Talk:Discovery Expedition

Suddenly fractured?
The account that the ice "suddenly fractured" to free the Discovery seems to be in contradiction with the the book "The Rescue of Captian Scott" by Don Aldridge (1999)(Tuckwell Press) which give the account of how the ships Terra Nova and Morning worked for six weeks under McKay and Colbeck to make a channel to the Discovery and free the Discovery from the ice-- sawing and blasting all the way. There was no "sudden fracture" -- a claim which originated from Scott to cover up his own complete non-participation in the rescue. While I do not have the expertise to adjudicate, Aldridge makes good points to me, and I think this article should at least mention some of this controversy or refute it if anyone feels it can be refuted. 154.20.101.195 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)W. Unruh


 * Michael Smith's biography of Tom Crean states that the men worked for 12 days in a futile attempt to free the ship (they only carved a 150-yard channel). The two rescue ships arrived, and the men started moving scientific equipment off the Discovery in preparation for abandoning her.  Then the ice suddenly began to break up, and some explosives were used to finally free Discovery. Since the rescue ships were 2 miles away (7 foot thick ice between them and Discovery) I find it more plausible that the ice broke up suddenly, which seems to be not an uncommon occurrence in the Ross Sea.  I edited the paragraph and added citation.Zatoichi26 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to expand/revise/rewrite
I think that the article at present lacks the detail and care in presentation which a subject rated "high" importance warrants. There needs to be an account of the expedition's origins, organisation and aims; the personnel list needs expanding beyond the present half-dozen names - one of whom wasn't on the expedition; the sections dealing with the 2 years in the Antarctic are sketchy and incomplete, making no mention of scientific work, and lacking a summary of the expedition's achievements. There also needs to be a concluding section considering the consequences of this expedition for future polar exploration. I am preparing appropriate revisions and new material to address these points.Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Revisions and rewrites completedBrianboulton (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination withdrawn
I have withdrawn the GA nomination dated 1 February 2008. The article has been developed considerably since then and I think it is ready for peer review. This will also assist the GA nominations backlog Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In "Personnel" I corrected the means by which Crean joined the expedition; this account is backed up by a copy of a handwritten letter by Scott to the Royal Geographical Society which is reprinted in Michael Smith's book which I cited. Also I added the deaths of Bonner and Vince to the top of the Consequences section; I think the deaths of these men should be foremost of discussion of consequences.  Other than that I did not read the entire article but what I did read seems very good. Zatoichi26 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for correcting the information regarding Crean. As to Bonner & Vince, these are, I believe, incidents in the expedition rather than consequences from it. Vince's death is already in the narrative but I have added your bit about his memorial cross.  I have now incorporated the Bonner details into the narrative (incidentally, his accident was quite definitely in Lyttleton Harbour) and have restored my "Consequences" section.  I have kept your Smith references - Smith's book is now listed in the Sources.  I see you have also done a bit of work in the "Second relief" section.  I've had to tweak this a bit to get the right chronology - the difficulty is that different source books sometimes give differing details of the same event. Anyway, thank you for your continuing interest in these articles. Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Amendments after FAC comments archive
These are responses to the comments of Ealdgyth, posted before the archive.
 * Forerunners: I have reworded second sentence of first para, also second sentenne of second para. I've accepted "summer of 1841-42" and, in the third para, have now written "at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries" which is close to what you suggested. I have incorporated your suggested wording for the last para of the section, with only a minor amendment.
 * Royal Navy, Markham and Scott:I've rewritten the first paragraph of the section, and added a citation to the (slightly amended) last sentence of the section.
 * Personnel: Reworded second sentence of first para. Added citation re Wilson at end of second para - though I've altered the sentence - and a footnote re Joyce at the end of the third para.
 * Finance: Bird's and Bovril are food manufacturers, of baking powders and meat extract respectively. I have included these details in the text.
 * Very cool. So they had free meat substitute and baking powder to go with their mustard (grins). I just find the little details to be interesting in articles like this. Thanks for indulging me! Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ship: I don't want to overload the text with long explanations about the flags flown by British vessels, so I've linked White Ensign and Blue Ensign to their wiki articles and added a bit about the White Ensign being reserved for Royal Navy ships, which Discovery wasn't. That should deal with it.
 * That works very well. I generally hate having to click through to another article just to grasp the context of what is being written about. Saying that the White Ensign was reserved for Navy vessels keeps someone from having to do that just to understand the sentence. Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Objectives: I agree with your rewording for the opening, and have added the citations you requested.
 * First Year:I've added some details of the balloon flights, put citations into the "winter" paragraph, de-capitalised "southern journey" (there's no special reason to capitalise, except to emphasise that it was the southern journey of the expedition) and reworded and cited the sentence dealing with sledging rations.
 * Very cool! THanks! Once again, my curiosity at work...Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Arrival of relief ship: I've put in the citations requested, though I personally doubt the necessity of specific citations for such routine parts of the narrative as these. There are nearly 100 citations in the whole article.
 * Yeah, they were marginal requests, but better to be safe than sorry. When in doubt, cite it is my motto. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Second year in the ice: Citation added as requested.
 * Aftermath: Citations added to 1st and 2nd paras. I have deleted the last sentence of this section as I find this hard to cite, and it is not important.
 * Some consequences: I've altered the opinionated sentence concening Wild and Joyce, and added an explanatory footnote. I've also done some rewriting in the second and third paragraphs, but an very anxious that the meaning and the effect of these paras should not be diluted.  They are most important. I hope I have satisfactorily explained Shackleton's horses.I have also added a citation to the last sentence of the article.
 * For someone who hasn't read up much on the Antarctic expeditions (just what I acquired on my recent cruise down there) the changes make a world of difference in understanding what excatly the results of this expedition on what came later were. Very much clearer to me, at least. Mike'll probably disagree... (grins) Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources:I have altered the "pb" to paperback. As far as I know it isn't a requirement to included the place of publication of the books - doesn't happen in any of the reading lists I've been looking at lately.
 * Paperback could probably be cut out, it was just there and I figured it needed to be made explicit that it meant paperback. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't understand why this came out as unsigned. I'm sure I signed it Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Images: I'm a bit ignorant on Commons issues. The Discoveryboat image appears in several articles apart from mine, and does not appear to have copyright issues, but I'm confused by what you say. I'm even more confused by what you say about the Scott statue - the picture is free but the object in the picture isn't? I need more advice about how to proceed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the image of the statue. Artwork is copyrighted, for varying terms depending on the country where the work is created. Taking a picture of a copyrighted work is what is known as a derivative work, and different rules on whether or not that derivative work can be copyrighted exist, once again varying by country. What I was trying to explain is that if the statue in the picture is still under copyright (i.e. hasn't entered the public domain yet) it may or may not be acceptable to take a picture of that statue and release it under the Commons license. If it isn't legal to do that, then the photographer who took the picture and uploaded it to Commons doesn't have the right to release it, and the sculptor might be able to come and make trouble for the photographer and/or Wikipedia, if the sculptor's rights are being infringed by the picture. It's all very complicated, and your best bet is to either ditch the picture or ask someone knowledge about this sort of thing over on Commons or here (I suggest User:Durova). I know enough for my photography business (in the United States) to just stay away from anything sculpted in the 20th century, honestly. And it appears the picture is taken somewhere else (New Zealand?) so all I can say is that the picture needs to be investigated based on the country the statue is in, which I have no clue on. Did that explanation make sense? Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as FAC, after Mike's copyedit, I should have no issues supporting. It was a very slight oppose and you've addressed the big parts of it above. (The horses thing was the biggest, it just made no sense at all to me) The rest is stylistic stuff where we can agree to differ. So consider this a conditional support, assuming that Mike doesn't think the article is unsalvagable. (I highly highly doubt that, by the way, it's a great piece of research) Ealdgyth | Talk 23:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the light of the above I have ditched the statue picture and replaced it with a simple portrait photo of Scott. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Map copyright
I have put a note on the copyright and usage status of the map in the talk page for the map. It is based on the Antarctic Digital Database, which is copyright data. Free use is permitted for non-commercial use, but must carry an acknowledgment of the source (as the map on the NOAA web-site does). As it is based on copyright data, it cannot be subject to Creative Commons licensing either. --APRCooper (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (Manager of the ADD)
 * From what I can tell, the map was made by NOAA employees. The coastline contours on the map were created using data from the Antarctic Digital Database; however, and this is a very important point - facts and data cannot be copyrighted. (Which is why maps in general cannot by copyrighted, except for maybe their color schemes). Raul654 (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to tell you that data can be and is copyright. Maps are definitely copyright; the only ones that aren't are those produced by the US Government. However, the Antarctic Digital Database IS copyright, just as practically all non-US mapping is. The Ordnance Survey (the British mapping agency) pursues copyright violations very severely!

I don't want to stop the map being used; I just want the license conditions for the use of the data to be observed. I'd be quite happy if a note was placed in the Wikipedia meta-data for the map. NOAA observed the conditions; the person who re-used the map didn't. --APRCooper (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very wrong. Facts and data cannot be copyrighted, at least not in the US. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (which found that a telephone book cannot by copyrighted). Maps can be copyrighted, but the protection offered is extremely weak, virtually non-existant. See this page (courtesy of the New York Map Society). Raul654 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * nuked. 91.125.101.92 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Without being able to see the (since deleted) image, its source or source data, I'll offer the following general comments: Data are typically only eligible for copyright if they express creativity (i.e. pass the threshold of originality).  Geographic coordinates (such as coastline contours) would likely be considered common property ineligible for protection.  Similarly, mere charts displaying such data are not eligible for copyright.  Maps, however, may be copyrighted as compilations (insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am still sorry to have to contradict you both, but you are only (possibly) correct in the USA. The ADD is managed and held in Britain and the relevant law is that of Britain. In Britain there is absolutely no doubt that maps and map data can be and are copyright; the funding model of the Ordnance Survey and other European map-making organizations depends on this! The British situation is also by far the commonest situation world-wide; in these matters it is the USA that is the odd man out. And even in the USA, copyright CAN be held in data, if that data is derived from observations by some non-trivial process. In the case of contours, the raw data are survey observations and photographs; the derivation of contours from such raw data is not even a little bit trivial. If data such as this could not be protected, no commercial organization would ever do this work.

As the USA is a signatory to various copyright conventions, it is bound to uphold overseas copyright, even in areas where the US has chosen not to allow copyright.

The confounding issue here is that because of the constitutional bar on US Government organizations exerting copyright, your primary map-making organization (the USGS) cannot exert copyright and does not do so. However, this is a constitutional matter, not because you cannot hold copyright in data.--APRCooper (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct that Britain and other EU nations allow copyright on compilations and maps. You are wrong that the those rights are enforceable in the US - they are not. And because the servers are based in the US, the Wikimedia Foundation is bound by US copyright law, not British copyright law. Raul654 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to continue the argument, but maps are NOT mere compilations of data, and so are subject to copyright even in the USA. Look at any privately produced map if you don't believe me! But the issue is blurred because your primary map data is not copyright.--APRCooper (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the issue that the map cannot be used at all, or that free non-commercial use is allowed if the map carries an acknowledgement of its source - as implied in the opening paragraph of this discussion? Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is simply that the license terms for the data require acknowledgment of the source. I am perfectly happy for the map to be used if this condition is met; it was met by NOAA, but the acknowledgment was removed by whoever created the map. In fact I would encourage the use of the ADD; I am unhappy the map has been removed when my concerns could be met by a very simple change.--APRCooper (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the map had to removed because we cannot use material that has a noncommercial-use-only limitation; it goes against our basic mission.  howcheng  {chat} 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made a new version of the map (Image:Discovery Expedition field of work.png) using images from http://lima.usgs.gov/antarctic_research_atlas/ which (if I read this correctly) is based off of Landsat imagery and thus is fully in the public domain. If this is still using ADD data, we can always use the direct Landsat imaging, from http://lima.usgs.gov/ (although Google was unable to find anything for "antarctic digital database" site:lima.usgs.gov).  howcheng  {chat} 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Heroic Age
What is this? There's no link, so I haven't a clue! 86.133.215.114 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is linked in the very first paragraph. Dabbler (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Three miles (five km) for every mile
What do you think we are? Encyclopædia Britannica? We can do better than this:
 * "After the support parties had returned, the group resorted to relaying their loads, thus travelling three miles (five km) for every mile of southward progress."

In the first place, it shouldn't have been "five" for the miles they used; it should have been "six". But the biggest problem is the semiconversion of this ratio. Maybe if someone had first written " thus travelling three miles (six km) for every mile (two km)" someone else might have figured out that this could be reduced to lowest common denominator (6 km/2 km = 3 km/1 km, but it shouldn't have been that way, either.

Furthermore, spelled out numbers should never be used with unit symbols. Depending on the situation, five kilometers (or kilometres), 5 kilometers, and 5 km can be acceptable, but "five km" is not. It should have been something like this:
 * "After the support parties had returned, the group resorted to relaying their loads, thus travelling three miles for every mile (three kilometres for every kilometre) of southward progress."

Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your righteous indignation is duly noted. Some of the other problems you have tried to rectify arose from a confusion in the sources between statute miles and nautical miles, a confusion which has strayed into the article. I tried to be consistent in using statute miles throughout. The one place where I failed to do this was in calculating the daily average mileage for the southern journey on a distance of 850 nautical miles instead of 960 statute miles, giving an average of just under 9 miles instead of just over 10. I have added some clarification in the text.


 * The distances quoted in the "Second year" section, 70 miles and 150 miles, were statute mile estimates, and the original metric equivalents have been restored. Likewise, the 20 miles and 2 miles quoted in the "Second relief" section were statute mile estimates.


 * I intend to go through the whole article again in search of any other inconsistencies, and will rectify as necessary.


 * [Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Jesus Christ)] Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious
According to the article, "The expedition did not, however, make a serious attempt on the South Pole". Numerous sources disagree; for example:


 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8bFcJgX0lIUC&pg=PA97 -- "first serious attempt to reach the South Pole"


 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/race_pole_01.shtml -- "the first British expedition to make an attempt to reach the Pole"


 * http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/shackleton/surviving/quest.html -- "aiming to be the first to reach the South Pole"


 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tpPXLjoqUrEC&pg=PA177 -- "Although other sledging excursions were made in the summer of 1902-3, the most important was the attempt on the South Pole"


 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gtVjSNvtFPoC&pg=PA48 -- "Robert F. Scott, Edward Wilson and Ernest Shackleton leave McMurdo Sound to attempt the South Pole" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.11 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The point you make is reasonable, but please note my use of the word "serious". The South Pole was not a formal objective of the expedition, and Scott himself does not mention it as such, in connection with the Southern Journey. We have Wilson's casual mention of the possibility of reaching the Pole, but effectively he is saying the same as Scott; they simply wanted to get as far south as they could. This is the general view of most polar historians. Some writers of course may choose to call it an attempt on the Pole, without qualification, but I prefer to be a bit more cautious. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, thanks, I see what you mean. After seeing so many apparently contradictory accounts I assumed this was probably just an out-and-out error in the article, so I added a "dubious" tag. Now it seems it's intentional and considered wording, so I've removed the tag. I'll leave it to the experts to decide if the current wording is satisfactory. 86.150.101.118 (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

Dogs during Heroic Age
Currently, the article's introduction states "It has been asserted that the expedition's main failure was its inability to master the techniques of efficient polar travel using skis and dogs, a legacy that persisted in British Antarctic expeditions throughout the Heroic Age."

A reference for this statement is lacking, and moreover the second part is clearly untrue: While Shackleton indeed took ponies rather than dogs on his 1907-1909 Nimrod expedition (and nearly reached the South Pole), Scott took 34 dogs, skis, and a qualified dog-driver (Meares) and a Norwegian skiing expert (Gran) following the advice of Nansen; and Shackleton on his Endurance expedition 1914-1917 also took dogs, skis, and a skiing instructor (Orde-Lees), no doubt following Amundsen's example. The dog teams performed well in Scott's Terra Nova expedition (transporting stores all the way to the foot of the Beardmore Glacier), and even in the ill-fated Endurance expedition, where the dog teams salvaged vital stores from the sinking Endurance.

I therefore suggest removing this statement, unless someone can provide the missing reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.12 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The assertion could perhaps be tempered, yet see however please Tom Crean: Endurance Expedition "In the absence of a Canadian dog-handling expert who was hired but never appeared..". The idea of some misunderstanding of working with dogs - and skis - is well entrenched and established regarding the standard legend of that era: antarctica-info/heroic-age as a first hit in a related Google search.  Now before anything of all that, could you tell us what with the sentence "zoological discoveries" ?    Thank you, --Askedonty (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, regarding that missing Canadian dog-driver, I am impressed. And now I find more in Huntford's book Shackleton p459 (dubious reference, admittedly), with Shackleton saying to the skier Orde-Lees on the ice floes: "Do you know, I had no idea how quickly it was possible for a man on ski to get about." Orde-Lees: "That set me wondering why he [Shackleton] had not come to this conclusion long before and had not insisted on every man in the expedition being able at least to move on ski at a modest five miles an hour. Amundsen's rapid journey to the Pole was enough to convince one of the value of skis." Still, the sentence in the introduction does not do justice to the dog teams who worked splendidly until the very end, Canadian or no Canadian: "The dogs teams, everyone, agreed were marvels" (p474). Perhaps the sentence can be transferred to the main text, where it can be explained better? Nowadays nobody uses (is allowed to use!) animals in the Antarctic, but instead researchers use snowmobiles (pioneered by Shackleton, Scott) and airplanes (pioneered by Amundsen in the Arctic) - seems a more relevant statement for the introduction.


 * I do not follow your point on zoology - please elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.12 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah that's right, I've read your changes without enough of attention. Well it's not the dogs that are being criticized, but the expedition. In any event ( it's still a featured article ) it has to be solid. The expedition is too early for mentioning airplanes. --Askedonty (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad the zoology is cleared up. And agreed - no airplanes. However, do you have a reference for the "asserted main failure" being lack of dog and ski technique? Surely the main failure is that an expedition member died needlessly by stepping outside a tent in a blizzard and falling over a precipice. Neither dog nor ski technique had anything to do with that death. The fault lies, as the article states lower down, with "the dangers of the unfamiliar conditions". So we need to scrap the heartless sentence (which seems to be focussed not on deaths but on poleseeking) or generalise it, for example "It has been asserted that the expedition's main failure was its inability to familiarise with the polar environment, a legacy that persisted in British Antarctic expeditions throughout the Heroic Age." It would still need a reference though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.12 (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's complicated. In order to mitigate and issue an otherwise reasonably balanced conclusion to that introduction, one has to follow Bernacchi such as in . Neither dogs nor skis are central to that image of the expedition, that was about the exploration of the Antarctic regions, and did not include specifically the run to the South Pole. Unfortunately, the account of the reunion on the 7 November 1904 mentions "a nervous Captain Scott". Therefore a common view is that the loss of the dog team ( Discovery Expedition) prefigures Scott's ultimate fatal failure. The southern journey was already an attempt to reach the Pole, and the dogs had their unique role in this challenge. --Askedonty (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled: a nervous Captain Scott at a speech in London in 1904 is irrelevant to the loss of a dog team. What are you trying to say here?


 * Hi Askedonty. I am afraid your latest remarks are unclear: both your remark immediately above ("nervous Captain Scott in London public reunion/speech 1904"), as well as in the Article revision comment ("persistent legacy is sourced, link 94") are unclear. Please answer both questions and I will attempt a new revision on that basis. Or you can provide the reference for the "assertion" in the intro, if such a reference exists.


 * It is Jamiri from the German Wikipedia, who is also calling himself "Ruhrfisch" on the English Wikipedia (among all the sock puppets and false identities he has created over the years to find a vent for his grudges) and his truest gesture is he hates Captain Scott...


 * Hi, Peaceful greetings. Regarding the two last points, which are not unrelated to technical aspects of editing Wikipedia, I am also answering on your talk page.
 * Any loss can possibly be relevant to the nervousness of a person answerable for that or those losses. One expedition member missing may be considered unfortunate, in some cases that member's own responsibility perhaps. Dogs by contrast had to be an object of the management. Imagination, when learning about the whole Scott legend, has it( what I remember of my own impression anyway): at that moment in 1904, was it Scott's intention he would try the Pole again? If so, would it be with dogs? He could also be nervous for any other reason as a naval officer, such as having to manage requiring relief actions or supplementary budgets. Those last questions could mask to him the importance of seemingly more trivial matters: particularly those for which the image that the public has of them has considerably evolved since - that's the case for dogs.
 * The statement that you are challenging is represented and sourced, paragraph Aftermath. I'm not supportive of a revision before having a clearer view of the article structure, and other requirements: those last include a reasonable delay on the talk page for insuring preferably there is a consensus. An article like this one is surveyed by a number of users and readers. --Askedonty (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wine Auction
Not worthy of comment in the main article, but perhaps of interest to a passing researcher, might be an auction, by Christie, Manson & Woods, on 25 November 1904, including “The Property of The Officers, S.S. “Discovery,” National Antarctic Expedition—1901, being the surplus remaining over on the return of the S.S. “Discovery” from the South Seas in 1904. (My picture #20944.) JDAWiseman (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Discovery freezing
In addition to the recent tagged edit "The freezing of the ice was beyond the responsibility of the expedition (and its leader) plus in the end the relief mission proved to be unnecessary)"

it has to be said that Robert Scott never called for a relief mission and its arrival in the end proved to be totally unnecessary, as the ice broke loose anyway. See many accounts of the event from the members of the expedition themselves and other reviews by commentators of both the 20th and 21st century. --37.230.17.6 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Discovery 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/20080216011619/http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/Robert%20Falcon%20Scott.htm to http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/Robert%20Falcon%20Scott.htm

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) 07:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)