Talk:John Davis (sealer)

Did he "set foot" on Antarctica at all?

I find this article to be extremely odd. First, it says that Davis was the first to set foot on Antarctica. Then it gives a log entry that says a boat that was "sent ashore" later "returned". This suggests that Davis was not even on the boat that visited the mainland. So why say that he was the first to "set foot"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.126.218 (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

• The date of birth (1884) and date of joining the Merchant Service (1900) must be wrong. Are they simply out by 100 years (ie: should be 1784 and 1800) or do they apply to a different John Davis? - TristramBrelstaff 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the DOB as it was written by an anonymous editor and it was uncited. PianoKeys 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Disputed" claim of first landing

At the moment, after describing the first landing and adding a quote from Davis's logbook, the article reads: "If the logbook entry is accurate these men were the first humans to set foot on the new continent of Antarctica.[4] However, historians dispute the ships [sic!] logbook claim.[5]"

Well, checking note 4 you might expect to see some doubt about Davis in order to justify inclusion of doubt in the article, but the link straightforwardly writes that Davis's was the "first recorded landing". It becomes farce at note 5's link. Titled "Fun Social Studies," it's written for children and written badly, with misplaced capitals. The pertinent part reads: On February 7, 1821, John Davis, became the first person to land on Antarctica. He was Captain of an American whaling ship. Some Historians claim the part he landed on is not part of the true continent, but a Peninsula, or piece jutting out.

Nonsensical. Besides not citing any "Historians," saying that a peninsula is not part of a continent that it's jutting out of is borderline illiterate. A child's webpage isn't a source anyway. I'm deleting the second sentence, and revising the first to put it in sync with its supporting source. 69.239.236.37 16:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that the mainly (See the source referenced in note 5, page 52, where only the critical sentence is quoted.) un-sourced quote from the logbook is correct, I don't read it as evidence that the boat actually landed. It reads, in pertinent part, "Sent her on Shore". This merely suggests that Davis sent a boat to the shore; there is no explicit claim that the boat actually landed. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Wictionary defines the adjective "onshore" as "1.moving from the sea towards the land", or "2.positioned on or near the shore". Granted, I see no contemporary example of the use of the phrase "on shore" in the Wikionary article, but it doesn't suggest to me that the men sent in the boat were ordered to actually step ashore. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC). Another sentence from the quotation (this sentence being un-sourced) supports this view: "Tacked ship and headed off Shore." Obviously the ship was (previous to this maneuver) not literally on land (or the shore). Terry Thorgaard (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The "claim"

It seems that Alexander Orr Vieter found the logbook of the Huron in a bookshop in 1955, and spotted the significance of the log entry. News reports from US newspapers in January and December of 1956 stress the claim this gives the US to Antarctica.

A couple of interesting points:

• A linkable item from 1955 or 1956 would be nice (most paper are $$)
• I suspect some suspicion from non-American sources at the fortuitous finding of this previously-unknown claim at such a time - some evidence of this would be nice
• No-one (except an entry by a lawyer in a "Law of the Sea" article, seems to have noticed that it's Davis's un-named men that went ashore - not Davis himself.

Snori (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Davis (sealer). 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://web.archive.org/web/20090212165218/http://library.thinkquest.org/26442/html/explore/first_landings.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/26442/html/explore/first_landings.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070729062136/http://www.70south.com/information/antarctic-history/chapter-by-chapter/chapter5 to http://www.70south.com/information/antarctic-history/chapter-by-chapter/chapter5

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)