors.

We can't say that the nine sections under discussion are any different than that Battle of Gettysburg recreation just because they’re in an article about fiction. That's against the consensus of all Wikipedians (not just Heinlein fans) so that is what we’re supposed to do. We don't have separate, conflicting rules for separate subsets of articles. (Maybe we should but, as of right now, we don't.)

If someone else took the nine sections and paraphrased them on a blog then you could cite that blog as a reference for those sections. (If you blogged them yourself, that would be against our rule pertaining to conflicts of interest. Even if you got a friend to blog the sections for you, it would be against the spirit of conflict of interest.)

However, even though that blog would pass the test for a secondary source, we don’t usually allow blogs as reliable sources. But I’m only asking for any sources at all. Please bear in mind that another editor, say tomorrow, might ask for reliable sources or they'd remove the offending sections.

Now you can choose a new pen name and “publish” the offending sections (properly paraphrased, we don’t want any copyright problems, do we?) on any of thousands of websites that allow anonymous user input. Because we always assume good faith, I (and most editors) will allow your inclusion in the article. (A couple of years from now, who knows?)

But then we’re really cheating the consensus system of Wikipedia itself. That consensus is built on what everyone would like our encyclopedia to be eventually (on that great day when everything is reliably cited). Not what science fiction fans (or Civil War fans or whatever stripes they’re wearing this year) want today. “Silent assent” is also not sufficient because, IMO, the article on Friday is visited by mostly science fiction fans and the content of Wikipedia is based on what everyone would want. Would you want a Wikipedia that means one thing to (say) historians and another thing to science fiction fans?

In conclusion, let me say that, in spite of everything, I approve of your intentions. There may be something in allowing an in-universe perspective, based solely on the text (which would have to be cited by edition and page number or chapter). In my opinion, these sections should be in separate, See Also sub-articles, accessed from the main article. Maybe having an article name like (say) “In-novel perspective of Friday”. If you want to start a request for comment (RfC) in favor of this on this talk page, I will support you.

If we get the In-novel-perspective idea approved by consensus then we can retrieve the nine sections from history and cut-and-paste them into a separate article. As a matter of fact, if you want to pursue this, I will leave the nine sections alone until this matter is resolved. We can use them as an example.

Finally, I don’t think I’m an ogre or a tyrant. My personal objective is to get Friday and all Heinlein novels up to featured article status (like Starship Troopers) but that shouldn't affect this decision. I wish there was some legitimate way of doing what we both want. But, for now, the guidelines are what they are and we must follow them or object in some civilized way, like your letter or RfC’s. (By the way, I’m fairly new at this. I believe that most experienced fact-checkers of Wikipedia would simply have deleted the nine sections from the article entirely, with maybe an edit summary, visible only from the history tab, like: removed 9 sects for no RS and OR.)

All of this is simply my opinion. (Obviously I can’t talk for anyone else.) But I’m fairly confident that what I’m saying meets with broad consensus and are in Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If you disagree, perhaps we should start a RfC on these nine sections below.

Very sincerely, --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC) (Goldsmith is my nom de wiki but I prefer Roy from all my fellow Wikipedians :)

Subsequent developments
Dear Martin,

It has been over a week and I still haven't heard from you. Do you accept my arguments that the nine sections under discussion should be removed? I don't want to get into an edit war with you, not even reverting a single time.

In brief, my arguments are: In addition, I have started a venue for others to comment about this matter.
 * This is a Wikipedia article and so must be judged by the same standards as any other article, not just science fiction fans.
 * The text of any novel is regarded as a primary source about that novel and, therefore, should not be used whenever possible.
 * The sections in dispute suffer from: no Reliable Sources, Original Research and a In-universe perspective.
 * I offered to support you in a trial exception to the current consensus about in-universe perspectives.

If you have any response, please add your remarks below. (Also, I will send this comment to you via email.)

Thank you. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the nine sections sometime next week, unless someone objects. These sections will always be available under the article's history tab. In addition, I will save these sections in a user subpage. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Email from Martin
I have just received an email from User Deepshark5; that is, the guy named Martin I've been arguing with up above. I will not delete any sections until the matter is resolved. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In a message dated 8/31/2009 10:28:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time:

Dear Roy

Thank you for your reply, and I appreciate the email as sent. Re not replying - I must confess to being away and working hard professionally, though I am back on deck this week out. Re your points, I'll post a reply on Wikipedia this evening (1 Sept 09) ASAP. Re your email, I have addressed responses, please let me know ASAP how you intend to proceed. >>> This is a Wikipedia article and so must be judged by the same standards as any other article, not just science fiction fans.

Granted, and not disputed. BUT, and this is a very massive but, the subject of the article is a piece of fiction. There are many other novel articles more technical than the one for 'Friday' : Wikipedia articles covering Thomas Pynchon's 'V' and Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' are far more detailed and equally catholic with regard to the novels under consideration.

Therefore your objection does not make much sense to me - The article is encyclopedic, as befits Wikipedia. The data presented is not at variance with the novel, wherever possible. Would it help to perhaps give chapter and verse references for quotes from Friday herself ? I am happy to oblige.

On the issue of Standards - how ? Is there a novel page on Wikipedia that meets those standards by group consensus ? If so, please point it out to me, and I'll make the changes and rebuild the Friday page myself, without trouble. If they are your personal standards that are infringed, say so too. My own standards are not harmed by the page, but the page is a fair place in order to set balances aright.

>>> The text of any novel is regarded as a primary source about that novel and, therefore, should not be used whenever possible.

Ok, as regards this one - you have mentioned that Friday is one of your favourite novels. We both agree that the origin of the novel is the short-story 'Gulf' which feature Dr. Baldwin and Friday's progenitors, the Greenes. Further, we both agree that the work is Fiction.

So - here is the problem I have with your line of argument - the Fiction is the only source available. Can you defend your requirement for additional resources ? As I noted previously, we don't have history texts for Friday's world. Other users have placed links into articles for reference - do you require more of those?

'Gulf' is a very spare story - very little is said about the political situation of the story apart from their being a number of terrorists, which the Greenes as honourable hatchet-men are sent to dispatch - successfully. Dr Baldwin is their boss, but also intellectual expander for their minds. More is not said.

'Friday' as a tale does not work within a particular 'sequence' related to any other story so far seen within Heinlein's 'Future History'. As the Wikipedia article itself notes, the 'point of consensus' for Friday revolves around the Moon landing of LeCroix funded by Harriman. I will further note that Heinlein himself was not 100% consistent, as Lazarus Long's life story (Time Enough For Love) mentions a planet featuring a city of New Canaveral that celebrates Niel'sday, for the date when Armstrong set foot on the Moon, and yet the Harriman Space Trust exists in the same universe at the beginning of the tale. >>> The sections in dispute suffer from: no Reliable Sources, Original Reasearch and a In-universe perspective. Please see above - where a 'Universe' is detailed enough, it is possible to write an article. Where it is not, one can be vague. Again : The Novel is all we have. I am afraid no-one has 'A History of the Second Atlantic Rebellion and the Balkanisation of the Americas, 2076-2082' - BUT - we do have the Novel, "Friday" which tells us enough of the background, currencies, polities, and societies for us to make shrewd guesses based on historically minded intelligence. This universe is certainly detailed enough, which is what makes the novel compelling.

>>> I offered to support you in a trail exception to the current consensus about in-universe perspectives.

Ok, well in that case please be consistent ! Regarding current consensus and in-universe, We are in agreement. However, please see replies above in regards factuality. Logically, if we both agree that: •	consensus has been reached •	in-universe view is acceptable Then what on earth are you yammering about ? You've behaved atrociously in attempting to force your own view over a consensus, which is the fundamental nature of Wikipedia articles - they are consensus driven, not solo controlled. Further, given the nature of the subject, a work of fiction, the only views possible are those in-fiction. Roy, I urge you to be academically minded when making pronouncements and decisions for a Wikipedia article. Your an intelligent, well read, and a capable writer, and must be able to reason out these issues.

>>>In addition, I have started a venue at WP:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum for others to comment about this matter.

>>>If you have any response, please either add your remarks to Friday's talk page or reply directly to me via reverse email.

>>>Thank you. --RoyGoldsmith (royjgordon@aol.com)

Thanks Roy, I hope we can continue to sort through these problems, constructively. Many kind regards,

Martin La Grange

Email reply from Roy
Subject: Re: Friday on Wikipedia Date: 9/16/2009

I'm sorry I didn't read your email until now. I was away and hadn't opened my mailbox for a couple of weeks. Did you post your reply on Wikipedia? If so, where is it? I take it from the email above that you did not read my long reply dated August 20th on the talk page of Friday. If you haven't read it until now, please do so. It starts with "Dear Martin (Deepshark5),". My email was a summary of that reply. Unless you read all of that response, we'll just be going over the same material. In looking over your comments above, it seems to me that you regard this dispute as essentially between you and me. I do not view it that way. I see it as a disagreement over the material in those nine sections. In my opinion, those sections violate many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I do not set those policies and neither do you. It is not me you should be making the case for inclusion of those sections. I'm only following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You should be making your case to WikiProject Novels. (Access by entering WP:NOVELS in the search box.) If they say what you're doing is OK and change the policies accordingly, I would be delighted to not remove the sections and even add new, in-universe perspective material myself. But you've got to get their approval and consensus, not mine. For example, I said I would support a trial exception to using the text of a novel as an unqualified reliable source. But you have to submit the proposal to WikiProject Novels and baby it through the consensus process. I won't do it for you. Please read my long reply beginning with Dear Martin on the talk page of Friday (novel). Then: At any rate, please post a couple of lines to the bottom of Friday's talk section so I will know that you have read my reply. If you want to start a discussion on WikiProject Novels, please tell me what page your discussion is on so that I can participate. Sincerely, RoyGoldsmith
 * If you have any difficulties with my interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (or don't understand them), please reply on Friday's talk page. For example, if you think that the bulk of one or more sections is not in-universe perspective, make that case to me. But don't tell me that the whole policy of In-Universe Perspective is wrong; I can't change it.
 * If you disagree with the policies themselves, please start a discussion on WikiProject Novels. If you do, I will delay removing the nine sections until it’s resolved. I will accept anything they say.

More developments
I'm inserting a fourth warning to the nine sections under discussion like this:

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I like Deepshark5's thourough collection of information from the novel, I have to agree with RoyGoldsmith that Wikipedia isn't the right place for it. But I suspect that there are more than a few other sites that could use this info. --Aron.Foster

I replied to Martin/Deepshark5 via email, addressing some of his points and suggesting that we continue our discussion on this talk page. He never replied to me.

Unless someone objects, I will be removing the nine offending sections within the next week or two. Final warning. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Section Deletion
I have deleted the nine sections (from A New Future History to Religious references) from the article and moved them to User:RoyGoldsmith/Friday. These sections can also be found in the article's history tab for 20:51, 12 November 2009.

In my opinion, a small portion of the deleted material should be moved to the Plot section and/or a new section on Characters. I'm going to wait for a few weeks before I tackle this, just to make sure my deletions aren't reverted. If any of you wish to start adding real-world material yourself, I'd certainly appreciate it. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Literary significance and reception"
The section about critical reaction to the book is one sentence long.

As I recall, when the paperback came out, its first dozen or so pages—I don't think I'm exaggerating—consisted of quotations from favorable reviews, many of which said more or less "Heinlein has returned to writing good books after his recent string of unreadable ones." It seemed clear to me that the point was to convince people who'd given up on Heinlein that they should try again.

Am I remembering correctly? If so, shouldn't the article say something about this? (I am not suggesting that Wikipedia take a position on the quality of the books in question; rather that the article could reasonably note that a number of reviewers felt that way.) Briankharvey (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Can you find secondary sources that discuss that?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * This is the Speculative Fiction Database page on Friday. It has links to bibliographic info (but not the text of) nineteen different published reviews of Friday, including Spider Robinson's review of it in the Mid-September 1982 issue of Analog.  Hope this helps. loupgarous (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The article now has 2 consecutive sections headed "Literary significance and reception" and "Reception". This seems like an oversight. They should either be separated into "Literary significance" and "Reception", or merged. IMO they should be merged as they are fairly short. I'm not sure which heading is more appropriate; I'll review the content & compare a couple of similar articles before proceeding. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friday (novel). 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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69AHE3033?url=http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Locus1983.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Locus1983.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Friday (novel)


text:
User talk:Peter McGinley/Archive 1

This is an archive of my talk page. Please do not not edit this page. To send me a message, please use this page.
 * Archive #1 of my talk page
 * Archive #2 of my talk page
 * Archive #3 of my talk page
 * Archive #4 of my talk page
 * Archive #5 of my talk page
 * Archive #6 of my talk page
 * Archive #7 of my talk page

Welcome!

Hello, Peter McGinley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 01:30, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

you should have read the talk page before editing John Howard. Xtra 08:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good work on the 2005 Australian Grand Prix. User:BillCook 06 Mar 2005

Re: Reverting

 * Is reverting where you go through the history to a page, go onto that page and grab the source code?

Depends on what you mean by "grab the source code". I don't copy-and-paste, although that works; How to revert a page to an earlier version discusses opening an older version for editing and then saving it, which is the way I usually work. —Brent Dax 09:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
G'day. I see that you listed yourself at WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Welcome on board! — Chameleon 13:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revision3 Studios
Hi. I noticed that you voted to keep the Systm article on Votes_for_deletion/Systm. Well, unfortunately, the article was deleted, and Systm was redirected to Kevin Rose. I recently created a new article for Revision3 Studios, the company that produces System and thebroken, and changed Systm to redirect there. Unfortunately, the Revision3 Studios article has now been nominated for deletion.

So, if you have a chance, please look at the Revision3 Studios article, and then go to Votes for deletion/Revision3 Studios and vote to keep it. Thanks a lot, --taestell 16:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Peter McGinley/Archive 1


text:
Antipope John

Antipope John may refer to:

 * Antipope John VIII (844), in opposition to Pope Sergius II
 * Antipope John XVI (997–998), in opposition to Pope Gregory V
 * Antipope John XXIII (1410–1415), in opposition to Pope Gregory XII

title: Antipope John


text:
User talk:Lapafrax

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Phroziac (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Adam Smith Institute
I note your recent edit to the above. Your entry appears to be an attempt at an essay, and may be in violation of WP:OR. Could you kindly source your edit? In the meantime, it will be reverted. Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Offense (etiquette)

The article Offense (etiquette) has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Simple dictionary definition with no references. Not an encyclopaedia entry.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lapafrax


text:
User talk:Jmicahfields

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Phroziac (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

title: User talk:Jmicahfields


text:
User talk:Peter Knutsen

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Phroziac (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

I’ve been wondering about how I can attract a boyfriend and you seem like a good person to ask. I’m Vietnamese American and not well endowed. Sometimes I feel like there’s no point! Do you have any advice Mr. Knutsen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00A:3D1D:9C6A:B1AD:8ADA:4AFB (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter Knutsen's general message policy
I'll answer to messages here, instead of on the messenger's own page, so that public discussions are easier for others to follow. However, people are welcome to use the below space as a "guest book" by posting messages which do not (seem to) require a reply.--Peter Knutsen 17:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Good 1st edit!
I saw your edit summary, and wanted to let you know you are appreciated. I took a look at your user page too. Are you familiar w Marvel super heros rpg, or paranoia? Those are my 2 favorite RPG's, the first becauce of the rules (Very well designed) and the 2nd because of the premise (its got an awesome premise ;). Cheers, Sam Spade 12:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As for my first edit, I've just read the editing policy, and it seems that removal of text should always be marked as a "major edit". However, I opted for marking the deletion of the phrase "you suck a lot of" as a "minor edit", because it seemed to me to be a vandalist insertion, quite outside of the article's context, and clearly with no intent of improving WikiPedia's quality. Was that wrong of me?--Peter Knutsen 17:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As for RPG systems, I'm not directly familiar with Paranoia at all, but from what I've heard and read it's extremely far removed from what I want. As for Marvel Super Heroes, I've read parts of it, and while it seems to me like it might work for a comic books superhero campaign, it fails to do several things which I consider important. Primarily, it doesn't deal at all well with how people change (Sagatafl has detailed rules for how different people learn different things at different speeds, and also rules that makes certain kinds of change impossible - one cannot train or otherwise improve one's normal attributes, for instance, which places Sagatafl firmly at the right side of the Nurture/Nature debate spectrum), and secondly it covers only typical superhero stuff like combat, movement and mystical abilities (i.e. magic), largely ignoring intellectual endavours. Most intellectual endavours are very non-standard in RPGs anyway (but then again, I like non-standard), but there is the very common issue, in fantasy RPGs, of spell research, something I really want to the players to be empowered to have their characters engage in. In addition to this, there are all sorts of tertiary issues, such as the creation of permanent magical items: I believe I have achieved the goal of simultaneously ensuring that the world won't be flooded with them, while still giving the players' characters a very good shot at making ones of their own, instead of relying on the generosity of the GM.--Peter Knutsen 17:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You might want to look into MSH a bit closer, I'm pretty sure it addresses all of those concerns. It is particularly well suited to things like intellectual stunts (be they inventive, intuitive, psychic, or what-have-you) and the precise personalization of ones character. Even if you don't make your own character, you can develop existing marvel characters along the line of your preferences, making alterations to stats, developing power "stunts", and even gaining new powers, all thru the use of "karma" (their form of experience). To top it all off, it has the best system of attribute stats and feat/combat determination of any RPG I am aware of. Sam Spade 11:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Random Girls
Do you still have the source code for your random girl generator? David Formosa is dysgraphic please excuse spelling errors 07:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any source code, because I never wrote the program. All I have are some half-completed notes, about how to randomly generate initial values which then influence the random generation of secondary values. I lost interest in part because generating skills was a bit difficult. Sorry to disappoint you...--Peter Knutsen 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was able to write up a simple skill generator. But for me I didn't have the raw data for the pysical types David Formosa is dysgraphic please excuse spelling errors 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The entire point of the Random Girls project was to rise above the simple - mind-numbingly simple - solutions, such as found in many tabletop RPGs: == roll (2d4+4)*10 cm for height, roll 2d6*8 kg for weight, roll 1d4 and use the breast size lookup table... ==.--Peter Knutsen 14:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Peter Knutsen


text:
Endurance (1912 ship)

Endurance was the three-masted barquentine in which Sir Ernest Shackleton and a crew of 27 men sailed for the Antarctic on the 1914–1917 Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. The ship, originally named Polaris, was built at Framnæs shipyard and launched in 1912 from Sandefjord in Norway. When one of her commissioners, the Belgian Gerlache, went bankrupt, the remaining one sold the ship for less than the shipyard had charged – but as Lars Christensen was the owner of Framnæs, there was no hardship involved. The ship was bought by Shackleton in January 1914 for the expedition, which would be her first voyage. A year later, she became trapped in pack ice and finally sank in the Weddell Sea off Antarctica on 21 November 1915. All of the crew survived her sinking and were eventually rescued in 1916 after using the ship's boats to travel to Elephant Island and Shackleton, the ship's captain Frank Worsley, and four others made a voyage to seek help.

The wreck of Endurance was discovered on 5 March 2022, nearly 107 years after she sank, by the search team Endurance22. She lies 3008 m deep, and is in "a brilliant state of preservation". The wreck is designated as a protected historic site and monument under the Antarctic Treaty System.

Design and construction
Designed by Ole Aanderud Larsen, Endurance was built at the Framnæs shipyard in Sandefjord, Norway. She was built under the supervision of master wood shipbuilder Christian Jacobsen, who was renowned for insisting that all men in his employment were not just skilled shipwrights but also experienced in seafaring aboard whaling or sealing ships. Every detail of her construction had been scrupulously planned to ensure maximum durability: for example, every joint and fitting was cross-braced for maximum strength.

The ship was launched on 17 December 1912 and was initially christened Polaris after the North Star. She was 144 ft long, with a 25 ft beam, and measured 350 tons gross. Her original purpose was to provide luxurious accommodation for small tourist and hunting parties in the Arctic as an ice-capable steam yacht. As launched she had 10 passenger cabins, a spacious dining saloon and galley (with accommodation for two cooks), a smoking room, a darkroom to allow passengers to develop photographs, electric lighting and even a small bathroom.

Though her hull looked from the outside like that of any other vessel of comparable size, it was not. She was designed for polar conditions with very sturdy construction. Her keel members were four pieces of solid oak, one above the other, adding up to a thickness of 85 in, while her sides were between 30 in and 18 in thick, with twice as many frames as normal and the frames being of double thickness. She was built of planks of oak and Norwegian fir up to 30 in thick, sheathed in greenheart, an exceptionally strong and heavy wood. The bow, which was designed to meet the ice head-on, had been given special attention. Each timber had been made from a single oak tree chosen for its shape so that its natural shape followed the curve of the ship's design. When put together, these pieces had a thickness of 52 in.

Of her three masts, the foremast was square-rigged, the mainmast and mizzenmast were both fore-and-aft rigged, making her a Barquentine. As well as sails, Endurance had a 350 HP coal-fired steam engine, making the ship capable of speeds up to 10.2 kn.

At the time of her launch in 1912 Endurance was arguably the strongest wooden ship ever built with the possible exception of Fram, the vessel used by Fridtjof Nansen and later by Roald Amundsen. There was one major difference between the ships. Fram was bowl-bottomed, which meant that if the ice closed in against her, the ship would be squeezed up and out and not be subject to the pressure of the compressing ice. 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. It was observed on the expedition that she instead tended to resist being crushed by floes until the ice cracked to relieve the pressure.

Shackleton purchase
Polaris was originally built for Adrien de Gerlache and Lars Christensen. Financial problems led to Gerlache pulling out of their partnership, leaving Christensen unable to pay the Framnæs yard the final amounts to hand over and outfit the ship. For over a year, Christensen attempted unsuccessfully to sell the ship, since her unique design as an ice-capable passenger-carrying ship, with relatively little space for stores and no cargo hold, made her useless to the whaling or sealing industries. Meanwhile, she was too big, slow and uncomfortable to be a private steam yacht. In the event, Christensen was happy to sell the ship to Ernest Shackleton in January 1914 for GB£14,000, which represented a significant loss to Christensen as it barely covered the outstanding payments to Framnæs, let alone the ship's total build costs. Author Alfred Lansing reports that he was happy "to take the loss in order to further the plans of an explorer of Shackleton's stature". Shackleton did not have the money at the time, but Christensen was eager for him to purchase the ship and paid the deposit himself. After Shackleton purchased the ship, she was rechristened Endurance after the Shackleton family motto, Fortitudine vincimus ("By endurance we conquer"). The ship was originally projected ready by mid-May, but completion was delayed for a month.

Shackleton had the ship relocated from Norway to London. She arrived at the Millwall Dock in the spring of 1914, and Shackleton gathered equipment, stores, finances, and crew until the end of July. The 'tween deck was converted into a cargo hold, and the crew made their quarters in the forecastle. The darkroom remained, abaft of the boiler. The refit also saw the ship repainted from white and gilt to black. She retained the large five-pointed star on her stern that had referred to her original name.

Her new equipment included three ship's boats. Two were 21 ft transom-built rowing cutters purchased secondhand from the whaling industry. The third was a 22.5 ft double-ended rowing whaleboat built for the expedition to specifications drawn up by Frank Worsley, Endurance's new captain. After her refit, Endurance began the short coastal journey to Plymouth on 1 August 1914, the day that Germany declared war on Russia.

To find crew for the Endurance, Shackleton reportedly placed an advertisement in The Times, reading: "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."

Voyages to the Antarctic Circle in the 16 years prior to Endurance's purchase had been almost uniformly successful with only one vessel, the 30-year-old whaler Antarctic, having been crushed in the ice. With it being felt that little harm could come to a purpose-built ship in a sea in which ice halted all waves, Endurance became the first ship to be insured for her journey. All previous examples had their insurance end at the last port of call before their journey into the ice. Lloyd's of London and the Indemnity Marine Insurance Company underwrote Endurance at the value of £15,000.

Voyage
Embarking on her maiden voyage, Endurance sailed from Plymouth on 8 August 1914 and set course for Buenos Aires, Argentina, under Worsley's command. Shackleton remained in Britain, finalising the expedition's organization and attending to some last-minute fundraising. This was Endurance's first major voyage following her completion and amounted to a shakedown voyage. Built for the ice, her hull was considered by many of her crew too rounded for the open ocean.

Shackleton took a steamer to Buenos Aires and caught up with his expedition a few days after Endurance's arrival. On 26 October 1914, Endurance sailed from Buenos Aires to what would be her last port of call, the whaling station at Grytviken on the island of South Georgia, where she arrived on 5 November. She left Grytviken on 5 December 1914, heading for the southern regions of the Weddell Sea.

Two days after leaving South Georgia, Endurance encountered polar pack ice and progress slowed to a crawl. For weeks Endurance worked her way through the pack, averaging less than 30 nmi per day. By 15 January 1915, Endurance was within 200 nmi of her destination, Vahsel Bay. By the following morning, heavy pack ice was sighted and in the afternoon a gale developed. Under these conditions it was soon evident that progress could not be made, and Endurance took shelter under the lee of a large grounded iceberg. During the next two days, Endurance moved back and forth under the sheltering protection of the berg. On 18 January, the gale began to moderate and Endurance set the topsail with the engine at slow. The pack had blown away. Progress was made slowly, until hours later Endurance encountered the pack once more. It was decided to move forward and work through the pack, and at 5:00 pm Endurance entered it. This ice was different from what had been encountered before, and the ship was soon amongst thick but soft brash ice, and became beset. The gale increased in intensity and kept blowing for another six days from a northerly direction towards land. By 24 January, the wind had completely compressed the ice in the Weddell Sea against the land, leaving Endurance icebound as far as the eye could see in every direction. All that could be done was to wait for a southerly gale to start pushing in the other direction, which would decompress and open the ice.

In the early morning of 24 January, a wide crack appeared in the ice 50 yd ahead of the ship. Initially 15 ft across but 1 mi long, by mid-morning the next day the break was over 0.25 mi wide, giving the men on the Endurance hope that the ice was breaking up. But the break never reached the ship itself, and despite three hours under full sail and full speed on the engine, the ship did not budge. Over the next days, the crew waited for the southerly gale to release the pressure on the ice, but while the wind backed to the hoped-for south/southwest direction, it remained light and erratic. Unseasonably low temperatures of around -2 F additionally kept the ice together. Occasional breaks in the ice were spotted, but none reached the ship and all closed up within a few hours.

On 14 February, an open channel of water opened up 0.25 mi ahead of the ship and dawn showed the Endurance was afloat in a pool of soft, young ice no more than 2 ft thick, but the pool was surrounded by solid pack ice of 12 – in thickness, blocking the path to the open lead. A day's continual work by the crew saw them hack a clear channel 150 yd long. This work continued through the following day (15 February) and, with steam raised, the Endurance was backed up within her pool as far as possible to allow the ship to ram her way through the channel. As the ship went astern for successive attempts, lines were attached from the bow to loosened blocks of ice, estimated to weigh 20 tons (18 tonnes), in order to clear the path. The pool proved too small for the ship to gain enough momentum to successfully ram her way clear and by the end of the day the ice began to freeze up again. By 3:00 pm, the Endurance had made 200 yd of distance through the ice, with 400 yd still to go to clear water. Shackleton decided that the consumption of coal and manpower, and the risk of damage to the ship, was too great and called a halt.

Drift
After this frustration, Endurance's boilers were extinguished, committing the ship to drift with the ice until released naturally. On 17 February, the sun dipped below the horizon at midnight, showing the end of the Antarctic summer. On 24 February, regular watches on the ship were cancelled, with the Endurance now functioning as a shore station. The ship had slowly drifted south and at this point was within 60 mi of the intended landing point at Vahsel Bay. But the icy terrain between the ship and the shore was too arduous to travel while carrying the materials and supplies needed for the overland expedition.

By March, navigational observation showed that the ship (and the mass of pack ice that contained her) was still moving, but now swinging towards the west-northwest and increasing in the speed of its drift, moving 130 mi between the start of March and 2 May, when the sun disappeared below the horizon and the dark Antarctic winter began.

On 14 July 1915, Endurance was swept by a southwest gale, with wind speeds of 112 km/h, a barometer reading of 28.88 inHg and temperatures falling to -33 F. The blizzard continued until 16 July. This broke up the pack ice into smaller, individual floes, each of which began to move semi-independently under the force of the weather, while also clearing water in the north of the Weddell Sea. This provided a long fetch for the south-setting wind to blow over and then for the broken ice to pile up against itself while individual parts moved in different directions. This caused regions of intense localised pressure in the ice field. The ice began "working", with sounds of breaking and colliding ice audible to those on the ship through the next day. Breaks in the ice were spotted but none approached the ice holding the Endurance.

During July the ship drifted a further 160 mi to the north. On the morning of 1 August, a pressure wave passed through the floe holding the ship, lifting the 400-ton Endurance bodily upwards and heeling the ship sharply to her port side before she dropped into a pool of water, afloat again for the first time in nearly six months. The broken sections of floe closed in around the ship on all sides, jarring the Endurance forward, backwards and sideways in violent fashion against the other slabs of ice. After over a quarter of an hour, a force from astern pushed the ship's bow up onto the floe, lifting the hull out of the pressure and with a list of five degrees to her port side. A gale overnight further disturbed the floe, driving it against the starboard side of the hull and forcing a sheet of ice upwards at a 45-degree angle until it reached the level of the scuppers. Despite the ordeal of the past few days, the ship remained undamaged.

Two pressure waves struck the ship on 29 August without incident. On the evening of 31 August, a slow-building pressure gripped the Endurance, causing her hull and timbers to creak and shudder continuously. The ice around the ship moved and broke throughout the night, battering the port side of the hull. All was quiet again until the afternoon of 30 September, by which time there were signs of spring with ten hours of sunlight per day and occasional temperature readings above freezing. A large floe was swept against the Endurance's port bow and then gripped that side of the ship against the built-up ice and snow on her starboard beam. The ship's structure groaned and wracked under the strain. Carpenter Harry McNish noted that the solid oak beams supporting the upper deck were being visibly bent "like a piece of cane". On deck the ship's masts were whipping back and forth as their stepping points on the keel were distorted. Despite these disconcerting signs, Worsley noted that the strength of the ship's structure was causing the ice itself to break up as it piled against the hull—"just as it appears she can stand no more, the huge floe weighing possibly a million tons or more yields to our little ship by cracking across ... and so relieves the pressure. The behaviour of our ship in the ice has been magnificent. Undoubtedly she is the finest little wooden vessel ever built". Despite this, the ship's decks were permanently buckled following this ordeal.

Final destruction
By October, temperatures of up to nearly 29 F were recorded and the ice showed further signs of opening up. The floe against the ship's starboard broke up on 14 October, casting the Endurance afloat in a pool of open water for the first time in nine months.

On 16 October, Shackleton ordered steam to be raised so the ship could take advantage of any openings in the ice. It took nearly four hours for the boilers to be filled with freshwater melted from ice, and then a leak was discovered in one of the fittings and they had to be pumped out, repaired and then refilled. The following day a lead of open water was seen ahead of the ship. Only one boiler had been lit and there was insufficient steam to use the engine, so all the sails were set to try to force the ship into the loosening pack ice, but without success.

In the late afternoon of 18 October, the ice closed in around the Endurance once again. In just five seconds the ship was canted over to port by 20 degrees, and the list continued until she rested at 30 degrees, with the port bulwark resting on the pack and the boats on that side nearly touching the ice as they hung in their davits. After four hours in this position, the ice drew apart and the ship returned to a level keel.

The ice was relatively still for the rest of the month. On 20 October, steam was raised again and the engines tested. On 22 October, the temperature dropped sharply from 10 F to -14 F and the wind veered from southwest to northeast, and the next day, pressure ridges could be seen forming in the ice and moving near the ship.

On 24 October, the damaged ship was wracked by further pressure waves, pinning her between both floes. A large mass of ice slammed into the stern, tearing the sternpost away from the hull planking. Around the same time, the bow planking was stove in, causing simultaneous flooding in the engine room and the forward hold. Despite using both the portable manual pumps and getting up steam to drive the main bilge pumps, the water level continued to rise. The main man-powered deck pumps did not work, as their intakes had frozen and could only be restored by pouring buckets of boiling water onto the pump pipes from inside the coal bunkers and then playing a blowtorch over the intake valve. McNish constructed a cofferdam in the shaft tunnel to seal off the damaged stern area while the crew were arranged in spells of 15 minutes on, 15 minutes off on the main pump. After 28 hours of continuous work, the inflow of water had only been arrested—the ship was still badly flooded. At 9:00 pm, Shackleton ordered the ship's boats, stores and essential equipment to be moved onto the surrounding ice. The footplates in the engine room were pushed up and would no longer sit in place as the compartment was compressed. The planking of the ship's port side was bowing inwards by up to 6 in.

Amid temperatures from -8.5 F in the morning to -16 F in the evening, Shackleton gave the order to abandon ship on 27 October at about 5:00 pm. The position at abandonment was 69° 05'S, 51° 30'W. During the course of the next day, parties were sent back to the ship to recover more supplies and stores. They found that the entire port side of the Endurance had been driven inwards and compressed, and the ice had entirely filled the bow and stern sections; only one of the six cabins had not been pierced by the floes. Shackleton wrote that the entire aft of the ship "had been crushed concertina fashion", the forward motor engine was pushed into the galley, and gasoline cans stacked on deck were pushed through the deckhouse wall halfway into the wardroom. The ship's Blue Ensign was hoisted up her mizzen mast so that she would, in Shackleton's word's, "go down with colours flying".

After a failed attempt to man-haul the boats and stores overland on sledges, Shackleton realised the effort was much too intense and that the party would have to camp on the ice until it carried them to the north and broke up. More parties were sent back to the Endurance, still with her masts and rigging intact and all but her bow above the ice, to salvage any remaining items. By then, two days after abandoning her, the ship was submerged up to the forecastle. A large portion of the provisions had been left on the submerged lower deck. The only way to retrieve them was to cut through the main deck, which was more than a foot thick in places and itself under three feet of water. Some crates and boxes floated up once a hole had been cut, while others were retrieved with a grapple. In total, nearly 3.5 tons of stores were recovered from the wrecked ship.

The party was still camped under 2 mi from the remains of the Endurance on 8 November when Shackleton returned to the ship to consider further salvage. By now the ship had sunk a further 18 in into the ice and the upper deck was now almost level with the ice. The interior of the ship was almost full of compacted ice and snow, making further work impossible.

On 13 November, a new pressure wave swept through the pack ice. The forward topgallant mast and topmasts collapsed as the bow was finally crushed. These moments were recorded on film by expedition photographer Frank Hurley. The mainmast was split near its base and shortly afterwards the mainmast and the mizzen mast broke and collapsed together, with this also filmed by Hurley.

In the late afternoon of 21 November, movement of the remaining wreckage was noticed as another pressure wave hit. Within the space of a minute, the stern of the Endurance was lifted clear of the ice as the floes moved together and then, as the pressure passed and they moved apart, the entire wreck fell into the ocean. The ice surrounding the spot where the Endurance had sunk immediately moved together again, obliterating any trace of the wreck. Worsley recorded the position as 68°39′30″ S, 52°26′30″ W but had been unable to obtain a sextant sight at the time and based the position on that of Ocean Camp at noon the following day.

Aftermath
The crew remained camped on the ice in the hopes that the floe would bring them closer to one of various islands. In April 1916, they set off in the Endurance's three ship's boats and eventually landed on Elephant Island. Because the island was remote and rarely visited, Shackleton decided that help needed to be sought. On 24 April, he, Worsley, and four others began a voyage in a ship's boat, named James Caird, for South Georgia. After reaching South Georgia, Shackleton worked on arranging a rescue mission for those left on Elephant Island. Shackleton and Worsley made three voyages in different vessels that were unable to get through the ice to reach them. The fourth attempt, in the Yelcho (lent by the Chilean government) was successful, and all of the twenty-two members of the crew who had remained on Elephant Island were safely rescued on 30 August 1916 – 128 days after Shackleton had left in James Caird. The actual retrieval of the men from the beach was done as quickly as possible, before the ice closed in again. But, even in that haste, care was taken to collect all the records and photographs of the expedition, as these gave the only hope of Shackleton paying the expenses of the failed expedition.

Wreck

In 1998, wreckage found at Stinker Point on the southwestern side of Elephant Island was incorrectly identified as flotsam from the ship. It instead was from the 1877 wreck of the Connecticut sealing ship Charles Shearer. In 2001, wreck hunter David Mearns unsuccessfully planned an expedition to find the wreck of Endurance. By 2003, two rival groups were making plans for an expedition to find the wreck, but no expedition was mounted at the time.

In 2010, Mearns announced a new plan to search for the wreck. The plan was sponsored by the National Geographic Society but was subject to finding sponsorship for the balance of the US$10 million estimated cost. A 2013 study by Adrian Glover of the Natural History Museum, London correctly suggested the Antarctic Circumpolar Current could preserve the wreck on the seabed by keeping wood-boring "ship worms" away. A Weddell Sea Expedition to locate and possibly photograph the wreck using long-range autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) was underway in the Antarctic summer of 2018–2019. This expedition failed when the researchers' AUV was lost to the ice.

Having examined Frank Worsley's original log books housed at the Canterbury Museum in Christchurch, New Zealand, and closely studied his navigational methods, Lars Bergman and Robin Stuart published an analysis of the wreck's likely position relative to the position given in the log.

Experts speculated that the wreck rested on flat terrain at around 3,000 metres, undisturbed by massive sediment disposition and little to no erosion. According to Julian Dowdeswell of the Scott Polar Research Institute, the known conditions on the sea bed suggested that Endurance should not be damaged and that she would likely be in the same state as she was when she sank in the pack ice in 1915. He also noted that any future attempts at finding the Endurance would be "add-ons" to other main scientific expeditions to the area, such as the one in 2019, which was launched chiefly to study the melting and retreat of the Larsen ice shelves.

In July 2021, the Falklands Maritime Heritage Trust announced Endurance22, a new expedition to search for the wreck of Endurance that would launch in early 2022 using Saab submersible technology. If found, the wreck would not be disturbed, but instead scanned in 3D.

On 7 February 2022 Lars Bergman, David Mearns and Robin Stuart released a preprint of their paper on the navigation of Endurance, which had been previously submitted to the Journal of Navigation in July 2021. The paper was based upon a re-analysis of the original lunar occultation timings made by Frank Worsley and Reginald W. James, the expedition physicist, using modern lunar ephemerides and catalogues of star positions, which allowed the authors to refine the predicted sinking position of Endurance. According to the authors their latest paper is "a more complete, accurate and reliable basis for determining the most probable sinking location of Endurance". David Mearns delivered the 2022 EGR Taylor Lecture on their analysis and the final paper appeared online on 21 February 2023. Bergman, Mearns and Stuart were awarded a special Certificate of Achievement by the Royal Institute of Navigation "in recognition of their pioneering data analysis and modelling leading to the successful location of Endurance's wreck".

Discovery
The wreck of Endurance was discovered on 5 March 2022. Endurance22 announced, in a 9 March 2022 press release, that they had found the wreck in the Weddell Sea at a depth of 3008 m. Although the wreck's position was initially described as being about 4 mi south of Worsley's original calculated location, the true position was later revealed to be 68°44′21″ S, 52°19′47″ W which is 4.9 nmi South, 2.4 nmi East (5.4 nmi total distance) of the position given in the log. Mensun Bound, the expedition's director of exploration, said that Worsley's navigational skills had helped the expedition find the wreck; his historic "detailed records were invaluable". Additionally, sea ice, which covers the Weddell Sea year-round and has historically been so thick as to make underwater exploration nearly impossible, was recorded as being at its lowest levels around Antarctica since space satellite records began being kept in the 1970s.

The discoverers on board the South African research vessel S. A. Agulhas II said that the wreck was in remarkably good condition, and that they had filmed and photographed it extensively, including with ultra-high-definition 3D scanning. The name Endurance on the stern remains clearly legible. In keeping with the team's promise, they did not salvage any part of the wreck or of its contents, as the ship came under the definition of a protected historic site and monument as set forth in the Antarctic Treaty System. A legal protection perimeter around the wreck is being widened from 500m to 1,500m.

The search for the Endurance and its discovery were able to be followed by students around the world, thanks to the efforts of the expedition's educational partner, Reach the World. Reach the World conducted live streams, created educational resources, and published informational updates at regular intervals before, during, and after the expedition.

Crew
The crew of Endurance on her final voyage was made up of the 28 men, including Sir Ernest Shackleton, listed below. They were accompanied by Mrs Chippy, a male ship's cat, and originally sixty-nine sledge dogs with additional litters of puppies born during the expedition. After the Endurance became trapped in pack ice and was destroyed, Shackleton decided that Mrs Chippy and some of the younger dogs would not survive and had to be shot.

 * Sir Ernest Shackleton, expedition leader
 * Frank Wild, second-in-command
 * Frank Worsley, captain and navigator
 * Lionel Greenstreet, first officer
 * Tom Crean, second officer
 * Alfred Cheetham, third officer
 * Hubert Hudson, navigator
 * Lewis Rickinson, engineer
 * Alexander Kerr, engineer
 * Alexander Macklin, surgeon
 * James McIlroy, surgeon
 * Sir James Wordie, geologist
 * Leonard Hussey, meteorologist
 * Reginald James, physicist
 * Robert Clark, biologist
 * Frank Hurley, photographer
 * George Marston, artist
 * Thomas Orde-Lees, motor expert and storekeeper
 * Harry "Chippy" McNish, carpenter
 * Charles Green, cook
 * Walter How, able seaman
 * William Bakewell, able seaman
 * Timothy McCarthy, able seaman
 * Thomas McLeod, able seaman
 * John Vincent, boatswain
 * Ernest Holness, stoker
 * William Stephenson, stoker
 * Perce Blackborow, steward

Legacy
Two Antarctic patrol ships of the Royal Navy have been named Endurance in honour of Shackleton's ship. The first HMS Endurance (1967), launched in May 1956 and given the pennant number A171 sometime later, served as an ice patrol and hydrographic survey ship until 1986. The second HMS Endurance (A171) was bought from Norway in 1991, where she had been named MV Polar Circle. After initially keeping that name, she was renamed Endurance, serving as an icebreaker. The SpaceX Crew Dragon Endurance was named in part in honour of the ship. In 2021, Lindblad Expeditions in conjunction with National Geographic launched the Endurance, a polar cruise ship named in honour of Shackleton's voyage.

title: Endurance (1912 ship)


text:
User talk:BennyDC

Welcome!
Hello, BennyDC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  17:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. :)

title: User talk:BennyDC