Talk:Henry Worsley (explorer)

Military career details welcome
I was curious on hearing the news about his death and fact he was a British Army officer. I recall a Major Worsley who was stationed in Shrewsbury at a brigade headquarters in the 1990s and wonder this was the same man.Cloptonson (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Descendant of Frank Worsley
We currenlty have, "He was a descendant of Frank Worsley"

But, according to this source,, "It is not known if there were any children from either marriage".

Can we find anything more definite? Edwardx (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * NY Times and BBC say "distant relative". Doesn't sound like direct line from father to son. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I took "descendant" from this story - but it could have been wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's ok. Seems it wasn't exactly correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the basis for this edit was, but I've reverted it. We could do with clarifying what his relationship with Frank Worsley was - I haven't yet found any source that states it explicitly, but I expect there are sources out there.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. There is a post here that says:  "In one of his daily reports, he says in effect that Frank Worsley is not directly related, but that they spring from the same tree / extended family, and would be, at best, distant cousins. But he likes to think he’s inherited the same genes."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Explorer"....?
The opening sentence calls him an "explorer", as a number of sources do. But, would it not be more appropriate and neutral to call him an "adventurer"? In my view, an "explorer" is someone who goes to uncharted or unexplored places - which is not what Worsley did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not checking the talk page before renaming the page. As I said on my talk page, I renamed the article from Henry Worsley (adventurer) to Henry Worsley (explorer) because all the sourced and the article itself (including categories) refers to him as an explorer. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 15:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd welcome comments from others. Some sources use adventurer rather than explorer - or use both - , , ,  , etc.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think explorer fits. His route had never been used before, and he went places nobody has ever been before. Danpburton (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

30 miles...?
On day 69, 21 January 2016, Henry's blog said, "Henry pushes on with his sights set on the blue ice some 30-odd miles away". This has been mistakenly reported in the news that he was only 30 miles from the finish. But his blog says he had 142 nautical miles left on 18 Jan. And he traveled 29.3 miles over the next 3 days. The blue ice was 30 some odd miles away, but the coast which was his destination was still 112 miles away. Henry is a true hero, so I think it would be good to have his Wikipedia article factually correct in spite of what the news says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpburton (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * His official site says that "having walked 913 statute miles... he made the brave decision, in Shackleton’s words, to “shoot the bolt”, 30 miles short of his ultimate goal." That is what has been reported elsewhere.  No reliable sources say that he was 112 miles short.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source: http://shackletonsolo.org/2016/01/18/day-66-hellish-soft-snow/ says: Henry calls in his diary update at 1am after a very long day on the trail. Doing everything he can to make the 16 miles he needs to stay ahead of the posse, the day is made all the more punishing by a hellish surface of soft snow as Antarctica tests Henry’s resilience with 142 miles to go. http://shackletonsolo.org/2016/01/19/day-67-mixed-bag/ says: Mixed bag of a day. Henry wakes to the densest whiteout yet and, though the going is flat and even and the conditions calm, the very soft surface makes for a gruelling day. Still no sign of the promised descent to speed progress, but the weather clears in the evening and Henry is thrilled to catch sight of the Transantarctic Mountains to the East. Distance traveled 13.6 http://shackletonsolo.org/2016/01/20/day-68-tough-old-day/ Another day of whiteout, another day cursed by the soft surface. No narrative on a disheartening day that drains Henry of all reserves – today, his picture’s worth a thousand words. Sleep is the only the answer on a day tough as this. Distance traveled 12.3 http://shackletonsolo.org/2016/01/21/day-69-sights-set-on-blue-ice/ On another day of awful whiteout, Henry pushes on with his sights set on the blue ice some 30-odd miles away in the Transantarctic Mountains. With nothing to see but white darkness, his thoughts turn to the Endeavour Fund and the men and women whose lives will be improved by this bold adventure and the generosity of his incredible support. Distance traveled 3.5 This is where the 30 miles comes from, but it is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is the coast 112 miles away on the other side of the mountains. Also if you look at his pickup point S86º 22.597 W177º 44.337 as show on http://shackletonsolo.org/2016/01/23/day-71-making-the-call/ you will see that that is not 30 miles from the coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpburton (talk • contribs) 00:41, 2 February 2016‎


 * I don't know whether you are correct or not - but, what you seem to be saying is your own synthesis, which is not permitted here. Reliable sources state that he was 30 miles from his goal.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't his own blog more reliable than a some news agency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.23 (talk • contribs) 4.42, 1 March 2016‎
 * As a general principle, no - we do not rely on what people tell us about themselves, we rely on what reliable sources say about them - even though in this particular case you may be correct.  Rather than continuing to argue the toss over this, it would be quite simple to come up with a form of words that says that, though many sources stated that that he was within 30 miles of the end of his journey, his original intention was to continue a further x miles - cited from his blog.    Please remember to sign your posts in future, using four of these: ~   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If a source is wrong, it is not reliable. 24.236.70.18 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

New story that has an accurate report on remaining distance "Henry aimed to complete the first ever solo unsupported and unassisted crossing of the Antarctic landmass but was airlifted off the ice just 120 miles short of completing his attempt. He sadly died on January 24th, 2016." http://forces.tv/55482901 Danpburton (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The New Yorker says "The journey, which would pass through the South Pole, was more than a thousand miles." 913 + 30 <1000, so that can't be right. They also give the measurement of 109.5 nautical miles. 198.151.217.176 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)