Talk:Robert Falcon Scott/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Subarticle

I have created Robert Falcon Scott controversies Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Real estate is a great investment these days!!!!

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Crane on the honour of reaching the Pole

What does Crane say exactly in pages 397–99? Not sure whether or not I should expand on this. Ottre 13:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'd really need to read the pages yourself. They contain the three quotations cited in the Preparations paragraph, from RGS, Scott and Markham, but there is little extra which in my view could expand on this. In any event it is clear what Scott saw as his priority. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with your judgement, but Ponting does seem sure about the honours involved. The introduction by Evans makes it clear the expedition was carried out primarily for science, and he also stresses that he stayed up throughout the night -- several times -- to film the landscape. Ottre 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Disregard that, I now see it was obviously being done for dramatic effect. There was a lot about the beauty of Ross Island, probably more than was necessary for a film about Scott's leadership, to lend weight to Ponting's work there. Watched the intro again and the science was clearly of secondary importance. Fifty minutes in he cuts to a title scene reading "Now for the main object of the Expedition ---- the conquest of the South Pole". Ottre 14:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a tendency, after the expedition was over, to claim science as the major or equal objective – in The Worst Journey Cherry-Garrard says "We marched for Science". But Scott's unequivocal statement about his objective is difficult to get round. That is not to say that science wasn't taken seriously. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're right, of course. As a matter of interest, have you read any of the articles mentioned by Jones in his 'Martyrs of Science' chapter? There might be a few good lines in the Nature report that we could use, alongside the claims made by Cherry-Garrard. Ottre 08:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to Nature. I think the issue of Scott's priorities is pretty well covered as it stands, and I don't myself fancy trawling through a lot of material in the hopes of an extra quote or two, but please dig deeper if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately neither do I, but still we could easily find somebody who has a subscription through the help desk. I was hoping you could do that for me actually. I really do need to get to work on the draft, as I've been away from town vacationing over easter, and the library is taking longer than expected to get the relevant materials in (Anzac Day in Australia). Ottre 07:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not researching Scott at the moment, and am busy on other projects. I'll watch the page to see if you comep with anything. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(PS: I have, however, slightly amended the "Preparations" paragraph, to get rid of a lingering POV feel)

New "Modern" Section

After being banned briefly for attempting to participate in this section, I'm pleased recent revisions have, coincidentally or otherwise, mostly conformed with my prior observations.

Recent editing history utterly confirms my earlier primary point: that this article is wonderful example of WP:OWN.

I would never DREAM currently of so much as making a spelling correction on this precious creation, as it would be utter futility

One might wish that ideally there were some way to put controls on the behavior of incompetent, foolish and abusive administrators such as Rhurfish as well as on similarly misguided WP:OWN editors.

But it's obviously quite doubtful this is possible. There are many small areas in which Wikipedia is harmed by "empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors." [[1]]. Just the way it is.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked you for disruptive editing. You did not do anything deserving of a ban (a ban would block from editing ever again). If you have valid suggestions, please make them here, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

PS I really don't care if you call me incompetent, foolish and abusive - there are certainly times when the first two have been true, but I do not think any of these are the case here. I am open to recall - if you can find 9 other editors who agree with you, all 10 of you should post your complaints on my talk page and I will give up my admin post. Finally, before calling others names, you might want to read up on WP:NPA. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

PPS Your quote is about people attacking articles for lack of notability (not the situation here). I prefer this quote from the same article: "The cranks had to consort with the mainstreamers and hash it all out—and nobody knew who really knew what he or she was talking about, because everyone's identity was hidden behind a jokey username." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Current version

I like it. It follows my various suggestions, for which Rurfisch banned me. He's a great administrator. Very careful sensitive and reflective.

I've made a couple of careful and minor edits just now.

Keep up the good work Rurfisch. I love your contributions. You are a true asset.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you make useful suggestions for the most part. However, this is a Featured Article and as such must follow all the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Inserting your opinion without a ref to back it up violates WP:NPOV and WP:V and WP:CITE, and so I reverted your recent edits.

I blocked you for diruptive editing for a short period of time - please see Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I never banned you - a ban would be a total revocation of editing priveleges - please see Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

100 Greatest Britons sentence

User:Calamitybrook added this sentence:

Respondents were self-selected and "voted" via phone calls to a TV station .

Aside from MOS problems (ref should go after the period without a space, ref needs title, publisher, access date, etc.) there are some other issues with the sentence. First off the ref makes it clear that people could vote in three ways (phone, internet or digital TV). It also points out that some 30,000 voted and I would describe the BBC as a netowrk, not a station. I know User:Brianboulton mentioned at least two authors referred to this poll regarding Scott's status, which seems to be a better sentence to add to me. Thoughts?

References

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When polls are cited in general discourse, for example, in mainstream news media, the assumption is they are reputable and that respondents are not self-selected. The convention in news reports (where readers typically encounter poll results) is to offer brief statistical explanation of poll results and margin of error, which seems inapplicable to the BBC "voting." My first point is that this was not an actual poll, as the term is widely understood.

While doubtless briefly entertaining to the English BBC audiences of 10 years ago, and perhaps retaining some sort of current interest and relevance, these results would never be presented by a reputable polling organization as a scientific measure of pubic sentiment

Further, it's presented here as if it reflects a historical trend in public opinion -- 'as if according to a scientific measurement, Scott's popularity had declined over a period of time.

However, since no comparable measures from previous years are presented (nor presumably available) Obviously no trend can be inferred.

Had the BBC conducted a similar call-in program in 1955, '65, etc., it's merely my/your personal view that in earlier years, Scott would have ranked much higher than the ranking of Boy George, et alia, in the early 21 Century BBC "poll".....

Am I at least partly stating a semi-plausible case for why this may be non-useful information?

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are, thank you very much. I know Brianboulton is one of the main authors of the current Main Page FA (Rhinemaidens) so he may be too busy to reply right away. While I agree this is not a "scientific" poll, it is still a broad measure of public opinion about Scott and Shackleton which has been mentioned by at least two reliable sources. So I think it should be mentioned in the article, but agree it could be better described. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't he the only author?

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, please see this Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with downplaying the result of the BBC poll, and suggest something along these lines: "A rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men was provided in 2002 by a BBC survey purporting to discover the '100 greatest Britons'. A self-selected sample of respondents placed Shackleton in 11th place, with Scott down the list at 54th." Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it worth mentioning that "over 30,000" respondents participated in the survey? That is a pretty large sample, even if it was self-selected? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

BBC did indeed release its list of "Top 100" based on 30,000 respondents.

BBC's numerical "rankings" of the 100 apparently weren't disclosed until, after the "poll" was rather heavily flogged in a series of broadcasts, in which each of the "Top 10" were advocated by various celebrities/authorities/commentators, and during which time a vastly larger number of "voters" called in.

I seem to remember the final number on order of 130,000. Whether or how this affected final rankings, is apparently unknown. Obviously these people were if nothing else, in some degree, TV fans.

The Wikipedia article seems to fully accept the validity of the BBC "poll" (which was not at all focused on Scott). Further, the article implies (to me) that the poll revealed a decline, over time, in Scott's popularity with the British Public.

Seems like a reasonable thesis, but without comparable "polling" data from previous periods, this is not more than interesting speculation on the part of whatever author is cited.

For deep background, Wikipedia itself has a number of (non-featured) articles that are somewhat relevant with regard to the rather complex topic of polling, including sampling error margin of error, tracking poll, straw poll, and various other topics.

I'm certainly uninformed, and given my narrow reference points, not up to contributing to the Paragon of the publishing world represented by a Wikipedia Featured Article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are basing this on, Calamitybrook. The reference you provided when you added this sentence to the article was published on October 19, 2002, once the top 10 had been released, but before the 10 separate hour-long specials for the top 10

aired beginning October 20, 2002. The ref you added says in part:

The top 100 was arrived at following a BBC poll last Autumn. The BBC launched a publicity campaign and ran a series of trails [sic] asking people to nominate their greatest Briton of all time by phone or through the BBC website.

Over 30,000 people responded and the results were collated. From this we have the top 100 that will be counted down in order from 100-11 in the Great Britons launch programme on Sunday 20 October, followed by the announcement of the top ten in alphabetical order.

I repeat, while I do not have access to the sources, Brianboulton says two reliable sources cited this survey as a measure of Scott's popularity in 2002. I also note that any number of FAs on music albums and songs mention equally unscientific surveys. Whatever the limitations of the survey, Shackleton and Scott faced the same biases and Shackleton just missed the top ten, while Scott did not even make the top half.

References

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsure about Ruhrguy Statements

Is this administrator trying to discuss available facts?

The BBC released an unranked list of "100 Greatest Britons" based on 30,000 self-selected "voters."

BBC only somewhat later, ranked this list, following ten hours (?) of further programming and 100,000 additional "votes." This ranking then put Scott at 54th in popularity.

It simply unclear whether this 54th ranking is based on 30,0000 or 130,000 "votes."

Moreover, whether a few years earlier, Scott may have ranked higher or lower in a similar poll, is, despite implications of current article, certainly unknown.

If anybody can clearly and simply explain ranking methodology, and/or what this "poll's" value may be as objective, fairly presented and relevant information regarding Scott, this could help justify it's inclusion.

If inclusion of his info is purely a matter of citing WP:RS, then based on this idea, one can more-or-less endlessly add cited material to this article, which as a previous Wikipedia Featured Article is doubtless a major Paragon in the world of publishing.

Ruhrguy may not understand these issues, but his misunderstanding so far isn't made very clear.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am simply reading the source you added to the article. The BBC is certainly a WP:RS and their press release titled "BBC TWO reveals the ten greatest Britons of all time" is dated "19.10.02" (or October 19, 2002 in typical American date format). In it they reveal the top 10 Great Britons in alphabetical order based on the poll / survey where "over 30,000 people responded". They then say "From this [survey] we have the top 100 that will be counted down in order from 100-11 in the Great Britons launch programme on Sunday 20 October, followed by the announcement of the top ten in alphabetical order." So the next day they officially announced numbers 100 to 11, which included both Scott (54) and Shackleton (11). The same press release notes that "The battle of the Britons commences on Tuesday 22 October at 9.00pm on BBC TWO when Jeremy Clarkson makes an impassioned case for Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806-1859)." (note Brunel was first by alphabetic order of last names). So just to belabor the point since you seem to miss this on reading it, the press relaease is dated October 19, the top 100 were revealed October 20 (with numbers 100 to 11 given in order that day) and the top 10 vgiven in alphabetic order only. On October 22 they started the series of 10 one-hour specials on each of the top ten. The public "voted" on these and then they released the top ten in order based on two rounds of "voting".

• There are all sorts of measures of public opinion cited in the article which are non-scientific polls - surely almost all "more than 30 monuments and memorials [which] were set up in Britain alone" were funded by a self-selecting sample of the public. The popularity of the film is not diputed though the moviegoers were also self-selecting (though the film probably should have a reference). The article has to work with the materials available. There is no official office of public opinion surveying Britons (or anyone else) about their opinions on Scott or Shackleton or other public figures in any systematic way. The BBC is a public organization and supported by public monies. They set up a survey of public opinion about notable figures in British history. Using non-scientific methods they got a snapshot of the public's opinions on 100 figures, two of whome are relevant to this article. Barczewski, a relaible source, refers to this BBC survey and is properly referenced. According to Brianboulton (whom I trust in every respect) at least one other relaible source also cites this BBC survey.

• Calamitybrook, in my opinion your own arguments are severely undermined by your inability to read what the source you added to the article says about the BBC survey. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand

Here are the current two sentences in the article:

This decline in Scott's reputation was accompanied by a corresponding rise in that of his erstwhile rival Shackleton, at first in the United States but eventually in Britain as well.. A 2002 nationwide poll in the United Kingdom to discover the "100 Greatest Britons" showed Shackleton in eleventh place, Scott well down the list at 54th.

Brianboulton has suggested a replacement for the current last sentence:

This decline in Scott's reputation was accompanied by a corresponding rise in that of his erstwhile rival Shackleton, at first in the United States but eventually in Britain as well.. A rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men was provided in 2002 by a BBC survey purporting to discover the '100 Greatest Britons'. A self-selected sample of respondents placed Shackleton in 11th place, with Scott down the list at 54th.

What of we attribute this to Barczewski (and the other source?) and add the number:

This decline in Scott's reputation was accompanied by a corresponding rise in that of his erstwhile rival Shackleton, at first in the United States but eventually in Britain as well.. Barczewski notes that a rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men was provided in 2002 by a BBC survey purporting to discover the '100 Greatest Britons'. A self-selected sample of over 30,000 respondents placed Shackleton in 11th place, with Scott down the list at 54th.

How is this?

References

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence above still implies that the BBC Poll showed change over time, which obviously it didn't do.

I'm done with the topic.

The Wikipedia convention of writing history as if it were fact based on a single "reliable" source I guess just means readers must beware.... although one has no reason to doubt that Barczewski is a scholar & gentleman, or woman or whatever...

Yes, I misread the press release. It's somewhat clear to me now that during the television series, one could only vote among the "Top 10" already chosen. (Gee, I wish you could get that show on DVD)...Sorry for my uncertainty about the number 30,000.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I see the implication being the change in popularity between the early 20th century and 2002, with the previous section establishing their relative status in the past. Do you have a suggestion on how else to word this? How about moving "in 2002" earlier? so Barczewski notes that a rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men in 2002 was provided by a BBC survey ... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I left a note on Brianboulton's talk page to see if I had correctly recalled the second source. Below is what he posted on my talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No, you're not hallucinating. The other reference to the BBC poll is in Max Jones (2003): The Last Great Quest (already used as a source in the article). Page 289 reads: "Shackleton's bravado and charismatic leadership define a modern Britain, which has shaken off the straitjacket of class prejudice and preoccupation with heroic failure represented by Captain Scott. When the BBC recently asked viewers to nominate the greatest Britons ever, Shackleton came eleventh, Scott came fifty-fourth." This brief mention is within a passage dealing with Huntford's depiction of Scott as an emblem of decline. It is important to realise that neither Jones nor Barczewski claim that the poll proved anything; they each mention it as an indicator of the relative public perceptions of Scott and Shackleton in late 20th/early 21st century, Since both these scholarly sources refer to the poll, I think it's worth a sentence in the article – but no more than that. Brianboulton (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So how about something like this? Perhaps also add the bbc ref for the 30,000? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This decline in Scott's reputation was accompanied by a corresponding rise in that of his erstwhile rival Shackleton, at first in the United States but eventually in Britain as well.. Barczewski and Jones each note that a rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men was provided in 2002 by a BBC survey purporting to discover the '100 Greatest Britons'. A self-selected sample of over 30,000 respondents placed Shackleton in 11th place, with Scott down the list at 54th.

The bare-bones syntax above is:

Scott's reputation declined. Demonstrating this, a poll in 2002 put him in 54th place.

Thanks for the comments Calamitybrook - for some reson none of your recent edits are showing up here - not sure what the problem is. I can see your edit in the edit window, just not on the Talk page.

References

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me. The syntax is obviously inaccurate, but it doesn't matter.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you ;-) Would you please suggest an alternate sentence / syntax? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The assumption that Scott previously ranked higher than 54th among "Greatest Britons" should be plainly stated, perhaps through some commentary of cited authors.

If that's not the assumption, then what is the point of mentioning 54th ranking?

(Purely as an aside, I'm uninformed about whether a better-educated (???) pre-TV population of say 1940 or whatever, couldn't have come up with a list of 53 Britons "greater" than Scott.)

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I do not have the sources although Brianboulton has quoted both sentences from Jones' book above. I think what the BBC poll shows is the change in relative popularity between Scott and Shackleton. When Scott died there were over 30 memorials in the UK alone and decdades later a very popular film about him. When Shackleton died there was relatively little in the way of memorials and no film, yet now Shackleton (who never reached the Pole) ranks one out of the top ten and Scott (who was in the second group to reach the Pole) is four places out of the top half. It is not the shift of Scott in general - it is the shifts of both men relative to each other. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How did these two guys rank in earlier polls?

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Ah, now I think I understand your objection. As far as I know there were no earlier polls. If this were a scientific experiment, then I agree you would want as many things to be the same as possible (only variable would be time). However, this is not a scientific experiment or even a scientific poll, but I do think it tells us something about the relative popularity of the two in 2002. Scott and Shackleton were the two best known and popular British explorers of the early 20th century. The died within a decade of each other and we can compare the public's reactions to their deaths in three ways. In the first two or three decades after their deaths, Scott had more memorials in the UK, Scott had more books written about him, and Scott was the subject of a popular semi-fictional movie (Scott of the Antarctic (1948 film)) while Shackleton had none (until a TV miniseries in 2002). Scott was much more popular by each measure. Then 80 years after Shackleton's death and 90 years after Scott's death the BBC ran a "poll" which showed Scott was now clearly much less popular. So Scott went from clearly more popular to clearly less popular than Scott. This is how I see it, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not then compare the number of books, films and memorials concerning Scott, versus Shackleton in the contemporary era vs. Edwardian etc.? Surely there are bibliographies.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Books seem like a good comparison. Most memorials are built in the first few decades after someone dies, so I am not sure that is the best metric (although the centennials in 2012 and 2022 might be interesting). Films are such rare beasts, and the Shackelton "film" is a television miniseries, which did not exist in the first half of the 20th century. The BBC poll is one measure of relative popularity. Although it is not a scientific poll, it is from a reputable source (BBC) and two schlarly works on Scott cite it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Memorials and films were previously mentioned by Rurfisch, but are no longer valid for this discussion?

OK, fine, let's forget them. but then forgive me if the discussion seems to be going all over the lot.

Books are still okay? Are there more or less books about Scott now than previously? What about relative to other antarctic explorers.

I assume there is an argument that Scott has particular relevance to views on latter British Colonialism (or something related), but I'm not certain this is established by the article. Doesn't this all raise a concern about WP:OR?

Also, where in article is relevance of Shackleton stated? An equally or perhaps more obvious comparison would be Amundsen.

I get that Scott and Shacketon were both English, both famous and both associated with Antarctica in early period. But there is a separate article on Shackelton. Why is Shackleton in the Scott article and why in particular in the BBC Poll discussion? Because Amundsen wasn't British? Why is the poll significant?

Why aren't BBC poll partisans for Boy George et alia, also given space in the Scott article? I'm not suggesting they oughtll to be, but they too are British, and the case isn't crystal clear.

A couple of authors' views about a single data point (BBC "poll") I suppose conforms for mention with regard to WP guidelines...

But without more information, the reader can't really assess whether these two authors' views about the poll are reasonable.

Typically, poll data is used to show change over time by comparing with polling data from an earlier period.

If you say 12 percent of respondants liked Danish modern furniture in 1995, and sales of this furniture in 1952 were $11 billion, it's not going to imply anything about the rise or decline in the popularity of Danish modern furniture.

Nothing can be deduced, even using WP:OR or readers' interpretation, soley via these two data points.

00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not asking the readers to deduce anything, we are telling them that reliable sources, who are also used elsewhere in the article, note that Scott became less popular and Shackleton became more popular, and that these sources cite the 2002 BBC poll as one measure of that. Although the other data is not explicitly cited in the article, there is a strong body of evidence that Scott was more popular than Shackleton from around the time of Scott's death until many decades later. This is like saying that in 1960 carrots were the favorite vegetable of 11% of the population and green beans were the favorite of 25%, but in 2000 carrots sales were $12 billion and green bean sales were $6 billion. Even though they are two different metrics, the trend is clear.

As for your other points, I searched and the name Shackleton appears 33 times in the article (and has its own section) while the name Amundsen appears 18 times (and does not have its own section). While it would be interesting to talk about, without reliable sources (do you have some?) I am not sure what we can say about Amundsen's popularity today relative to Scott (the two are already discussed in some detail in the Glorification section). I have no problem including memorials as a comparative metric, but my guess is that the number built for both men since 1980 is the same (zero). Films are also fine, but have two problems. First, is a theatrical release film comparable to a television miniseries? Assuming they are comparable, then comparing one of each seems a bit odd. I do like the number of books notion. I do not have a source for this though, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Although your assumptions may indeed be reasonable, this supposed "strong body of evidence" amounts to "orignal research."

It's simply impossible to say -- or imply or deduce -- that the 2002 BBC "poll" (if you insist on calling it such) reveals anything about Scott's popularity prior to 2002.

It's like saying unemployment was 9% in december. This is only informative by reporting what the rate was in November, or December a year earlier, or whatever. This should be self-evident.

--Calamitybrook 85.127.28.245 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We can only surmise why Oats left the tent; we cannot know.

It says in the article that Oats voluntarily left the tent and walked to his death "... in the hope that this sacrifice would save the others." That may well be the case; however, since he didn't tell anyone why he was leaving, both the author and the reader can only surmise. The article ought to read simply that Oats, "...voluntarily left the tent and walked to his death." Just my view. He was a braver man than me either way.

No I think because this was a FEATURED ARTICLE" there is no longer any editing that can be done. It's reached a state of perfection. Apparently, there are two or three people who are somewhat obsessed with Scott, and are therefore completely objective, who will more or less inform you about all of this.

They will mention, quite properly, that they don't WP:OWN this article. Also, that their judgments are what makes the article perfect.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

Two new images have been added to the "Reputation" section in the past month or so - one of Scott's hat sword and medals in Christchurch Museum, and one of a statue in Regents Street. There are now four images of various memorials in the article. IS this OK or too many? If too many, which if any should go? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think four is too many, three just about OK. The statue is dodgy for PD, so I have removed that and rearranged the others for less clutter. Brianboulton (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

11-year-old Mary Steel poem

It's frustrating that both the hits on this poem in Google Books, "The last great quest: Captain Scott's Antarctic sacrifice" and "When Devil Fish Come Out to Play", do the exact same thing we do and print just the last four lines of the poem. (Shows signs of unimaginative cribbing, IMO.) Do any of them cite an actual source for the full poem so I can put the whole thing on Wikisource?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jones (The Last Great Quest) gives three sources for the poem: Daily Mail 14 February 1913, Daily Chronicle (now defunct) 13 February 1913, and a manuscript titled "Heroes - on the Scott Tragedy" by M.W. Steel, held by the Scott Polar Research Institute, ref MS 1453/31. Whether these sources quote the full poem I don't know; an enquiry to SPRI could help. Brianboulton (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Image clutter

As a consequence of images having been added or repositioned there is significant image clutter in mid article, resulting in text being squeezed between images. I am removing some of the less important images with a view to reducing this clutter. I don't believe the article suffers thereby; if you disagree, then rather than simply restoring an image, perhaps you would raise the question here, so that we can find a way of putting it back that does not resurrect the clutter problem. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Last Entry and Date of Death

The last entry in Scott's diary is not dated March 29. That's the *second* to last entry. The last entry (titled "Last Entry", and in larger handwriting) was done later. Possibly on a later day. This may be morbid, but March 29 may not be the date of death, nor the day after.74.88.202.18 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)captcrisis

New play - Mythmakers - about the friendhip between JM Barrie and Scott

• Two friends who took the world by storm, The Scotsman, 2 September 2010

--Mais oui! (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lower case

I'm unconvinced that all of these changes to lowercase are correct, although some of them may be. Anyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of these, especially the military ranks, would all have led with upper case letters in Scott'sday, but usage is more relaxed now and the lower case formats are acceptable, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Britannia picture

From the image caption: "The first of two HMS Britannias which served as naval training ships between 1859 and 1909. Scott trained on the second, which came into service in 1869." would it be possible to have a picture of the Britannia that Scott trained on, rather than the one he didn't? I fail to see how a picture of a ship unconnected with Scott helps the article. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The HMS Britannia on which Scott trained was this ship, no picture in the article though. I agree it would be far better to have a picture of the actual ship! DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a picture about three-quarters of the way down this page, but I do not know the copyright status so cannot upload it here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Could well be out of copyright. You could claim fair use for the ship's own article, but not here. However it does look very old, perhaps copyright (photog's lifetime+70 years) may have lapsed if he died before 1940. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Terra Nova map

The article says that Scott et al. died 11 miles away from One Ton Depot, but 24 miles past its intended location at 80° S. Looking at the map included at the beginnig of the Terra Nova section, it has Scott's last camp somewhat south of 80° S. Is there a problem with the map or am I misunderstanding where One Ton Depot was? 184.56.92.166 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Robert falcon scott.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Robert falcon scott.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Last Paragraph in Modern Reaction subsection in violation of WP:NPOV

I believe the following paragraph in the Modern Reaction subsection is in violation of WP:NPOV:

In 2005 David Crane published a new Scott biography which, according to Barczewski, goes some way towards an assessment of Scott "free from the baggage of earlier interpretations". What has happened to Scott's reputation, Crane argues, derives from the way the world has changed since the heroic myth was formed: "It is not that we see him differently from the way they [his contemporaries] did, but that we see him the same, and instinctively do not like it." Crane's main achievement, according to Barczewski, is the restoration of Scott's humanity, "far more effectively than either Fiennes's stridency or Solomon's scientific data." Daily Telegraph columnist Jasper Rees, likening the changes in explorers' reputations to climatic variations, suggests that "in the current Antarctic weather report, Scott is enjoying his first spell in the sun for twenty-five years".

This paragraph has reviews with nothing but praise for Crane's book, despite the fact that there exists a more critical review which raises serious questions about Crane's integrity, and furthermore that said review is used as a source elsewhere in the article.

This paragraph is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." I don't believe that the New York Times Book Review would be considered a minority viewpoint. Thereby I am adding one sentence to the end of this paragraph to reference the NYT book review and bring this paragraph into line with WP:NPOV.

References

96.42.255.124 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

meeting with 'Prince Heimlich'

Just browsing on this article & noticed a link to Prince Heinrich of Prussia. When I clicked on the link, it goes to somebody who died when they were 4 yrs old; needs fixing I guess but I don't much about the principals involved. Shall I leave it with one of the regular visitors to this article? Thanks Scoop100 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. It was supposed to be his dad - the article had been moved and we now call him Henry for some reason. Yomangani^talk 13:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible factual error

In the article about Robert Falcon Scott, it is claimed that the family was forced to move to Shepton Mallet to run a brewery, I believe that he in fact moved to Holcombe, Somerset http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=holcombe+somerset&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x4872289665069d47:0x66cfae1b1f3ec6c1,Holcombe,+Radstock,+Somerset&gl=uk&ei=GOTbTq28NpTv8QOp5-zNDA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=2&ved=0CFEQ8gEwAQ

If you zoom in the large house with a swimming pool is where he lived at the time, it's on a road called Brewery lane. If you then go onto street view, carry on up Charlton road, past the guy in the green shirt standing at the end of Silver Street, and then take the left hand turn after the red Corsa, down burrows lane, the lane that you can't go down leads to the Church where the Scott family grave is located.

I only actually heard that he was in any way involved in brewing from this article, but it would seem to make sense to me. Any criticism would be greatly welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.245.72 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. The Shepton Mallet sentence is sourced to page 22 of Ranulph Fiennes' 2003 book, Captain Scott. If you want to change it, you will need to provide a published reliable source that backs up your claim (and hopefully addresses why Fiennes' statement is in error). Please also see Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Opium?

Is it true that Scott and his team had opium pills with them which they ingested in their last hours/days, according to a TV documentary?--Severino (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Research by Krzysztof Sienicki Sheds New Light On Weather Conditions Experienced by Scott

Research done recently by Krzysztof Sienicki sheds new light on what happened to Scott and his men on their fatal journey back to base:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1272v3

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5355

Owing to the shattering conclusions backed by solid research and sources, I believed that this should be brought to the attention of the people who maintain this page.

Edit: I have added Sienicki's work into the Modern Reaction sub-section and have fully sourced it, as well as mentioned and sourced the New York Times' chilly review of Crane's book. I have added Sienicki's work and expanded on it in the Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott page. 96.42.255.124 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your additions are going to have to be altered slightly, as you use un-encyclopædic terms like "troubling" and seem to be working on the assumption that Sienicki's work is infallible and supersedes all other research, which simply isn't true. Even if his work is correct (and looking through his sources that's a colossal if) his unsubstantiated claims still don't deserve undue weight in this article. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch is handling it. Like I said to him, one wonders how anything ever gets on here and stays here, given the sheer regulation. As for Sienicki's sources, they appear to support his thesis (independent of peer review, etc.). Regarding your assertion that I assumed that it's "infallible", that comes across as jumping to conclusions.

96.42.255.124 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss

Here is the text, which I just removed per WP:BRD:

However, the New York Times review of Crane's book was icy, pointing out Crane's support for Scott's disproven claim about the circumstances of the freeing of the Discovery from the pack ice during the Discovery Expedition, and concluded that "For all the many attractions of his book, David Crane offers no answers that convincingly exonerate Scott from a significant share of responsibility for his own demise." Far more troubling is research completed by Krzysztof Sienicki, which using thorough research and the same sources that Solomon used, concludes that Scott and Bowers falsified their weather logs, that Solomon deliberately falsified her data by mixing daily minimum temperatures with lowest daily temperatures and committed a gambler's fallacy by stating that because a cold streak happened in 1988, one did happen in 1912,, and that Scott's nine-day blizzard never occurred.

First off, I am concerned that arXiv itself is not peer reviewed and would be much more comfortable adding this to the article once it has appeared in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Second, I am concerned that the conclusion seem to go way beyond the data analysis in many cases. While I understand the basic arguments (weather patterns in Antarctica do not occur in isolation, analysis of modern weather data in the same region shows that temperature and wind conditions there are correlated so extreme cold or gale conditions should be seen elsewhere, and contemporary weather records do not correlate with those of the Scott party for the last few weeks of their lives) and they seem reasonable, I am not an expert and would like some sort of peer review and publication in a reputable journal to confirm that experts agree with the methods and analysis used, and their results.

What I find more troubling are the conclusions reached from the weather analysis. It is one thing to say the other data, which all modern records show is correlated, does not correlate with Scott's data for the last few weeks of his life. It is another to say based on that the temperature data reported by Lt. Bowers and Captain Scott himself in late February and March 1912 were distorted by them to exaggerate and dramatize the weather conditions. My results clearly show that Captain Scott, Dr. Wilson and Lieut. Bower’s deaths were a matter of choice rather than chance. The choice was made long before the actual end of food, fuel and long before the end of their physical strength to reach imaginary salvation at One Ton Depôt.[2]

References

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I do wonder how anything ever gets put on here and stays up on here, though, given the sheer regulation. However, permit me to point out that I believe the paragraph preceding what I entered violates WP:NPOV:

In 2005 David Crane published a new Scott biography which, according to Barczewski, goes some way towards an assessment of Scott "free from the baggage of earlier interpretations". What has happened to Scott's reputation, Crane argues, derives from the way the world has changed since the heroic myth was formed: "It is not that we see him differently from the way they [his contemporaries] did, but that we see him the same, and instinctively do not like it." Crane's main achievement, according to Barczewski, is the restoration of Scott's humanity, "far more effectively than either Fiennes's stridency or Solomon's scientific data." Daily Telegraph columnist Jasper Rees, likening the changes in explorers' reputations to climatic variations, suggests that "in the current Antarctic weather report, Scott is enjoying his first spell in the sun for twenty-five years".

This paragraph offers nothing but praise for Crane's book, despite the fact that there is a more critical review of his book which points out a serious problem with the author's credibility, and that this review has been used as a reference elsewhere in the sub-section.CITEREFNew_York_Times,_3_December_2006 In that, I believe the above paragraph violates WP:NPOV:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."

I don't think Sienicki's work is that much of a jump. He showed that Scott's temperatures remained consistent with Simpson up until a certain point, then became highly inaccurate and stayed that way. Using the same Schwerdtfeger weather station data as Solomon, his neural network worked out with reasonable accuracy what the temperatures would have been like. Note that up until February 27, they are quite close to Scott's recordings. Still, your concerns about arXiv and wish for these to be reviewed in a peer reviewed scientific journal remain.

References

96.42.255.124 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: I expanded on this further in the Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott page. Could you edit this as well?

96.42.255.124 (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Information on arXiv

Here's a statement which is relevant: "A typical endorser would be asked to endorse about one person a year. The endorsement process is not peer review. 96.42.255.124 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott

The edits I made there have not been rolled back. I tried to roll back the edits in one action, but my skills are not that great. Ruhrfisch, could you roll back the edits I made there? 96.42.255.124 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not see this until now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments.

It's all very well for note 88 to state, in connection with Kathleen Scott being styled Lady Scott, "this is not in accordance with The Times announcement, 22 February 1913." But if this announcement is the sole basis for the claim, then it's surely trumped by that newspaper stating in an article of 25 February entitled "Honour for Mrs. Scott": "The King has been pleased to grant to Mrs. Kathleen Scott the same rank, style, and precedence as if her husband, Captain Robert Falcon Scott, R.N., C.V.O., had been nominated a Knight Commander of the Bath, as he would have been had he survived."

Also, Crane would appear to be rather deficient in his knowledge of Scott's naval career judging by what's in the article. Scott did not leave Britannia as a midshipman; he left as a naval cadet in July, 1883. He wasn't rated midshipman until 14 August (automatically, as he had gained 11 months' "time" on passing out from Britannia). "In March 1888 Scott passed his examinations for sub-lieutenant, with four first class certificates out of five." What Scott actually passed were his examinations for the rank of Lieutenant, not Sub-Lieutenant. And they weren't all in March, 1888, either. He took his Seamanship examination on 14 August, 1887, passed it (obtaining a first), and on that day became an Acting Sub-Lieutenant. He then studied at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, obtaining a first class pass in March, 1888. He passed his Torpedo examination with a first class and his Gunnery examination with a second class in May, 1888. Finally, he passed his pilotage examination in December, 1888. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Details

Is the Admiral Markham mentioned the same officer who rammed and sank the battleship "Victoria"?

About twenty years ago I heard that one of the original expedition tractors had been recovered and was being restored. Does anybody know what happned to the tractor?AT Kunene (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Admiral Markham was Clements Markhams cousin. As far as I am aware one motor sledge is at the bottom of Macmurdo sound and the other two are still on the Ross ice shelf, or rather 10-30 meters under the surface slowly drifting toward the Ross sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.192.231 (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Scott was Sixth to the Pole

I have revised the introduction paragraph by stating that Scott was the Sixth person to reach the South Pole. However attempts are being made to delete my revision, the given reason being that my facts were already included elsewhere in the Article. This is not acceptable: first of all nowhere does the Article say that Scott was actually Sixth, and secondly we are looking here at the Introduction -- every part of it is repeated elsewhere! To omit the historical fact that he was Sixth, shamelessly steals the laurels, the honour, from those brave men who, struggling to the pole with Amundsen, won 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th positions of honour. In the best interests of Honour, and of Wikipedia standards, I shall always reinstate my accurate text. Ruhrfisch appears to be the Offender/Vandal/Deleter. Any further Vandalism on his part will be reported to Wikipedia and relentlessly pursued. (204.112.57.130 (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Scott was actually second to the pole as the rule applies that expedition leaders are counted first before expedition escortists. This is why it is said that Amundsen was the first to reach the pole, and not one of five people.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this thread where it belongs (bottom of the talk page). Will repsond shortly, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: This wretched creature continues deleting without explanation and has been reported to Wikipedia.(204.112.57.130 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)) (01:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

See here. New posts are placed at the bottom of the talk page. I'll be moving this where it goes and then the edit can be discussed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's really funny with the german version of Capt.Scott. In this article, it is alledged that Capt.Scott "belongs to the ten people to first reach the pole". An obviously disguised attempt to draw the curtain over Capt.Scott's achievements. The whole article is full of fraudulent misrepresentation and tries to take advantage of every opportunity to misleadingly try to impair and derogate a person. It is really a blatant shame for wikipedia as a whole!--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

(After edit conflict)

1. Per WP:TOPPOST, new discussions go at the bottom. You also should not delete my or anyone else's comments, so please stop.
2. Calling me a vandal and a wretched creature is not nice and does not follow No personal attacks
3. You have violated WP:3RR and will be blocked for it shortly. I am an admin and would do it myself, but do not like to do so when I am an involved party. Please take the break to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
4. More on actual content to come, but I am busy in real life and have some things to do in it right now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. Regarding the content, I think it's fine to emphasize in the Amundson page they arrived at the pole first and if necessary link in here. The emphasis here is a biography of Scott's entire life, and should the lead be left as is. The lead states they reached the pole only to find that they had been preceded by Amundson, so it's quite clear they did not arrive first, which isn't in dispute at all. Anyway, like Ruhrfisch I actually have a life too, but will keep an eye on this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a Featured Article and as such has been identified as meeting the highest standards Wikipedia has. The lead must follow WP:LEAD, which says that the lead is a summary of the rest of the article. The material in the article itself must be verifiable and cited to reliable sources. The material that the IP user has added to the article at least four times is mostly already in the article and lead (the first paragraph of the lead makes it clear Amundsen and his party were first to the pole and Scott and his party were second to the pole). As for who was the sixth human being to the set foot on the actual pole, all the sources I have seen count by parties (Amunden 1st, Scott 2nd) not by people. How do we know which of the 5 men in Scott's party was first to the actual pole? Maybe Scott was 7th or 8th or 9th or 10th ("No, no, be a good chap and step on the spot before me, I insist.") Even if Scott was sixth to the pole, it needs to be sourced to a reliable source and included in the body of the article. This claim is the level of detail which does not seem to me to belong in the lead, let alone the first sentence of the lead. This is in no way meant to disrepect Amundsen and his party and their achievement, nor is it meant to belittle what Scott and his party did, but to me the sixth claim is trivial and smacks of WP:OR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the page after a third registered user reverted the IP's contributions. I am reluctant to do this as an involved party, and if another admin wished to un-protect, please feel free to do so (I will not wheel war). I just thought this was a way to force the IP user to discuss content and not edit war, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

PS The IP has clearly earned a 3RR block, but I will not do that as an involved party in the content dispute. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs semi-protection, and I've blocked the IP for violation of the WP:3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I hope that once the block is over the IP user will discuss things here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Failure to use dogs was the cause of Scott's death ?

Scott's plan was not to use dogs on the return journey, and his plan was working perfectly manhauling until the inclement weather hit them on the barrier. Scott did use dogs on the outward journey. I don't consider it fair to suggest in the opening paragraph that the lack of dogs caused the failure. It was not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilmc (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Put simply: In planning his expedition, Scott either underestimated the capabilities of dogs or was not confident he could utilise them properly. He did not take Nansen's advice to rely on dogs, preferring to build his transport strategy on a combination of dogs, ponies and motor sledges, with plenty of good honest man-hauling. This was not particularly successful; Amundsen relied solely on dogs and made a rapid journey to the pole and back. All this is very well documented. Leaving aside the ways in which Scott deployed the dogs on his outward journey, and the conflicting/confusing orders he sent back to base re the future use of the dogs, the last line of the lead seems a fair statement. Note that it says "a critical factor", not "the critical factor" that cost him and his party their lives. The unusually inclement weather was another. The difference is that the first was avoidable, the second not. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Scott's plan was to use the dogs as part of a rescue-team in the event of his party not being able to make it to the home camp. This rescue party did not try to save his party as another expedition party was in mortal danger and called for help, so the rescue team decided to try to save this party instead of Scott's and hoped Scott and his companions would make it home on their own.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting/confusing orders is not the point. It's all about the other party being severely in danger and therefore substituting the orders. The rescue party was in good hope that Scott would make it home anyway and decided to try to save the ones appearing to be in more direct danger than the party returning from the pole.

Even if the orders were completely clear, they still probably would have gone to save the other party, as they had no evidence or expectations of Scott's party being in danger.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have, however, transferred the paragraph in question from the lead into the main body of the article - the "Reputation" section, where it seems to me it more properly belongs. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the article reads far better now. For the record though I still disagree with you regarding this dogs issue. You seem to be saying that the only way to get to the pole was to use dogs, but Scott had this foolhardy idea of doing it by manpower because that was the real way to do it, when in fact of course he was happy to do it the easiest way possible. At the time of the expedition, nobody knew how successful Amundsen would be. Previous attempts at using dogs had not gone so well, dogs have a tendency to fall into crevasses dragging the sledge and men with them. Scott wanted to avoid this so left them when he reached the Beardmore. He based his plan on the most successful trip south to date, the Shackleton expedition where manhauling on the plateau got them to 100 miles of the pole. He just wanted to do the extra 200 miles and claim the pole. When he planned it there was no race, he was just doing the most likely thing to succeed, and he was right, but was unlucky with the weather. Regards Neilmc (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:OR come into play here. The facts don't matter; what matters is what the reliable sources say on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree and was basing my statements on Ranulph Fiennes recent biography of Scott. Neilmc (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Amundsen was a Norwegian and was familiar with the use of dogs while Scott wasn't. The use of the ponies, likewise, showed Scott's lack of experience and knowledge. Amundsen, being a Norwegian, likely had a much better knowledge of the dangers of this type of travel. The question is whether Scott should have consulted and learned more, from those who were experienced, about the use dogs and ponies - as well as the dangers that could occur.Somaeye (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

DOGS OR MANHAULING

The point about whether it was best to use dogs or not forgets the fact that Amundsen started alot closer to the pole anyway and had that as a single objective whereas Scott didn't even know he was involved in a race until the last minute and was involved in scientific survey.

Sienicki's Work Now Published In Peer-Reviewed Journal

Sienicki's recent research about Captain Scott's weather has now been published as part of a collection of notes about polar meteorology in PROBLEMY KLIMATOLOGII POLARNEJ (The Issues of Polar Meteorology), a peer reviewed journal about polar meteorology produced by Gdynia Martitme University.

Link to abstract: http://ocean.am.gdynia.pl/p_k_p/pkp_21/21-a02.html Link to PDF: http://ocean.am.gdynia.pl/p_k_p/pkp_21/Sienicki-pkp21.pdf

Now that his work has been published in a peer reviewed journal, I believe that we should reconsider it for inclusion in this article and the Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott sub-article. 96.42.255.124 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I have read most of the article. While I am not an expert on the math involved, that seems the most reliable part of the article. I am quite concerned by this quote from page 72 Additionally, I wish to thank the editors of Monthly Weather Review for finding that “the field does not find your analysis compelling” and especially to Dr. Tom Hamill (NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory) and Dr. David M. Shultz (University of Manchester) who enthusiastically and hypocritically participated in censorship, corruption of a review process and corruption of science. What did you want to add? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to add Sienicki's findings from pages 49-65 of his article. I have been in contact with Sienicki: from what he has told me, he had raised objections to Solomon's and Stearn's article On the Role of the Weather in the Deaths of R. F. Scott and his Companions, and his objections were ignored. He at first contacted Solomon and Stearns directly to point out several mistakes and the use of logical fallacies (specifically the gambler's fallacy and the affirmation of the consequent fallacy: Sienicki pointed out some of the mistakes, the gambler's fallacy and also the affirmation of the consequent fallacy (without naming it as such) in pages 9-11 of http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1272, which this peer reviewed article contains a part of), but got no reply. He then contacted the editor of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) with his objections, but the editor declined to consider them. These remarks are evidently the result of his attempts to point out the problems with Solomon's article and book to others as well. I will contact Sienicki again and ask him about these remarks before I make any edits.

96.42.255.124 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is an odd mishmash. There is mathematical analysis, which seems OK (but I am not an expert). If I had to summarize the math it would be that: 1) modern weather data do not show any events like what Scott encountered; 2) that there is a correlation between weather observed along the path where Scott was and that seen at the base his men were at; and 3) that this correlation fails for the extended cold and extended gale Scott reported. There are also several conclusions unsupported by any evidence - saying that weather was the only factor (when Scott did not use dogs and Amundsen did) or saying that Solomon falsified data and most troubling of all to me is My results clearly show that Captain Scott, Dr. Wilson and Lieut. Bower‟s deaths were a matter of choice rather than chance. The choice was made long before the actual end of food, fuel and long before the end of their physical strength to reach imaginary salvation at One Ton Depôt.

I also read the passage I quoted above as attacking a journal (Monthly Weather Review) which rejected this work. I note that a new section has been added to the article about Spitsbergen's weather (which I must admit I did not read closely and does not seem to fit with the whole Scott focus of the Arxiv papers), and that the journal which published this article (Problemy Klimatologii Polarnej) and the person who provided the Spitsbergen data are both based at Gdynia.

Anyway, I can see adding a sentence or maybe two that says that mathematical analysis of weather data show a correlation between different points on Scott's path, but that these mathematical models do not support either the extreme cold or the prolonged gale Scott reported. What were you thinking of adding? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're putting words in his mouth. If you read page 50, he clearly declares his assumption: "However, as far as the Amundsen and Captain Scott expeditions and reaching the South Pole is concerned, it is useful to make a ceteris paribus assumption. The assumption is that, in spite of different methods, means, and human effort, both expeditions were able to reach the South Pole and both teams were capable of returning safely to the base camp at Framheim and Cape Evans (Hut Point), respectively. This leaves the weather, understood as a combination of temperature and wind velocity, as the only independent variable." He did this to isolate one variable: claiming that he did not take travel methods into account is incorrect. He states that Month Weather Review did not find his analysis compelling: you're assuming they're talking about particular this article when they do not state which analysis they rejected.

I have asked Sienicki what he meant by his remarks in the Acknowledgements: he has told me that he is too busy to explain the whole story right now. Given WP:NPOV, at this point I believe that adding a sentence or two immediately after the sentence about Solomon is acceptable, if it states what you suggested.

96.42.255.124 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I was not trying to put words into his mouth. I do disagree with his assumption that weather was the only independent variable (other possible variables include dog sledding vs man hauling, Scott's decision to take a 5th person when they only had rations for 4, and the somewhat different routes taken by the two parties). Anyway, would you like to suggest a sentence or two to add (since you've obviously spent more time thinking about this than I have)? I am not sure you saw it above, but I missed your previous request to revert your edits to the controversies article - sorry for missing that until now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PS This is a bit off-topic, but since we have seen the Arxiv versions of the two predecessor articles and this published article, I think it is safe to assume that at least some of the Scott weather analysis in those articles was submitted to Monthly Weather Review in some form similar to what is at Arxiv and/or here. Beside the point thou - I look forward to seeing your suggested additions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PPS I think the Controversies article could have more detail than this one on this material (i.e. one or two sentences here, more there). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware that you missed my request to revert my edits to the controversies article, so I reverted them myself. Apology accepted. After further talking with Sienicki, I have decided that I will not make the edits, since you seem to miss the point: namely, that his focus was on the weather reported by Captain Scott, independent of all other variables (how does the mode of transportation affect the weather?) and that he made this clear. As long as this remains a point of contention between us, I do not believe that any edits would be productive.

96.42.255.124 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Just to point out, I suggested above ...mathematical analysis of weather data show a correlation between [conditions observed at] different points on Scott's path, but that these mathematical models do not support either the extreme cold or the prolonged gale Scott reported. as a very rough idea of what to add, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The observations from the winter journey to Cape Crozier also reported temperatures well over -60 degrees, while it is said that the lowest temperature with the Discovery Expedition were about 55 degrees. These can be found in notations from different people (Bowers, Wilson, Cherry-Garrard etc.) and were measured and written down before the Polar Journey...--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Image additions

Recently, numerous "memorial" images were added to the article, causing excessive image clutter and squeezing text between images contrary to MOS. This is a featured article, supposedly an example of Wikipedia's best work, and the overall effect of the additions was to make the article look untidy and unprofessonal. I have removed the additions. If anyone thinks that the original memorial image should be replaced by something better, that's fine. But let's not just add images willy-nilly, simply because they are available. Also bear in mind that the copyright laws relating to photographs of three-dimensional works of art (staues, busts) are not straightforward; I tend to avoid these for that reason. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you haven't posted a link to the version change with the mentioned alterations and the images, anyone interested needs to search in the article's history instead of just needing a single click. Some if not most people probably were and are too lazy to do that...--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The article long had a picture of the Observation Hill cross, but that image was deleted some time ago. There is a suitable free image available now (File:Cross on Observation Hill, McMurdo Station.jpg), so I was BOLD and added it to the article. In the process, I moved the image of the 1915 statue of Scott by his widow at Portsmouth Historic Dockyards down in the Glorification section (Commissioner Gordon added a similar image back to the article recently (File:Robert Scott sculpture.jpg); I found a better lit photo of the same statue on Commons (File:Robert Falcon Scott Statue - geograph.org.uk - 548114.jpg)). On my computer monitor the two images fit in the Glorification section nicely. If consensus is that one needs to go, I would keep the cross photo as it is a) mentioned in the article and b) the first permanent memorial to Scott and his party. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a photo of the Observation Hill cross is more valuable to the article than a photo of one of the statues to Scott in various places. The Obs Hill location and surroundings are themselves significant in both of Scott's major expeditions, so the image serves the dual purposes of showing the monument itself and the environment. The construction of the cross is also part of the story of the surviving members' search and recovery efforts during the summer after the polar journey. That said, an image of a statue is also valuable as it illustrates Scott's heroic reception by the outside world in the following years. Therefore, it would be nice to keep one such image if there's room for both. --Amble (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I added back the Portsmouth statue photo. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed this memorial image, added last September without discussion. If there's a case for using this in place of the existing memorial, let's have the discussion, but (referring to the first paragraph of this thread) let's not simply add at will. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Scott as an iconic hero

The article says "Following the news of his death, Scott became an iconic British hero, a status maintained for more than 50 years.

Historically speaking, this is not really true. While it is correct that this heroic status was questioned, it is entirely false to claim that he had completely lost it, which the current wording of the text suggests.--37.230.23.32 (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point, and I have added the words "without serious question" after the word "maintained". Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that the wording "without serious question" is actually in breach of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. In addition, there's no proof in the article or a cited source that confirms this allegation.--37.230.29.242 (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Another ill-advised edit

There's been yet another ill-advised edit implicating wrong assertions:

On the 10th of June,2014, the IP-address 86.158.212.169 has removed the sentence "Scott is sometimes referred to as "Scott of the Antarctic" from the text with the explanatory statement: "Removed "Scott of the Antarctic" (name of film, not of person)".

This is yet another case of propagating misrepresentations on the subject: Many articles all over the net refer to Scott as "Scott of the Antarctic", for example http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/sep/24/scott-antarctic-lies-race-pole and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/robert-falcon-scott/9770678/Scott-of-the-Antarctic-could-have-been-saved-if-his-orders-had-been-followed-say-scientists.html and the official BBC historical archive,

In addition, there is also a multitude of booksreferring to him as "Scott of the Antarctic"...37.230.28.73 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The mysterious Robert and Archibald

Any ideas on who Robert and Archibald are? I can't see an introduction and they seemingly appear from nowhere (first section, second para). This brought me here which I am happily watching while I pack for New York. Cassianto^talk 19:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in article regarding Scott's motivation

The introduction contradicts the body of the article, as follows:

"It was the chance for personal distinction that led Scott to apply for the Discovery command, rather than any predilection for polar exploration.(Crane p84)"

versus

"John Scott died of heart disease, creating a fresh family crisis.[12] Hannah Scott and her two unmarried daughters now relied entirely on the service pay of Scott and the salary of younger brother Archie, who had left the army for a higher-paid post in the colonial service. Archie's own death in the autumn of 1898, after contracting typhoid fever, meant that the whole financial responsibility for the family rested on Scott (Fiennes p23). Promotion, and the extra income this would bring, now became a matter of considerable concern to Scott.(Crane p59)"

So why did Scott go South - for personal distinction or due to financial pressure on his family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.42.216 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The second source suggests that the two were not entirely separable, since personal distinction was the natural way to gain extra income. --Amble (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a possible explanation, but the article is contradictory as it stands. Does Crane offer a letter or diary entry by Scott to substantiate one or the other view? Or is it only Crane's speculation (in which case it should not be mentioned at all in the introduction section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.42.216 (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like much of a contradiction to me, but I agree with you about the need to find out how strong the evidence is behind this claim. --Amble (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a contradiction. Limiting the introduction to only one side of the story (personal disctinction) while another aspect is unseparably connected (financial pressure). Consequently, both aspects should be mentioned in the introduction.--37.230.23.32 (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "It was the chance for personal distinction and financial pressure that led Scott to apply for the Discovery command, rather than any predilection for polar exploration." is also misplaced and does not belong into the introduction...Generally it should be avoided to add suggestive information to the introduction that is unnecessarily detailed and clearly designed to give a certain impression of the topic. Information like "Scott had followed the conventional career of a naval officer in peacetime Victorian Britain, where opportunities for career advancement were both limited and keenly sought after by ambitious officers is another example of this practice. Both mentioned sentences should, if at all, only be mentioned in the context, but definitely not in the introduction.--37.230.11.43 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

--37.230.11.43 (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a long while since I edited this article, but I've been asked if I would contribute to this discussion, so here goes. As the statements stand, I don't think they are wholly contradictory. However, I do believe that the sentence "It was the chance for personal distinction and financial pressure that led Scott to apply for the Discovery command, rather than any predilection for polar exploration" is poorly drafted. Crane says specifically that Scott had no predilection for Antarctic explanation, that he was anxious for promotion and for the increased financial benefits that would follow, but the "chance for personal distinction" might be too loose a paraphrase of the sources, verging on personal interpretation. A possible redraft of the sentence might be "It was the prospect of promotion and the increased financial security that led Scott to apply for the Discovery command, rather than any predilection for polar exploration" – but I'd like a little time to consider and check out some sources before making the change. The issue as to whether this and the other quoted sentence should be in the lead is another issue I want to think about. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been almost two weeks since you "wanted to think about it" and you haven't come up with any justification for those two sentences to belong into the introduction, so the article should be changed in order to improve its quality and be freed of tendential info, preferrably by a person that has not written vast passages of the text, like you and the other one.--37.230.29.242 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Brianboulton and 37.xxx. I am the person who started this Discussion on the contradiction. While I agree with much of what 37.xxx says in terms of content, I disagree that Brianboulton should be discouraged from further contributing to the article. Brian seems a learned and decent chap who is open to ideas and criticism, and there is generally merit to his contributions. A single person cannot read all the literature alone, so the more of us there are, the better the article becomes. End of message - no response required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.36 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a few marginal concerns with your response, one of them would be your quotation of Crane saying "Scott had no predilection for Antarctic exploration". This claim is somewhat "temporary" as it refers to the time of the Discovery expedition and limits itself to that era, while Scott actually developed proclivity not only to exploration as a kind of adventure but also to the scientific part of the business, as being shown by multiple sources...beginning with Apsley Cherry-Garrard, Ranulph Fiennes, expedition members like Thomas Griffith Taylor or Raymond Edward Priestley to nowadays journalists.... One main thing to consider is that the introduction's sentence and Crane's assumption are based on the time of the Discovery expedition, when Scott was a naval officer not knowing antarctic exploration and how that changed and resulted in an altered state during the time of the Terra Nova expedition.--37.230.11.43 (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in article: Scott's views on man-hauling vs ponies?

The article contains a minor contradiction:

"[After the Discovery expedition 1901-1904] Scott remained unconvinced that dogs and ski were the keys to efficient ice travel. In the following years he continued to express the British preference for man-hauling (the practice of propelling sledges by manpower, unassisted by animals),[31] a view he maintained until very late in his Antarctic career."

but

"Scott knew nothing of horses, but felt that as they had seemingly served Shackleton well [on Shackleton's 1907-1909 expedition], he ought to use them.[58]"

So the article implies that by 1909 at the latest, Scott had come to the view that animals (horses) were desirable for transport. Therefore I suggest someone should remove the contradictory and unreferenced statement "a view he maintained until very late in his Antarctic career." Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.173.3 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ranulph Fiennes

After looking through the article once again, one of the key contributors successfully debunking Roland Huntford's personal attacks on Scott, Ranulph Fiennes, is pretty much completely ignored in this article.

He's quoted six times, but five of these quotes contain completely generic information and none of the quotes reflect any substantial information with regards to content.

Three of the references are about Scott's family history(references 12,13,14), another reference containing only generic information about "The scientific results of the expedition" (reference 28) and yet another completely general information that Scott took up the full-time command of the British Antarctic Expedition in 1910 (reference 56).

More seriously, this means that this article, which is attempting to give the impression it was a neutral account of what has happened is not mentioning all the relevant sources in an adequate way, but, in truth, is omitting important aspects valuable to the reader in order to form his own opinion.

Maybe someone should fix this and add some quotes by Fiennes in order to (remotely) approximate this article to the neutral point of view, as it should be standard in a Wikipedia article.--117.177.240.32 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ranulph Fiennes

After looking through the article once again, one of the key contributors successfully debunking Roland Huntford's personal attacks on Scott, Ranulph Fiennes, is pretty much completely ignored in this article.

He's quoted six times, but five of these quotes contain completely generic information and none of the quotes reflect any substantial information with regards to content.

Three of the references are about Scott's family history(references 12,13,14), another reference containing only generic information about "The scientific results of the expedition" (reference 28) and yet another completely general information that Scott took up the full-time command of the British Antarctic Expedition in 1910 (reference 56).

More seriously, this means that this article, which is attempting to give the impression it was a neutral account of what has happened is not mentioning all the relevant sources in an adequate way, but, in truth, is omitting important aspects valuable to the reader in order to form his own opinion.

Maybe someone should fix this and add some quotes by Fiennes in order to (remotely) approximate this article to the neutral point of view, as it should be standard in a Wikipedia article.--117.177.240.32 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.22.29 (talk)

The new (old) orthodoxy

Huntford's exaggerations are not at all the new orthodoxy anymore.

See Max Jones proving Huntford's book consists of "feverish assaults" and the most experienced, contemporary explorer, Ranulph Fiennes, stating that Huntford "fooled" the world into believing a lie:

https://books.google.de/books?id=NmL8saM7b50C&pg=PR39&dq=huntford+fooled&hl=de&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=feverish%20assault%20%2Bnew%20pitch&f=false

The link for Fiennes' finding will be posted, too.

And so, here it is (the link): https://books.google.de/books?id=Y11qkpSLNc8C&pg=RA1-PT143&dq=fiennes+fooling&hl=de&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=huntford%20fooling&f=false

--37.230.9.249 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

I removed the term "misrepresentation, which connotes an intent to deceive. It didn't say who was doing the deceiving, but implies Huntford.

I don't see a source that claims Huntford engaged in a "cover-up" on this point. It appears rather more simply, that some new information was turned up by a researcher.

35.22.82.113 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The assertion the term misrepresentation generally connoted an intent to deceive is wrong. A misrepresentation can also be an incomplete statement or an innocent misstatement of a material fact.--37.230.4.14 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing Book

When searching for Fiennes' book "Captain Scott" on books.google.co.uk, one is promoted to a search page but that page does not list the book being available to read, right now. This is quite peculiar, as I know for a fact it had been available the last times I checked it there.

It is getting even more curious when, after writing this message here, the book is suddenly there, on the list.

Fortunately, I have done a screenshot so everyone can see that the book was actually not listed:

http://www.file-upload.net/download-11783390/Bildschirmfoto2016-07-21um16.42.231.png.html

Okay, news from the book front:

The book can be found when only searching for "Captain Scott", whilst it is not listed when you search for "Fiennes +Captain Scott", which is quite odd.

--37.230.3.176 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since posting this. Consequently, parts of Fiennes' books are still obliterated from the search at google.books.--37.230.4.14 (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing Information

"The Emerald Planet: How plants changed Earth's history by David Beerling" contains some insightful passages on Captain Scott and his Terra Nova expedition:

https://books.google.de/books?id=01EnRok7qtoC&pg=PA119&dq=Huntford+misguided&hl=de&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Huntford%20misguided&f=false--37.230.15.136 (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This book offers some important facts entirely missing in the article right now. Despite being published here for more almost two months, not a single user has dared adding some of these important facts to the article! This is peculiar.--37.230.4.14 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Point-of-view term

The term "Glorification" in the respective section is an ambigious word and consignifies negative meanings. Therefore, the term "Veneration" is a more neutral term and thus a better fit.--37.230.22.29 (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Modern Reaction Section Issue

For the temporal classification in this section, outrageous folly like the one produced by our irate friend of Scott's, Krzysztof Sienicki, is listed at the bottom. Not a good state of affairs concerning the credibility of the article.--37.230.10.173 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I would be happy for the mentions of Fortune's Favor: Scott In Antarctica, Captain Scott: Icy Deceits and Untold Realities and Peter and the Starcatcher to be removed as not significant. Nedrutland (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem seems to be a user who keeps on harassing the article with a multitude of accounts created on a daily basis. (No mention of his name until this point)... Maybe it is Sienecki himself..

And what is really malicious is the word "fabricated" (their own misfortunes). I wonder whether this is the original wording of the "book" - or whether it has been hideously smuggled into the article... What a blatant case of distorting an already falsified establishment by mere "description"...

Nonetheless an immensely ill-advised assumption, on the whole. Just like the book itself. (Forgive me when something sounds not originally "English" - I am not a native speaker being from Germany... ;-) --37.230.30.63 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC):::

Nonetheless, Sienecki's assumption that Scott and his companions committed suicide is so far-fetched that it is amazing he has managed to publish a book. Nonetheless, it should be clear to anyone, that Scott, Wilson, Evans and even Oates cherished their lives enough to the point that they would never have surrendered it to fate. But hey, if there's an author who thinks he has the evidence to suggest the opposite, let him to do this, but not on a site like Wikipedia, where people have gathered enough knowledge to know it better and know that anyone suggesting this is probably having another serious problem...

One could invoke that Scott dedicated pretty much the whole of his (adult) life to make his mother happy. The last thing he would have chosen to do is sit await in a tent in the Antarctic and die there, making his mother unhappy for the rest of her life - This alone tells the tale that Sienecki's musings are utter nonsense.--37.230.0.82 (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC

Prose query

What does this mean? "A planned meeting with supporting dog teams from the base camp failed, although Scott had ordered his team to do so, and at a distance of 150 miles from their base camp and 11 miles from the next depot, Scott and his companions died from a combination of exhaustion, starvation and extreme cold."--John (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Now rephrased. Better? 86.154.102.37 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the sock puppet is sill very obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.17.153 (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch on the map again

This Psycho "member" has yet another time vandalized on the article page. This time, the result is the following:

"Commentators in the 21st century have regarded Scott more positively, ascribing the Expedition's fate primarily to misfortune after assessing the temperature drop below −40 °C (−40 °F) in March 1912, and after re-discovering Scott's written orders of October 1911 in which he had instructed the dog teams to meet and assist him on the return trip. sfn|May|2013

I don't know whether he will ever be able to restrain his "perversities", but - hey! Let us stay positive and keep hope alive that this person will ever become "normal" or something remotely resembling to the term.

Until then... Greetings and do hope for the best of mankind!

And do resist against all kinds of fraud and deception in your life (and the life of others...)

--37.230.26.88 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Doubtable Source

I have removed the "book" by the author calling himself "Sienecki" (this name does not exist having written a book) as there aren't any (positive) reviews like it is the case with any other book that is mentioned in the article.

If you have a feeling there is a right for this book to be mentioned in the article, please first explain it here on this discussion before abusively adding this "work" to other honest authors having treated the topic.--37.230.26.88 (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It is very characteristic of this site, that, after having edited this page, it is not my message that concludes the page, but a reference to a completely other topic (this is all the "work" of the mentioned "Wikipedia Author" called Ruhrfisch, who is constantly vandalizing these pages being a hacker:

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected this article and the related Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott article for a month, as an IP user (who is quite probably a sock puppet of the blocked User:Calamitybrook) has been making disruptive edits on both. I am aware that this IP user thinks anyone else who edits here is me, sorry about that. If another admin wants to unblock (since I am tangentially involved), I will not wheel war (though I would appreciate a detailed explanation why). Thanks to everyone who keeps this article free from vandalism, and sorry I am not around on WP much anymore. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

...and again - three months this time. Sigh. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Scott's orders for the Dogs... once again

The notation that Karen May "discovered" Scott's orders to be met by Meares and the Dog teams appears on many pages. Either with or without the relevant passage she has quoted from Edward Evans book South with Scott.

Unfortunately Karen May chose to cherry pick one passage from those Instructions and then omit the subsequent paragraph in which Scott stressed that other tasks were more vital than the proposed rendevous om March 1st. Rather than settle any argument about Scott's oganisational abilty it raises more questions about it.

Rather than appearing to be a rigid diciplinerian who should be obeyed without question at all costs, throughout the notes Scott left behind for the base party, he compiles a kind of wish list of tasks to be tackled. This is actually more in line with the common Naval planning at the time. Naval officers were instructed in what they were expected to do and left to formulate their own way of getting it done. "The Nelson Touch" as it was known, based on the idea that at Trafalger, Nelson did not plan his attack. He simply acted according to the unfolding events. The navy valued nurturing the ability for officers to think on their feet rather than being robotic in following commands.

His general instructions (not orders) for the entire shore party begins with this qualifying statement.

"In all that follows I want you to understand clearly that you should proceed in accordance with your own judgement rather than the letter of these instructions, where the further information you possess may cause it to appear more expedient."

After making the notes about the rendevous with Meares on March 1st he followed on to say.

You will of course understand that while the object of your third journey (March 1st to 82.5 south) is important, that of your second (January 19th to One Ton Depot) is vital. At all hazards three X.S. units of provision must be got to One Ton Camp by the date named.

To quote Scott's request for the dogs to meet him, without adding the context of his further instructions and then claim that his subordinates disobeyed his orders is to conceal the literal truth of his commands and the further questions that raised as to his wants and needs.

Scott was aware that Meares might not even remain with the expedition long enough to make the journey South in March. It could hardly be veiwed that he was making a direct demand for Meares to come and meet him when Meares may or may not be there to carry out the task. This is central to the confusion that Scott's instructions created. The Notes quoted from South With Scott settle nothing, unless you cherry pick one passage and use it to the exclusion of the rest.

Scott is actually quite skilled in communicating the priority of various tasks. He left 22 pages of instructions for the Base Party and the Ship. One paragraph, which was cherry-picked and quoted to read as a direct order. Examoles of this notes: You will Proceed to Cape Evans and should reach it on or about January 23 and will have three weeks in McMurdo Sound.

On the proper date you will return to Evans Cove and pick up the Geological Party.

Mail and Letters for the Southern Party should be taken to Hut Point.

It might be possible to moor the ship under the shelter of Butter Point.

You will understand that the foregoing remarks are intended as helpfull suggestions and that I do not wish them to interfere with your judgement of the situation as it stands.

The hut galley is not in satisfactory condition I should like Williams to over haul it.

The only want for the 2nd season is reindeer pelts, I very much fear you have not brought any, anything you can provide to make good the want would be acceptable.

If convienient Williams might look at the Blubber stove in the Discovery Hut.

One of the old Blubber stoves should be placed in the Metreological Hut.

He clearly prioritized the transport of rations to One Ton Camp over meeting him at 82.5 south. The instruction to replinish the rations by 19th January was recognised as of primary concern and directly acted upon. The request to meet him with the dogs was not given the same priority, by his own advice and "in accordance with your own judgement rather than the letter of these instructions, where the further information you possess may cause it to appear more expedient." ie the rescue and treatment of Teddy Evans 81.154.77.13 (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Falcon Scott. 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/20140222014414/http://www.historicdockyard.co.uk/news/news230.php to http://www.historicdockyard.co.uk/news/news230.php

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Falcon Scott. 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://archive.is/20121223084421/http://archiveshub.ac.uk/data/gb15robertfalconscott to http://archiveshub.ac.uk/data/gb15robertfalconscott

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 13:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Falcon Scott. 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/20100325154313/http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/aexplore.htm to https://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/aexplore.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 06:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Unintentional Legacy

Interesting to see songs from the 21st century unintentionally telling the story of Robert Falcon Scott:

I Feel It Coming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFLhGq0060w — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.30.118 (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else about to waste 4 minutes of their life should note this song has no actual relevance to Scott; the IP is not actually making a suggestion pertinent to the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ruhrfisch - isn't it better for you to listen to music than getting on the goat of 1000s of other people - --37.230.30.118 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

400 miles still to travel after March 10th?

Scott reached the Mount Hooper Depot on March 9th

The next depot was One Ton Depot, which was 130 miles from Hut Point. The depots were placed approximately 65 miles apart, so he had just under 200 miles to go. It was about 400 miles from Hut Point to the foot of the Beardmore Glacier.

This article is full of inaccuracies like this that simply reference some page in some book without actually linking to a verifiable source. Hut point was 77:50:50 South. A degree of L attitude is aproximately 69 miles. One Ton Depot was around 35 miles shy of 80.s at 79:28:30 : so 82.30 (which Scott reached on February 27th) was 208 miles from One Ton Depot and 341 miles from Hut Point.

I think too many people are quoting statistics and journals that are either out of context or misunderstood. 86.165.186.208 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Preston as a source?

I have seen many references to pages in the book by Preston.

Is this actually a verifiable source? Apparently the book is out of print and none of the citations actually link to any source material. They just reference where something related to the matter at hand might be found. To me, that leaves a lot of licence for people to make certain claims and not back them up with source material. I first noticed this when it was claimed that Cherry-Garrard had never driven with dogs before his journey to One Ton Camp in March, yet in South With Scott, Evans mentions that after Meares, Cherry-Garrard and Atkinson became the expert dog drivers among the expedition team. 86.165.186.208 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no comment on the reliability but the book by Preston, but it certainly is verifiable. However, reading it might require going to a library (gasp!). Or if that doesn't float your boat, you can check out a copy at the Internet Archive. Hard to believe that in 2018 not everything ever written is freely available online right? See WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE for more information. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I sourced this a different way. Cherry-Garrard himself made the claim he had never driven a single dog himself before setting of to One Ton. This is in contrast to Teddy Evans remark that Atkinson and C-G became quite the experts among the expedition. It's an important pint when gauging the competancy of Atkinson in selecting C-G for the run.

Scottt

NPOV Need to just stick to the facts, which are as bad (or good) for Captain Scott as they may be. Way too much advocacy here, for example, so what if Amundsen's eating his dogs would be consistent with modern standards? Needs a rewrite to focus on the facts of Scott, and let the reader decide who was a better explorer.Mtsmallwood (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can this article be saved? The above comment about the need to focus on facts is well made. Leaving aside for the moment the unbalancing of the article by the overblown "debate" section, there are numerous inaccuracies, omissions, and statements which are only tangentially true, in the early parts of the article. I can't list them all, but here are some examples:-

Scott was not the "third eldest son", he was third child and eldest son He did not join the navy as a midshipman in 1882, aged 13 years. He became a midshipman after passing out from HMS Britannia in 1883, aged 15. HMS Boadicea was not the flagship of the Channel Fleet. He did not join HMS Majestic until 1897 and was not its "First Lieutenant" It is an over-simplification to say he commanded the National Antarctic Expedition "at the request of Sir Clements Markham" It didn't take him "eight years" to mount his second expedition In relation to the Terra Nova expedition, the statement that "Amundsen sent word to Scott, and hosted a party of Scott's men at his camp in Antarctica, offering them a site next to his as a base" is a distortion. Some of these may be thought trivial, but surely accuracy is important, even in small matters? I also note that there are hardly any in-text citations before the Debate section, despite the lengthy reading list.

It seems that the various editors have got so involved in the debate about Scott that they have overlooked the importance of the article being a reliable factual account. If it is to have credibility, the earlier sections need to be re-written more accurately, citing sources. As to the Debate section, which as the above comment says, has "way too much analysis", this should be drastically reduced, particularly the part titled "Some grounds for comparison". What is needed here is no more than a (properly referenced) summary of the points of contention. A detailed discussion of these points might be an appropriate subject for a second article: R F Scott: Controversies Brianboulton (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with the above I am preparing a revision of this article, which I will then send to peer review for general comment. Since an encyclopedia article ought to provide an informed overview of its subject, rather than an exhaustive analysis of one aspect, part of my revising process will involve the removal of almost all of the “Some grounds for comparison” material. This presently runs to more than 2,500 words and completely unbalances the rest. It also contains many statements which are unsupported by source references, and others which I believe are inaccurate or misleading. The section is well-written and, with appropriate attention, could be the basis of the final chapter of a book about Scott or the Terra Nova Expedition, but is out of place as a tail-piece to a short article about his life. If anyone strongly disagrees they will have the opportunity at peer review to argue their case. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC) a paradox? In the article it's stated that Mr.Scott is believed to be the last one to die in the tent. But the footnote given for this sentence cites that it was Mr.Bowers. Which one was the last to die and what is the evidence for it? Does anyone know?

No one can know for sure the order in which the three died. Cherry-Garrard, who was in the party that found the death tent, described the scene in terms which indicated that Scott had died last (Preston, p. 212), and this has generally been accepted as likely. However, Scott's use of "we" in his last diary entry, 29th March 1912, suggests that others were still alive at that late date. Roland Huntford asserts that Bowers "probably" died last, on the basis of a note in Bowers's handwriting found on the back of Scott's letter to Admiral Egerton (Huntford, p. 528) but the question can never finally be resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Removal of POV tag I am proposing to remove this tag, which relates to a previous version of the article, unless the editor who put it there wishes to justify it in relation to this version. I have notified him/her. Of course, anyone can replace it, if they think fit. Brianboulton (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Having had no response, I am now removing the POV tag. As stated, the version of the article to which it related has been superseded. I do not believe there are POV issues in the current version, and none have been flagged during the recent peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC) On the deletion for the section "Some ground for a comparison" in Captain Scott's article I read that section on Scott's article and found that quite informative, particular its more detailed expositions on the background of both Scott's and Amundsen's trips. Not that its current more concise version on Scott's posthumous reputations is not desirable, but is it possible to re-include those bullet points in the earlier version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken l lee (talk • contribs) 13:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear on the article's talk page before starting to revise the Scott article that the "Some grounds for comparison" debate would have no major part in my plans. I suggested that the detailed material, if of interest to someone, could be taken out and used as the basis of a separate article entitled "Scott-Amundsen comparison" or some such title. No one has as yet come forward to do this - perhaps you should? However, it would be absolutely inappropriate to re-introduce this material into the the current article, which has just been given Featured Article status.Brianboulton (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Famous last words What, no mention of Captain Oates' last sentence: "I am just going outside and may be some time." What a bloody hero.--andreasegde (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have put it in. Oates' words summed up the whole journey, and should be included (with a reference as well).--andreasegde (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. The remark, however, can be directly cited to Scott's diary, an existing primary source for this article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Too much detail IP editors are adding information to the article, particularly to the Early life and Early Naval career sections. I think a discussion is necessary, to determine how far this process should continue. There is a danger, otherwise, that the article will become bloated with small facts and will lose its character as a general encyclopedia article. There is also the matter that new information may not be covered by the citations in the text, and will therefore require separate citation, or removal. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern Reaction All I can say is give me a leader who gets his men out alive over one who dies valiantly any day! It's good to know that a reverence for gallant incompetence has finally had its day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.218.101 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern reaction "Modern" is a period variously defined as starting either at various periods-- 1650 or 1900. Thus, the section was previously misnamed as "Modern reaction." Whether "Contemporary views" is more accurate I don't know.

Really a Wikipedia article ought to be completely based on "contemporary views."

Serious scholarly views on Scott appear to be recently, moving beyond the 30-year-old debate on whether Huntford was unfair. I've provided a good reference on this concern.

Ranulph Fiennes, unlike many other authors on Scott, has limited credentials as a polar historian. What ever Fiennes' many other accomplishments may be, certainly he hasn't contributed much, if anything, to this recent movement toward an improved historical understanding of Scott. I added a reference to a review in a "major" newspaper that dismisses Fiennes' work on Scott.

My most significant addition (among various sourced material) is mention of 2006 work by Crane which seems to point toward the future of Scott scholarship. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: following on from the above, Calamitybrook's most important problems with the article were listed in the (now collapsed) discussion from the following day. Reproduced here, so that hopefully the whole thing makes sense to reviewers. I can't follow it easily myself due to the poor formatting. Ottre 01:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Error that Huntford was first to critique Scott. Omits most sigificant scholarship of past 30 years (Crane). Unsourced, incorrect, irrelevant assertion that Fiennes is "chief champion/antagonist." Fiennes is not among well-regarded polar historians and therefore over-weighted. Confusing treatment of Solomon. Lede needlessly repeats material from previous section. 2002 poll lists various irrelevant information. (A list of people who are not Scott would be very long.) Doesn't offer Huntsford's thesis. Incorrectly charaterizes Scott scholarship and ignores current evolution. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

revert vs revert Ottre reverted to previous version without discussion or reference to my comments above. Ottre is removing well-sourced content that improves the article. The motivation is presumably that the new content contraticts Ottre's POV. Ottre is free to add substantive content but ought not remove stuff that is relevant and well-sourced.

I've provided added content that is well sourced.

I have BEEN CAREFUL NOT to remove essential previous content and would not and will NOT try to.

Reverting and deleting new, relevant and well-sourced content is unacceptable to me and is counter to notion that one's Wikipedia contributions are subject to editing.

I have removed content that is redundant.

An article MUST evolve based on new content. The previous version was too narrowly focused. Calamitybrook (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Give it over! You are unlikely to gain community consensus for the rewrite (and please don't revert again or I will have to file a report) because the "contemporary" views are essentially just bickering over whether or not he gave up and a) don't even belong in the main biographical article per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and b) are certainly not well sourced, as there is no mention whatsoever of Charles Stearns. Scientific consensus maintains that even if he was too British in his approach, and that is still very much up for debate regardless of what the Americans think about it, several key criticisms were of no consequence given the conditions. Ottre 01:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Also, can you list some other reviews of the Crane biography? I don't see anything in JSTOR, not sure if it's an indexing problem or what. Ottre 01:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Also, are you aware this is a top-importance Antarctica article? We probably shouldn't be using words such as "pointless", as you did earlier this morning. Ottre 01:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: I am watching this discussion with interest, and will provide my own input shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rationale? Restoring discussion removed by Brian You call this a "dispute," but it's actually a question of WP:OWN. The old version has a number of glaring problems that were corrected with well-sourced material until you reverted them. These aren't limited to: Error that Huntford was first to critique Scott. Omits most sigificant scholarship of past 30 years (Crane). Unsourced, incorrect, irrelevant assertion that Fiennes is "chief champion/antagonist." Fiennes is not among well-regarded polar historians and therefore over-weighted. Confusing treatment of Solomon. Lede needlessly repeats material from previous section. 2002 poll lists various irrelevant information. (A list of people who are not Scott would be very long.) Doesn't offer Huntsford's thesis. Incorrectly charaterizes Scott scholarship and ignores current evolution. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: I am watching this discussion with interest, and will provide my own input shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My recent revisions I am now accused of "edit warring" by Ottre because I've added and re-written the material in one section.

Yet it's he who resorts to reverts and simply wants to maintain a status quo based on WP:OWN that is patently wrong and unacceptable for reasons I've tried to outline above.

I've now done yet another re-write that is even more careful to make no unsourced statements. This is in notable contrast to Ottre's preferred and more flawed version.

The larger point of this effort is to get beyond the now long-since dead and pointless controversy, apparently dear to Sir Ranulph regarding Huntford, and to show how this has retarded research on Scott. This point is served by highlighting Crane's work, which is apparently regarded as something of a recent breakthrough, and which Ottre prefers to revert to oblivion for reasons he doesn't explain.

I've sought to shorten this section and remove details from arguments of Huntford, Fiennes, etc. It's NOT useful to selectively highlight a handful of these nearly endless and myriad points based purely upon an individual "editor's" value judgment.

The exception is Fiennes's rather unique point, which is his unseemly personal attacks. Probably unlike specific points raised by Huntford et al., these have secondary citations available -- apparently because they have served to discredit Fiennes' work among serious historians.

Yes there are indeed many, many works regarding Scott that have appeared since 1979, a couple of which I've removed, and a couple of which I've added with very brief reference because they relate directly to the very few included here.

Perhaps they could all be listed but this would probably become arbitrary. There is ample room for other editors to add material. I won't object. I don't think it's terribly defensible or reasonable to remove sourced material.

I think Ottre said the entire section ought not exist and optimally I'd agree: That is, a Wikipedia article ought to be written from a contemporary perspective. (The term "modern" means variously after 1650 or after 1900 and is therefore wrong for section heading). Calamitybrook (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: partially redacted my own comment per WP:POINT. Ottre 01:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand how you must feel about being templated; but really, I'm the last person to make accusations of edit warring or enforce content policies without reason. It's just that this is a featured article and you absolutely must provide references on the talk page first, before toning down the rewrite. That said, I'll get back to you in more detail sometime next week, when I have time to review the literature properly. Ottre 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Not a proper Content dispute Ottre persists in calling this a content dispute.

Available evidence suggests rather that it is, or perhaps was, some sort of WP:OWN problem.

As of now, no substantive dispute is made. Yet verified corrections of fact, tone, added and updated perspective are reverted, with restoration of obvious redundancies and trivialities, etc., etc,. I've no doubt Ottre may yet make solid improvements to this section -- but not by merely reverting valid contributions. Calamitybrook (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Content was removed per WP:BRD and subsequently challenged as failing WP:RS and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. That's a content dispute. I promised (perhaps not so clearly) to get back to you on splitting the article stream/the "modern" analysis of the expedition and contemporary views held by historians. Ottre 00:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |}

=====Between here and "New Consensus" heading is stuff killed by Brian and now restored====+

You call this a "dispute," but it's actually a question of WP:OWN. The old version has a number of glaring problems that were corrected with well-sourced material until you reverted them. These aren't limited to: Error that Huntford was first to critique Scott. Omits most sigificant scholarship of past 30 years (Crane). Unsourced, incorrect, irrelevant assertion that Fiennes is "chief champion/antagonist." Fiennes is not among well-regarded polar historians and therefore over-weighted. Confusing treatment of Solomon. Lede needlessly repeats material from previous section. 2002 poll lists various irrelevant information. (A list of people who are not Scott would be very long.) Doesn't offer Huntsford's thesis. Incorrectly charaterizes Scott scholarship and ignores current evolution. Calamitybrook (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: I am watching this discussion with interest, and will provide my own input shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My recent revisions I am now accused of "edit warring" by Ottre because I've added and re-written the material in one section.

Yet it's he who resorts to reverts and simply wants to maintain a status quo based on WP:OWN that is patently wrong and unacceptable for reasons I've tried to outline above.

I've now done yet another re-write that is even more careful to make no unsourced statements. This is in notable contrast to Ottre's preferred and more flawed version.

The larger point of this effort is to get beyond the now long-since dead and pointless controversy, apparently dear to Sir Ranulph regarding Huntford, and to show how this has retarded research on Scott. This point is served by highlighting Crane's work, which is apparently regarded as something of a recent breakthrough, and which Ottre prefers to revert to oblivion for reasons he doesn't explain.

I've sought to shorten this section and remove details from arguments of Huntford, Fiennes, etc. It's NOT useful to selectively highlight a handful of these nearly endless and myriad points based purely upon an individual "editor's" value judgment.

The exception is Fiennes's rather unique point, which is his unseemly personal attacks. Probably unlike specific points raised by Huntford et al., these have secondary citations available -- apparently because they have served to discredit Fiennes' work among serious historians.

Yes there are indeed many, many works regarding Scott that have appeared since 1979, a couple of which I've removed, and a couple of which I've added with very brief reference because they relate directly to the very few included here.

Perhaps they could all be listed but this would probably become arbitrary. There is ample room for other editors to add material. I won't object. I don't think it's terribly defensible or reasonable to remove sourced material.

I think Ottre said the entire section ought not exist and optimally I'd agree: That is, a Wikipedia article ought to be written from a contemporary perspective. (The term "modern" means variously after 1650 or after 1900 and is therefore wrong for section heading). Calamitybrook (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: partially redacted my own comment per WP:POINT. Ottre 01:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand how you must feel about being templated; but really, I'm the last person to make accusations of edit warring or enforce content policies without reason. It's just that this is a featured article and you absolutely must provide references on the talk page first, before toning down the rewrite. That said, I'll get back to you in more detail sometime next week, when I have time to review the literature properly. Ottre 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Not a proper Content dispute Ottre persists in calling this a content dispute.

Available evidence suggests rather that it is, or perhaps was, some sort of WP:OWN problem.

As of now, no substantive dispute is made. Yet verified corrections of fact, tone, added and updated perspective are reverted, with restoration of obvious redundancies and trivialities, etc., etc,. I've no doubt Ottre may yet make solid improvements to this section -- but not by merely reverting valid contributions. Calamitybrook (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Content was removed per WP:BRD and subsequently challenged as failing WP:RS and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. That's a content dispute. I promised (perhaps not so clearly) to get back to you on splitting the article stream/the "modern" analysis of the expedition and contemporary views held by historians. Ottre 00:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A new consensus is required I was the editor responsible for bringing this article to the FAC process a year ago, when it was promoted by consensus. Featured articles are not of course set in stone, and are always capable of being improved, but there is a procedure for going about this. In particular, any significant change to content must be through a new consensus of interested editors. Notice should be given on the article's talkpage of the matters of concern, and opportunities given for these matters to be debated among any interested editors. My experience is that when this collegial approach is taken, articles are generally improved to everyone's satisfaction; often, useful alliances of the likeminded are formed which can lead to fruitful collaborations.

In this case, unfortunately, Calamitybrook gave no notice of the changes he/she wished to introduce. In my view, since these changes go well beyond routine minor improvement, and involve the substitution of an entire section, a consensus is required before they can become part of the article. I am happy that the section heading be changed to "Contemporary view", but I have serious problems with the proposed content. In particular, its main focus has been changed by the removal of material; it now makes no mention of how late 20th C. writers, particularly Huntford, helped to change the public's perception of Scott as hero, and is confined to the narrower issue of differences of opinion between writers. The section does not follow on from the rest of the article, and looks like an afterthought.

I also have issues in the revised section with the new sources, the distinctly POV edge, the untidy prose and the unformatted citations. Although the wish to improve an article is laudable, this present effort in my view substantially reduces the article's quality. If it had gone to FA with this section it would have been chucked out, and rightly. I am not specially wedded to the version of the article that existed before this latest bout of attention, and am perfectly willing to work with Calamitybrook or anyone else, to address concerns and amend the article accordingly. I don't however accept anyone's right to impose significant changes without discussion. Bear in mind also that there may be others who would wish to comment on changes before they are implemented.

I would ask Calamitybrook, Ottre and anyone else to please respond here, if they are interested in pursuing this matter through civil discussion towards agreement, and would ask for a pause in further edits to the article, while we try to form this new consensus. Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Brian's comments BB says "It makes no mention of how late 20thC writers...helped to change...[etc].." Current version, 4th sentence, 2001 prominent British polar historian's quote: "Huntford comprehensively demolished Scott." How can this be more plain? Restating the point in twelve fuzzy ways, as in previous version, doesn't add clarity. Current version highlights a recent breakthrough work by Oxford historian. Version vastly preferred by Brian, ignores this extraordinary work which is perfectly cited. Previous version called Fiennes "the leading champion." This utterly unsourced statement is evidently an editor's personal, (and incorrect) opinion, yet formed basis for much of section's content. Nearly 40 percent of all citations in old version were of Fiennes. This creates glaringly obvious & severe problem with WP:Weight and WP:POV regarding Fiennes, who is of course notable mainly as celebrity adventurer and member of aristocracy, resulting in minor media platform, rather than as actual historian or researcher. Current version may very well continue to over-weight Fiennes, yet unlike preferred version, attempts to carefully present a range of well-sourced, authoritative published views regarding Fiennes' work. The proper aim, I suggest, is to offer broadly based sources that represent a range of (cited) leading viewpoints that may illuminate trends in Scott scholarship during recent decades.

BB has unspecified and unclear "issues" with additional sources, primarily NYT, WaPo, and NYRB, and yet which are obviously prime sources for "contemporary views." Also BB has unclear "issues" with "point of view," in section that is explicitly about points of view (or reception). Brianboulton's above comments are thus shown as poorly conceived and ill-considered.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply: The nature and tone of your comments doesn't sound as though you are interested in a civilised discussion whereby our differing viewpoints can be reconciled. Show some respect, change your tone and I will answer your points. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Calamitybrook's edits. This is a Featured article, so it is required to follow WP:WIAFA and the Manual of Style. Calamitybrook's edits did neither. I am not saying that Calamitybrook does not have valid points that could be incorporated into the article, but the way to do that is to discuss it here first: as was noted above bold, revert, discuss - this is the part where we need to discuss. References need to be formatted properly. The article needs to follow WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. New material needs to come from Reliable sources. The article met all these criteria (by community consensus) when it was featured. Any changes made have to also meet these criteria. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

BB is right and I'm really very sorry for offense. I'm a non-member of the Victorian British Navy, but still interested in views on how to improve this section. Last I checked, (God Bless) Wikipedia (for its gaming coverage) was run according to (God blesss) American values. God Bless the Special Relationship!! Calamitybrook (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Now show your good faith by ceasing to post provocative and pointless comments higher up, and we can perhaps start talking. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Discussion Anything sensible is much preferred. (Non-relevant, non-sensible and disallowed info: Am personally eligible for British Passport, yet am entirely an Anglo-American [citation needed]. Please assume good will and accept my further apologies... Calamitybrook (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article amendments – "Modern view" section Rationale for the section The purpose of the "Modern view" section is to briefly examine the modern hostility to Scott that arose during the last quarter of the 20th century. Huntford's book and the film which followed it were largely successful in transforming Scott's image from hero to heroic bungler. The effectiveness of Huntford's attack is demonstrated by the way that subsequent writers broadly adopted the "bungler" thesis; by the continuing high sales of later editions of Huntford's book (the 2000 reprint was The Observer's Paperback of the Week); and less conclusively but still interestingly, by the 2002 BBC poll which revealed a relatively low standing for Scott among the general public. The Max Jones quotes at the end of the section offer some clues to the underlying reasons for this change in public opinion.

The first, and at the time of my writing (March 2008) only direct rebuttal of Huntford came in Fiennes's 2003 Scott biography. Susan Solomon's The Coldest March, published two years earlier, generally exonerates Scott but does not mention Huntford directly, merely saying that "the contrasting views of Scott as remarkable hero and incompetent bungler now vie for the hearts and minds of those who study Antarctic history". It is not my invention that Fiennes placed himself in the forefront of Scott's defenders; Barczewski (2008) says: "Leading the charge to resuscitate Scott is Ranulph Fiennes...", and: "Since the publication of his biography Fiennes has launched a crusade to restore Scott's good name." The number of citations to Fiennes in the section (seven) merely reflects the extent of his challenge to Huntford, and is not an editorial endorsement of his opinions.

David Crane's book, published two years after Fiennes's, follows Solomon in both generally exonerating Scott and avoiding the Huntford controversies. His is an excellent biography, widely cited throughout the article, but it is not specifically germane to this section, though it could be noted that he broadly endorses Solomon's conclusions. Incidentally, Crane is not an academic historian, he is an English graduate, a writer and lecturer whose other works have been about Lord Byron. This does not disparage his Scott biography which is first class, but he does not need his credentials inflated.

Proposed revisions My main objection to the revised version of the section as suggested by Calamitybrook (here) is that by removing much of my material it removed the context of the section, reducing it to a few comments on recent books, mainly from reviewers. The focus should remain on the change in the public perception of Scott. My version is of course capable of improvement – the report of the Huntford interview, which I have not seen before, could contain useful material and I will certainly look at this. Another new and potentially fruitful source is Barczewski's book, which came out while I was preparing the article last year, and was not fully investigated at the time. During the past year odd bits have been added to the section by other editors. These add-ons contribute to a somewhat unorganised feeling in the section, which definitely needs attention.

On reflection I believe the section title should remain as "Modern view". "Contemporary" suggests here-and-now, while the section deals with events over a 30-year period. I will cite the source of Fiennes's "champion" credentials, and am prepared to cut out a couple of his comments. After studying the Huntford interview and the appropriate sections of Barczewski (mainly the Epilogue), I will post a draft revision of the section on this page. Interested editors can then comment, make suggestions etc. Please remember that this is the final, brief section of an autobiographical article, and there are limits to how much detail it can contain. Anyone who wishes can write a specialist article on "Scott's reputation" or some such, if they wish to examine the issue in greater detail.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Query I notice it again says in this article, of the Discovery Expedition, "The expedition was not a quest for the Pole". See Talk:Discovery_Expedition#Dubious. 81.157.196.11 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

I have replied to this on the Discovery Expedition talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Premise for revision Is flawed. Establishing significant “hostility toward Scott” amid varying results of past 35 years' scholarship aimed at understanding of Scott's motives, character and context is impossible. It confuses unverifiable individual motives with the various, ostensibly objective yet sometimes conflicting conclusions of numerous scholarly projects. The verifiable proxy available as measure of 'contemporary or "modern" views would be a fair sample of (the limited) major reviews. Lacking omniscience, it's unproductive and potentially misleading to rely on an arbitrary selection of a few among many individual authors, with their infinite gradation of viewpoints. To discount the 2001 observation (in a major review) by Cherry-Garrard's biographer, that for preceding 20 years, scholarship had fixated on proving/disproving (and mostly on disproving) Huntford would be notable oversight. Compared with other relevant works, Sir Ranulph's 2004 work was sparsely reviewed by major publications. An ax to grind is an anathema in scholarship, and perhaps in this case only, "hostility" (toward Huntford) might be verifiable. SR's celebrity as aristocrat/adventurer ought not elevate his significance beyond other historians relative to topic at hand--- which is, namely, Scott. That said, SR's work, and its critical reception, might be briefly noted. BBC “Greatest Britons” nomination can be deleted as low-brow entertainment stunt. It made no claim as accurate poll. Moreover to say Scott was “ranked” as history's 54th Greatest Briton in 2001 (on list that may include Johnny Rotten) doesn't indicate whether this is higher or lower than previously or currently, while “British public opinion” is very narrow subject of unestablished relevance. BB says "the focus should remain on the change in the public perception of Scott" but nowhere suggests how this is to be documented apart from what appears to be "orignal research."

Further, in an article concerning history, to use the term "modern" in a non-historical sense is a matter of confusion and imprecision. Please see Modern History to gain basic insight on this point. These are all narrow and I hope, clearly stated points with due respect, I hope, to the section's "author" Brian. Calamitybrook (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than waste time answering these points, I intend to redraft the section in accordance with my outline above, and post it here in a few days' time. You can, if you wish, stop your posturing and prepare something yourself; if you do, please ensure that you use the best available sources, and cite your material accordingly. Any serious contribution by you will be treated seriously, not otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN Problem I just noticed that brianboulton several days ago removed an entire section of this talk page above without discussion that raised question of WP:OWN problems. I'm adding some additional material on this problem in the form of a few of one editor's quotes on talk page (from above) “I was the editor responsible for bringing this article to the FAC process a year ago....I don' t accept anyone's right to impose significant changes without discussion.” “During the past year, odd bits have been added to the section by other editors. These contributed to an unorganized feeling.... which definitely needs attention.” “I made it clear on the article's talk page before starting to revise the Scott article that [specific content] would have no major part in my plans. [and that to include] would be “absolutely inappropriate.” “Editors are adding information to the article....[that] will therefore require ....removal” (8/08) In addition, one of two (?) allies says: “Are you aware this is a top-importance Antarctica article?” “Please don't revert again or I will have to file a report.” 4/08

Reply: I note that you are now resorting to false accusations. I have not removed anything from this talkpage: what are you talking about? Why don't you accept the invitation to stop bickering, get down to it and produce some useful, well-researched text, as I have requested before and as Ruhrfisch has suggested below? Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Compare examples from Wikipedia Ownership page: "I/he/we created this article." "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his approval." "Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" or "Get consensus before you make such huge changes." "We don't need this. Thanks anyways." "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know." "You didn't have consensus because I was offline." Calamitybrook (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN policy has to be read in conjunction with WP:CONSENSUS. You have been repeatedly invited to make your contribution to this article within a consensual framework. All that is asked is that you a) show respect for the work of other editors and b) use the best available sources in framing your contribution. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC) And Brian, you've said the leading publishers of cultural opinion are unreliable sources for cultural views. I've made narrow comments, with I hope carefully stated reasons, about specific content, which you've not addressed, other than to dismiss as "disrespectful." I've sought to edit, and this is reverted. There are potentially thousands of thoughtful and careful people out there who might potentially contribute to this article, but overcoming its WP:OWN problem would at the moment at least, probably be insurmountable. This is a bit like the comments: “I was the editor responsible for bringing this article to the FAC process a year ago....I don' t accept anyone's right to impose significant changes without discussion.” “During the past year, odd bits have been added to the section by other editors. These contributed to an unorganized feeling.... which definitely needs attention.” I made it clear on the article's talk page before starting to revise the Scott article that [specific content] would have no major part in my plans. [and that to include] would be “absolutely inappropriate.” “Editors are adding information to the article....[that] will therefore require ....removal” “Are you aware this is a top-importance Antarctica article?” “Please don't revert again or I will have to file a report.”

Care to explain these comments at all and how they might relate to the problems of Wikipedia? Also on why you sought to remove material from talk page above?? Calamitybrook (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Most articles that make it to Featured status are the result of one or two editors devoting a considerable amount of time and effort to the article. They are understandably defensive of the article once it gets its star. I do not think this is the same thing as WP:OWN. Brianboulton is both one of the most productive editors here in terms of number of FAs and someone who is extremely helpful in terms of doing peer reviews, FAC reviews, GA reviews, copyedits, etc. I am not an expert on Scott or polar exploaration, but it makes sense to me to start the reaction section with Scott's own attempt to influence how others would view him. The man knew he was dying and could only try to shape how he would be remembered, hopefully as a selfless hero killed by misfortune, not as a bungler destroyed by his own incompetence. My feeling is that there is a bit of both in the man, but my opinion is not what the article is about. It is easier to make accusations here than concrete suggestions, but please do that and see how they are received. Suggest text to add or changes in text that is present in the article now. If you do this I think you will pleasantly surprised. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I've been in publishing all my life, and I don't go around advertising my Wikipedia contributions. In fact, I definitely want to keep it quiet. The "F. A." thing cuts ZERO ice. Calamitybrook (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Initial review of the contemporary literature Happy to report that although somebody else has borrowed almost everything on the subject from my local library, they have several documentaries on DVD which, when I do get a hold of them, should prove useful in judging the prominence of the Fiennes and Solomon biographies.

I managed to find a 1999 recount of the expedition by Adrian Caesar which undoubtedly says something of the contemporary scholarship. It presents a very critical view of Scott's culpability, explicitly stating "Scott was not one to take the advice of Americans. He was a British adventurer, a British hero. Risks had to be taken, difficulties overcome; not by planning and forethought, but by will and endurance." (p. 80) and "Esquimaux and Norwegian experience was spurned in favour of British, and specifically British naval pluck, endurance and improvisation." (p. 77).

However, one of the key points he makes in his literary analysis of the 'Message to the Public' is that Scott had at some stage formed an "emotional attachment" to Edgar Evans (for a number of 'obvious' reasons, ie handsome looks and had a distinct fondness for reading adventure stories) and some British sense of regard for Oates that affected his judgment, because he carefully "refus[ed] to rail against Evans [for betraying him] or their fate" (p. 73). Here he interjects that Scott was in fact quite ignorant, for "[t]he failure of Evans and the deterioration of Oates are less surprising when viewed from different ['modern'?] perspectives", and consequently Oates soon realised what a disaster he had gotten into.

What is actually said about Scott's relationship to Oates? "Perhaps it had been a mistake to include Oates in the final party. But following the soldier's work with the ponies, Scott felt he owed Oates a place." (p. 70). This is pure speculation. Looking at the diaries (fourth edition), Scott only remarks that "There was a good deal of difficulty in getting some of [the ponies] into the horse box, but Oates rose to the occasion and got most in by persuasion, whilst others were simply lifted in by the sailors. Though all are thin and some few looked pulled down I was surprised at the evident vitality which they still possessed—some were even skittish." (vol. 1, pp. 91-92). Ottre 03:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat interesting comment-- but this continues to confuse a Wikipedia editor's personal judgment of individual authors with that of citable opinion leaders on the current state of Scott scholarship. So it continues the problem of WP:OR. Calamitybrook (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of two versions For comparison purposes and to try and refocus back on the article, here are the two versions in question. Comments below both please. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern reaction (Current version) Scott's "Message to the Public" begins: “The causes of the disaster are not due to faulty organisation but to misfortune”.[1] This chimed with the prevailing image of heroic endeavour thwarted at the last by sheer bad luck, and was broadly unquestioned for half a century. In fact, Scott's diaries, even in their edited published form, contain repeated references to errors of organisation or judgement for which he accepts responsibility,[2] but these tended to be overlooked or disregarded. Any unease at the public version, expressed by relatives of Scott's dead companions, was kept private.[3]

Memorial window in Binton Church, Warwickshire, one of four panels. This one depicts the cairn erected over the site of Scott's last tent. The catalyst that finally altered the public's perception of Scott was Roland Huntford's 1979 joint biography Scott and Amundsen, reissued as The Last Place on Earth in 1985 and tied into a serialised television docudrama. Two post-war biographies of Scott, by Reginald Pound (1966) and Elspeth Huxley (1977), had contained criticisms but had not questioned his heroism. By contrast Huntford's book attacks Scott's competence and character, blames him for all the failures of the Terra Nova Expedition and for the deaths of his comrades, and sums him up as a ”heroic bungler”.[4] The television version reinforces this image, with added fictional sequences designed to discredit Scott.[5] The extent of Huntford's practical experience of snow and ice conditions, and his credentials for criticising Scott on technical matters of polar travel, is challenged by Ranulph Fiennes,[6] who also draws attention to Huntford's expressed prejudices, including his personal hatred of Scott.[7] The power of television, however, is such as to imprint a negative impression of Scott in the public mind, especially among later generations for whom the legend is ancient history.[8] Writing in the shadow of Huntford, Francis Spufford asserts that, like Sir John Franklin[9] before him, Scott “probably died of incompetence”. More harshly, he goes on: “Scott doomed his companions, then covered his tracks with rhetoric”.[10]

Fiennes, Scott's chief contemporary champion as well as Huntford's principal antagonist, claims to use logic based on his personal experiences as an explorer to reconstruct the events of the Terra Nova Expedition.[11] In his 2003 biography of Scott, which he asserts is an unbiased account, he maintains a robust and unapologetic defence. He draws attention to the political motives (from Right and Left respectively, according to Francis Spufford)[12] underlying Huntford's and TV scriptwriter Trevor Griffiths's attacks, and casts doubts on the credibility of much of Huntford's evidence.[13] Another fairly recent book, Susan Solomon's The Coldest March, provides new information about the weather encountered by the polar party in February and March 1912, and makes the case that they were killed: "not primarily by human error but by this unfortunate and unpredictable turn of meteorological events".[14] A 2006 documentary series with Bruce Parry which reconstructed the expedition would largely confirm this view. It found among other things that although the clothing worn by Amundsen's team provided a fifth more insulation than the British make, Scott had in fact planned well for normal conditions.[15] A long-term Huntford effect was perhaps reflected in the BBC's 2002 100 Greatest Britons nominations, in which Ernest Shackleton was eleventh, while Scott was fifty-fourth.[16] One hundred years after their rivalry, Shackleton's bravura and charisma define a modern Britain which has "shaken off the straitjacket of class prejudice"[17] and appears securely established in the nation's affections as "a hero for our time, a man who, like millennial Britain, has learned to crave the winning (even when it doesn’t) rather than just the playing of the game".[17] By contrast, Captain Scott, with his aura of heroic failure, is out of fashion.[18]

Contemporary views (Calamitybrook's version) Scott's glorification was questioned in the 1970s by among other works, the polar historian Roland Huntford's 1979 Scott and Amundsen, reissued as The Last Place on Earth in 1985 and tied into a television "docudrama.” Hunford suggested that Scott's character, the nature of his expedition and the public reaction to its failure were products of the declining British Empire, A similar thesis was advanced by David Thomson's 1977 "Scott's Men." [19] In a possible indication of Huntford's influence, in 2001 the biographer of Apsley Cherry-Garrard and polar traveler Sara Wheeler (of British origin) wrote in the New York Times that "Huntford comprehensively demolished Scott, and it's a pity that over 20 years on, most authors are more focused on agreeing or (more often) disagreeing with [Huntford's thesis] than they are on formulating original arguments and covering new ground." 1

This alleged shortcoming in contemporary scholarship may have eased somewhat by 2006, with the Oxford University historian David Crane's intensively researched biography, “Scott of the Antarctic: A Life of Courage and Tragedy.” Crane's work was characterized as "a rehabilitation of Scott that has nevertheless digested and acknowledged most of Huntford’s critique," according to a review in the New York Times by British writer Jonathan Dorre, 2 who described it as "therefore the most balanced biography yet" on Scott.3 The British literary essayist, author and mountaineer Al Alvarez in the New York Review of Books characterized Crane's biography on Scott as a "fine work" of scholarship. 4

Prior to this and countrary to moving beyond Huntford's 1979 work, in 2003 the British adventurer Sir Ranulph Twisleton-Wykeman-Fiennes 3rd Baronet, produced a book that attacked Huntford personally, and vigorously sought to discredit his research. A Washington Post reviewer said Fiennes's “disgust with Huntford is so intemperate that it ends up undercutting his case." Fiennes implied that Huntford "has repudiated his background, which appears to be Lithuanian-Jewish but should have no bearing on anyone's opinion of Scott” according to the review. (WAPO 3/06/05) Separately, in a lecture, Fiennes dismissed Huntford's work on Scott as “a tissue of lies" and characterized Huntford's entire career as a failure.(Aberdeen Post Journal, 10/18/03).

Fiennes' work on Scott was described several years after its appearance as “ultimately based on the idea that [Fiennes'] own experience as a polar explorer made him almost the only person who could write authoritatively on the subject." 5 Stephanie Barczewski's "Antarctic Destinies" (2008) was also notable for the personal nature of its attacks on Huntford. 6

Many other notable and relatively recent works on Scott include "Coldest March," a 2001 book by Susan Solomon, who was an atmospheric scientist with experience in Antarctica. Solomon showed that the weather encountered by the polar party in February and March 1912 was 15-20 percent colder than average, and made the case that they were killed: "not primarily by human error but by this unfortunate and unpredictable turn of meteorological events".[20] The Washington Post review noted above said “Such an approach is likely to do more for Scott's reputation than fulminations against a fellow biographer.”

References (for both versions)

SLE Vol I, p. 605
Fiennes, p. 490
Huntford, p. 523, says that Oates's mother privately called Scott a "murderer", but quotes no source for this. He also quotes (p.524) from a letter to Mrs Oates from Teddy Evans: "One cannot state facts plainly when they reflect on the organisation".
Huntford, p. 527
Fiennes, p. 433
Fiennes, p. 416
Fiennes, p. 426
Fiennes, pp. 432–34
Sir John Franklin was the leader of an 1845 British Naval expedition to the Arctic, which resulted in the deaths of the entire expedition complement of 128 men.
Spufford, pp. 104–05
Fiennes, Introduction, p. xii
Spufford, p. 5
Fiennes, 416–17
Solomon, p. xvii
"Part 6". Blizzard: Race to the Pole. Season 1. Episode 6. 2006-08-23.
The list has numerous anomalies, e.g. actor Michael Crawford in 17th place ahead of Queen Victoria, Henry VIII and William Wilberforce. Other explorers listed are Captain Cook (12th), Francis Drake (49th), Walter Raleigh (91st) and David Livingstone (96th).
Max Jones, p. 289
Max Jones, p. 293
Washington Post, 2/9/03
Solomon, p. xvii

Comments Ruhrfisch comments Here are some comments, mostly initial WP:MOS issues on Version two:

It is under a level two header in the original version, and should be level three (so it is a subsection of the "Scott's reputation" section). As has been noted, the bare external links (urls only) need to be converted to references per WP:CITE Do not mix citation styles - the article already uses inline refs, so things like "(WAPO 3/06/05)" need to be inline and need way more detail. Per WP:MOSQUOTE, the very last quotation needs an inline reference In general version two seems to focus more on what reviewers had to say about the books than focusing on what the books themselves say. I like starting the section with Scott's last words. Since there is so much about public reaction in the previous section, I think there should be something to address public reaction in modern times. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment for clarification: I am not "defending" the original version per se. It needs attention, particularly as new literature has become available. I have outlined earlier in the page how I would approach this, and have invited others to do the same. In brief:-

The modern reaction to Scott, noted to some degree by every major writer, needs to be discussed less in terms of Huntford versus Fiennes; Other material in the section might justifiably be reconsidered or removed; The newest source, Stephanie Barczewski's Antarctic Destinies (2008), has relevant material about Scott's public image during the past 30 years which needs to be summarised in the article; In general, revised material should be sourced to the books themselves rather than to articles about the books. Contemporary comment from journals or newspapers can add insights, but should not be the main source. The section should be a short coda to the life of Scott. The issue of Scott's modern reputation, particularly vis-à-vis that of Shackleton, has much literature and is probably worthy of being an article in its own right; it can only be touched on here. Throughout the revision, MOS requirements concerning citations and POV must be observed. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post reviewer is Dennis Drabelle, who would appear to average a respectable 4-5 articles per year in the popular press. Also has an interesting blog here. However, the correct source is as follows: Drabelle, Dennis J. (2005-03-06). "Polar explorers, fabulists, believers in blond Eskimos and other chilly adventurers". The Washington Post. p. T13. Retrieved 2009-04-09. ...And as you can see, he only writes two paragraphs on Fiennes' biography, one third of which is a quote. This is not a definitive criticism in my opinion, fails WP:RS.

I haven't looked at his article properly yet, but can say that Jonathan Dore has written exactly 24 articles for the New York Times in his career. Does he present enough balance here to reflect the broader American perspective--considering he is English and has written about the subject in the past? Ottre 12:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Comments from these writers could well prove useful in helping provide a current perspective on a 30-year controversy. I hope to draft something over the weekend, and we can then perhaps discuss what should be added to the revised section. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, the Washington Post review may be used in support of a serious analysis, however it should not be taken as praise for Solomon's work. That's a throwaway line. Ottre 04:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I wondered if there were any editorials or opinion pieces, perhaps in relation to an anniversary or the publication of a new book, that could be used as a measure of public opinion. Just my thoughts, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I've now looked closer at the New York Times reviewer. The correct source is as follows: Dore, Jonathan (2006-12-03). "Crucible of Ice". The New York Times. p. 54. Retrieved 2009-04-10. First of all, Ruhrfisch, can confirm the article has not been updated since it was first published. No idea whether the Crane biography is the "most important" piece of contemporary scholarship; it quite possibly didn't even sell successfully.

Calamitybrook is using this article in two separate contexts, to support Crane's research and to support the claim that Americans were dismissive of Fiennes (notes 3 and 5 respectively), yet leaves out a key qualifier that although Dore said Crane gave an uncritical description of Scott’s final Antarctic expedition, it nevertheless..." Care to explain?

I would suggest that a third party look at other reviews of Crane and the biography Dore edited (WP:WEIGHT) before we begin looking at the Solomon/Stearns modern perspective and whether there is enough to split the article along the lines of debate/revival of Scott's reputation. Ottre 04:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't actually dispute that Americans are, in general, dismissive of the debate. This is not a case of ownership. Ottre 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Hmm Yeah, so unsurprisingly, the 2-3 relevant editors don't address problem of WP:OWN that I've raised in extremely specific term, nor why issue was deleted from above talk page previously. Similarly, question of avoiding the section's obvious WP:OR problems aren't addressed. All references to reviews in "major" publications -- are "unreliable" according the 2-3 WP:OWN editors. Yet for better or worse, a reasonable stance may be that these various citations constitute tne entire universe of views that may be properly cited concerninging "contemporary views" (or much less accurately and more confusingly, those of modern history). The 2-3 WP:OWN editors prefer instead to cite soley, on arbitrary basis, various individual and extreme views with whom they apparently prefer, including the silly BBC entertainment stunt from a decade previously. I do find this approach trivial and greatly uninsightful. But sadly for Wikipedia perhaps, and in sharp contrast to 2-3 current editors, I claim no ownership of this article. Calamitybrook (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see here for contibutions to the article by editor. Brianboulton has the most edits (238), Calamitybrook is second (77), and way down the list are Ottre (5) and Ruhrfisch (3). Please say exactly what you think is original research in the exiting version. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Research The OR comes in a Wikipedia editor's selection of a handful. among many available books, and his/her further narrow selections from those works. No citations can be available, obviously, for these various idiosyncratic editorial judgments, which are, by definition therefore, WP:OR Rather than addressing the question, BrianB above DISPUTES his previous deletion of the WP:OWN discussion. My statements can of course be verified by careful perusal of talk-page history and his wild accusation is indeed unseemly for the author of a Featured Wikpipedia Article. The question of "American" views is irrelevant, as is, by the same token, British, Canadian, Australian views, and/or Chinese, etc. One might note of course, that NYT would be unlikely to hire an "American" to write major review of work concerning Scott. Major reviewers are not just somebody who maybe got bored covering local cops for some local newspaper, nor, presumably, do their credentials include authorship/ownership of a Wikipedia Featured Article. Unlike Wikipedia editors' views, a review can of course, be cited. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The accusation that I have deleted discussion from this page is repeated, above. My edits to this page are all available from the edit history, no more than about a dozen since my first brief comment on 3 April, so easily checkable. Kindly identify which of these edits caused the deletion. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Apolgies to Featured Article/Featured Author/Owner BrianBoulton It appears it was BB's unerring ally, Ottre, who deleted discussion of WP:OWN and I must say I'm sorry and wrong. Allow me to transfer this question of deletion from talk page from BB to the other guy, Ottre. Do forgive me for wondering why entire question this wasn't obvious to BB, Ottre, and Ruhrf. Calamitybrook (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:AN/I#Talk:Robert Falcon Scott. Ottre 01:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC) The last straw Calamitybrook, it has become increasingly clear that you are not going to contribute to this article in a civil or useful fashion. The article passed FAC and no one there found any original research. When asked to be specific about the alleged OR, you refuse to provide examples. When asked to make concrete suggestions for improvement, you refuse. From now on I am ignoring your contributions here unless they are focused on improving the article. If you continue to only edit in a disruptive manner here, you will be blocked in accordance with WP:BLOCK. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another uncivil threat Thanks. I think you said earlier you'd "write me up." Perhaps to the Royal Navy??? Will this hurt my chance for a promotion?? A review of talk page above, does show that I've made very numerous and very narrowly focused comments related to existing content. ALL of these were dismissed without actual discussion apart from a few pointless remarks to the effect that my writing ability is inferior and that citation format is wrong, and that various major publications are "unreliable sources." A number of my comments were simply deleted from talk page. So I cannot take this discussion page seriously at the moment. I've also offered at least three edits that were reverted without serious discussion.

Given the fundamental nature of Wikipedia this article will indeed one day evolve and improve from it's current state. But it will apparently require a long time. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nixon said 'Am Not a Crook' It's remarkably like Wikipedia articles on Scientology where editors who suggest that earth's colonization by aliens is a peculiar notion, are met by a few highly committed and deeply hostile people. Scott said the "race" to the pole was "unsought" though statement is unsourced (and therefore can be deleted). I removed the word "unsought" but the edit was reverted. Scott sought the trip, which he knew was a race. Had he not sought a race, he would not have sought the trip. Is simple logic not applicable to this article? I love the British probably more than most Britons. But this article is subject to extremely 'rabid British nationalism that is akin to the hillbilly gun-nut anti-communists of the USA. Obviously even extremely minor edits, based on the most simple Wikipedia policies, are unwelcome and not possible and editors who suggest otherwise are subject to complete banning from Wikipedia by administrators. Consider also that 40 percent of lede's limited sourcing is from wildly biased (though published) sources. It's as if nearly half of Nixon's biography article were based on authors who were members of the John Birch Society. I guess that would meet verifiability standards? This deeply harms credibility of this potentially valuable article. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re above I had hoped that a few days' respite might lead to a more reasonable approach from you, but judging from the above I was wrong. I have absolutely nothing to say in respect of the above diatribe. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself as an ally of you deeply hostile British nationalists, I suggest we wrap this discussion up. It's obviously going nowhere. Ottre 01:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Per my earlier warning and his/her failure to discuss before editing, I have reluctantly blocked Calamitybrook for a brief period. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I regret that necessity, and agree with Ottre's comment. Since attempts to discuss here have been thwarted, I will post a revised Modern reaction section to the article and leave it at that. Obviously, constructive comment/criticism remains welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Would you mind waiting until I can put together a draft this weekend? I have access to the New York Book Review going back to 2007 and the Australian Book Review to 2004, as well as the DVDs previously mentioned; I should think they would give me a good idea of formatting. Ottre 11:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I posted my proposed revised version before you posted here. This version follows the principles I outlined earlier in the discussion, in changing the emphasis away from Huntford v. Fiennes and introducing new and updated source material. It was not clear that you intended to propose further material, but I look forward to seeing this, and discussing its incorporation into the article. I see you have deleted a sentence I added to the lead. May I ask what was the reason for this? The sentence was added because I have extended the "Modern view" section to cover the question of a possible revival in Scott's reputation. The lead is required to reflect what is in the article. "Discussion through reverting" is generally unhelpful; I will normally only revert to remove mischievous or disruptive edits, or wrong or unsourced information that is added. Finally, I am using this opportunity to do some general housekeeping on the article. This includes MOS issues, consistency in reference formats, removal of some unsourced material that has crept in and other minor matters. None of these are relevant to the main matter under discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Please note that I'm posting this very early in the morning. Briefly, You appear to be taking a travel writer's account of the debate in lieu of an anthropologist. I only half-watched the final two episodes of the Blizzard series, but it was clear to me then that Parry produced hard science to support his rebuke. Was this done to avoid mentioning any of the television programmes over the last twenty years, and certain trends you can pick up there? Whatever did happen to Stearns? If he has opted out of commentary altogether, maybe that in itself is reason to use stronger wording than "beginning with Solomon's 2001 account, Scott's reputation was revived?" I like the weighting you've given to criticism of Fiennes, but it is still poorly sourced as regards his qualifications. As mentioned -- several times -- in previous discussions, you must realise there have been literally dozens of articles about this, so Dore needs to be appraised properly. We can surely do more to elevate the Crane biography, if there is in fact anything there. Rees is more than just a columnist writing for the Daily Telegraph. There are still some issues with prose. Perhaps too tight in places. I assume for instance that by "rather than to personal or organizational failings, although these are admitted up to a point", which is awkward, you mean to say "rather than to personal or organizational failings, nor any fantastic combination thereof. She accepts these..." Ottre 17:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (outdent)Thank you for these comments. I will respond in due course; meanwhile I am looking at the role of Stearns in the weather debate. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have access to the Times Literary Supplement archive? There's a review of Rainer-K. Langner from January 2008 that I would like to see. Ottre 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) My general answer to the points you raise above is to reiterate that this article is a Scott biography, which should deal with his life and the the immediate impact of his death. The revision to his reputation, which effectively began sixty years later, needs to be noted but not, I believe, explored in depth in this article. I have long maintained that a separate article is necessary to do justice to the Scott debate, but no one has yet created one. So within a couple of days or so I will post an outline for Robert Falcon Scott controversy. I had hoped someone else would do this, but there we are. Within that article it should be possible to summarise all the strands in this debate. The Modern reaction paragraph in the Scott article will link to this new article. As to specifics, I think that the effects of Blizzard and other TV programmes on the debates over Scott's reputation are matters for the Controversy article. Stearns's contribution is subsumed in Solomon's book, where he is cited as co-author of three academic papers but is not otherwise mentioned. If he made an independent published contribution to the debate, again this could figure in the new article. Ditto any extension of discussion of Fiennes's role. It should not be our business to "elevate" Crane's book beyond the encomium from Barczewski. Please describe Rees otherwise, if you like; it wasn't my intention to dispaage him. I have altered the wording you criticised in your final point. I regret that I don't have access to the TLS archive. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Don't have time to get back to you right now--check back in around 24 hours. Think we agree on a split which doesn't just regurgitate the literature. You misunderstand me RE Crane. Ottre 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC) (outdent) One of the books (possibly from a series of government commissioned biographies) I picked up earlier today might help with the bit about reports of Amundsen's reaction. Was claimed in the popular press that the discussion from February until June 1913 focused upon how supposedly well-organised Scott was, yet it seems likely that there was more of a public interest in the weather/if the blizzard blew out.

Source: Bashford, Alison; Strange, Carolyn (2008). Griffith Taylor: Visionary, environmentalist, explorer. Canberra: National Library of Australia. pp. 69–70. ISBN 9780642276681. Taylor looked to the bright side of the tragedy: science. "Griffith Taylor helped produce the science with the official expedition histories and scientific papers he prepared under the supervision of British Museum authorities, in addition to the papers in geographical and geological journals published under his own name. There were also his Argus articles, written 'by the Australian scientific member of the Scott expedition', which appeared in April and May 1911. The papers sold out instantly and won him acclaim as well as an impressive ₤100 fee." Wrote directly to Scott's widow. "Despite his noted left-leaning position in Antarctic debates... Taylor was proud to receive a medal from the King." And several other points I didn't get time to look up RE his role in upholding Scott's reputation Please try and let me know whether you think it's worth pursuing before this Sunday afternoon. Not sure how much Taylor had said about the weather--he was a self-described anthropologist right? Ottre 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To avoid the possibility of our working at cross-purposes I would suggest you withhold until I have posted the outline of the Controversy article, which should be around Sunday pm GMT (I don't know where you're located, but if in US I reckon that's about Sunday afternoon. This will initially be only an outline, not a finished article, as there needs to be consensus about its content. As to not "regurgitating" the literature, I'm not sure what you mean. Our job at Wikipedia is not to draw conclusions but to reflect those of others, which means we have to stay close to the literature, our main source. Griffith Taylor is not mentioned in Solomon's book and this doesn't indicate interest in meteorology. He died in 1963, well before the Scott controversies really surfaced. Brianboulton (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Great improvements to section!! I'm much in favor of the recent work. It follows many points I raised. Probably there are further potential gains. Al Alvarez's review should certainly be mentioned. I do still have maybe a problem with that BBC "POLL" which is a bit like that currently popular show about amateur entertainers in America which I don't now remember the name of. Very lame stuff. Doubtless these potential improvements were obvious... But perhaps odd that I was banned for pointing them out. Thanks for listening. Sorry only brian can contribute due to obviously continued WP:OWN problem. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical evaluations are contemporary Brian's plan to move this part of his WP:OWN project to a separate article may result from a misunderstanding of history. One doesn't base an article on Ghenghis Khan for example, on how he was perceived during his era by Mongols. History is a reflection of contemporary viewpoints. Also inclusion of self-selecting "poll of the British Public" of nearly ten years ago is weakly argued. The so-called poll was typical example of pseudo-science and was undertaken purely for entertainment value. Various entertainers solicited votes "on air" on BBC TV, and 30,000 Britons "voted." How this small group of insular and TV-obsessed people are relevant to Scott is unclear. Even on its own terms, this so-called poll obviously reveals nothing about opinion trends among those who respond to BBC audience-particpation television shows, because there are no comparable statistics from earlier or later television shows in England. It's like attempting to comment on world inflation rates by offering information about the value of an obscure currency according to a useless source at single point in time. No insight at all. Calamitybrook (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We will have to agree to differ Brianboulton (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath (talk • contribs)