Talk:Coppermine expedition

Untitled

My compliments on a very well-researched, thorough, and well-written account of this journey. As a Franklin scholar, I hope to be able to add a bit to your extraordinary efforts, and I hope other Wikipedians with an interest in Franklin will do the same. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent. It's interesting and readable. I have a couple of questions for clarification it says "...across of the uncharted Badlands to the...", and it's referenced to Fleming. Does he use the term "badlands"? If not it might be an idea to change it to "barren lands" as that is the more common term. In the last section it says "He got nowhere near his goal of Resolute Bay...". Is that an typo for Repulse Bay? Resolute is north of the Coppermine and Repulse is east. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the kind words, and for the copyediting and wikignoming. All help is greatly appreciated; if possible I'd like to get this article up to Featured Article standard. I suppose the main thing that needs improving right now is that it relies pretty heavily on one main source (Fleming) and that more perspectives would be useful... I shall try to improve this when my next parcel from Amazon arrives.

CBW, you're right, I was confusing Resolute Bay with Repulse Bay... that's what happens when you sit up too late to get something finished. I suppose even under better circumstances Repulse Bay would have been a tall order as they'd had to have gone overland or around the Boothia Peninsula... but at the time nobody knew the Boothia Peninsula existed. Fleming does indeed use "Barren Lands" in Barrow's Boys. I seem to have got "Badlands" from his other book (which I haven't cited as a source as it covers much the same ground as Barrow's Boys). However, Franklin himself used "Barren", and I see you're right that it's more common, so I'll go and change it now. Thanks. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with paraphrase of sources

This is a great article, but there appear to be several sections which closely paraphrase copyrighted material, both from Fleming's Barrow's Boys and the chapter on Franklin in his book Off the Map. To give two examples:

• This article has "Wearily, Franklin agreed" -- Fleming has ""Franklin wearily agreed"
• This article has "St Germain, ironically the most rebellious of the voyageurs" -- Fleming has "St Germain, the most obstructive of the voyageurs"

It's not a problem to relay the same information in different language, but simply re-arranging or substituting synonyms here and there is not enough. I don't myself have the time to do a thorough job of this, but would recommend that the author, along with others who have shown interest in this article, go over it with Fleming's [books] in hand or onscreen, and assess how extensive this issue may be, rewriting as needed. Clevelander96 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's a fault of mine that I sometimes struggle to think of alternate phrasing, and do wander too close to the source text at times as a result. I'll read through it again and rewrite a bit. Cheers, Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In conjunction with this, I think it's best to weigh all adverbs -- "wearily," "eagerly," etc. -- as they quite often introduce claims and assumptions about the state of mind or feeling of historical figures which are not, properly speaking, encyclopedic in tone. The exception would be when a primary source -- such as Franklin's or Richardson's journal -- explicitly states or comments on their emotional or mental state. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tripes de Roche or Tripe de Roche?

I notice that this article, following Fleming's usage, has "Tripes de Roche" rather than "Tripe de Roche." I'm not all that familiar with Québécois French usage, but I was under the impression that "Tripe de Roche" was the standard (it has about 20x more hits on a Google search), and that "tripe" in French, like "tripe" in English, is a non-numerable noun (e.g. applesauce, gasoline) and therefore does not take the plural. I'd be grateful if someone more expert in French could speak to this issue. Clevelander96 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure of my French either, but it could be an idiosyncrasy of Fleming's; I see that Franklin himself (at least as transcribed by Project Gutenberg) used tripe (singular), so we should probably use that unless there's a good reason not to. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth: in a letter from Jesuit missionary Sébastien Rasles (sometimes spelled Râles) to his brother, dated Oct. 12, 1723, published in the Lettres édifiantes et curieuses (34 vols, 1702-76) and later reprinted in Nouvelles des missions extraites des Lettres édifiantes et curieuses (Paris, 1827), the text gives "tripes de roches" (p. 10). Rasles describes how he was sometimes forced to subsist on them during his journey from Quebec to the Illinois country in the fall of 1691 (or thereabouts). Rasles's letter is also reprinted in Thwaites' Jesuit Relations, 73 vols. (see vol. 67, p. 150 for tripes de roches). Later in the same letter, the term occurs as "tripes de roche" (vol. 67, p. 222).

In the Dictionnaire canadien-français, ou Lexique-glossaire des mots, expressions et locutions ne se trouvant pas dans les dictionnaires courants et dont l'usage appartient surtout aux Canadiens-français (Montreal: Beauchemin, 1894), p. 323, the term "tripes de roche" is given with the definition, "nom ironique d'une certaine mousse comestible."

On the basis of this limited information I would hazard that "tripes de roche" (or "roches") is more idiomatic in French. In modern French, "tripes" in the plural is the equivalent of English tripe (contrary to what is suggested above).

"Tripe de roche" may well be an anglicization of this French (and French-Canadian) term.PC8k (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Arctic expeditions vs. Category:Exploration of the Arctic

Category:Arctic expeditionsis itself a category within Category:Exploration of the Arctic. — Robert Greer (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

temperature

minus 67 F is minus 24 C not minus 55 JDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.255.2 (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. How did you get that anyway. -11.2 F is -24 C. You may not believe the converter used on Wikipedia but you can double check it with the Fahrenheit to Celsius Converter provided by the US weather service. By the way, it's fairly common knowledge that -40 F = -40 C so it's obvious that -67 F can't equal - 24 C. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

map would be nice

Was missing a map where Coppermine River, Hood River and Back River could be seen with maybe the Forts too. Atleast the rivers are on this one, though missing names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_indicating_Coronation_Gulf,_Nunavut,_Canada.png 88.112.63.110 (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed name change

What say we change this article's name to simply Coppermine Expedition? It's not as if there is another similarly named expedition to contend with. Why should the years be mentioned in the article's title – which, besides, does not comply with MOS:DATERANGE anyway. I'd do it myself, but the page is already in use (as a redirect to this one.)

Thoughts? Jay D. Easy (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Err..what about Hearne's coppermine expedition 60 yrs earlier. Oblomov99 (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)