Talk:Crocker Land Expedition

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crocker Land Expedition. 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/20100625234845/http://entohistory.tamu.edu/hallofhonor/hallofhonor.html to http://entohistory.tamu.edu/hallofhonor/hallofhonor.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crocker Land Expedition. 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/20080827222607/http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/browse/crockerland/crockerland_txt.html to http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/browse/crockerland/crockerland_txt.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction between lead and body
The lead says Peary's sighting is "believed" to be fraudulent, while the Background section says it's "known" to be fraudulent. 64.250.205.81 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The statement in the Background section seems to be based on the fact that Crocker Land is not mentioned in Peary's diary during the time he claimed to have discovered it. But "as he wrote in his diary" followed by the claim of fraud sounds like he admitted to the fabrication in his diary (which he did not do).
 * Perhaps that part should just be removed or further clarification of how the diary shows the claim to be fraudulent should be added (like exists in Peary's BLP). 64.250.205.81 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My confusion stemmed from a misreading of the statement. The inclusion of a source at the end of this part of the sentence led me to believe that was the whole claim. "It is now known that Peary's claim is fraudulent, as he wrote in his diary at the time". However the full sentence is "It is now known that Peary's claim is fraudulent, as he wrote in his diary that no land was visible ". The placement of the source (I'm guessing) is because the source does not mention the last part, but does mention the diary. But since the source supports the overall claim of fraud, I placed it after "fraudulent" to avoid any confusion in the future. 64.250.205.81 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)