Talk:Robert Falcon Scott/Archive 1

I need to know the original author of this web-page
Dear Sir/Madam

Sorry about this informal message

My name is Nicholas Rogers and I a Journalism student at the University of Central Lancashire, UK. My assignment involves me looking at Headlines from History in Britain. I have used some of this information on Falcon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtmltitle=Talk:Robert_Falcon_Scott&action=submit)for my assignment and I now need the author's name so I can include it in my appendix. Could you help me out?

Much appreciated if you could.

Yours Sincerely

Nicholas Rogers


 * The short answer is that it has no single author. The longer, better answer is that you should read Citing Wikipedia, which discusses this in detail.

Isomorphic 12:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest that you find a genuine academic source for your information as many University professors and professionals do not look kindly upon Wikipedia citations as being of academic value or merit. Jdng 01:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism
The article, as is stands, like most "second wave" tellings of Scott's story, fairly critical of him. The first wave was the unashamedly patriotic positive-gloss spun shortly after he died. After then the stories became steadily more negative... describing him as arrogant and foolish, refusing to use dogs etc... But now with Fiennes book (now referenced) there is a third wave... Fiennes very strongly defends Scott. Indeed the book is dedicated to "The families of the defamed dead", indicating that Fiennes thinks that Scott has been defamed all these years. I will try to update the article to reflect this view point, but I don't think NPOV is easy to achieve. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I've done that now, but the article is perhaps a little more clumsy than it was. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:55, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the article now goes too far in the other direction in presenting Fiennes' defense of Scott rather than a more balanced viewpoint. I've fixed up a few things (e.g., one does not have to be a particular critic of Scott to recognize that scurvy was probably a factor in his death) but I think the article as a whole still needs more work.  Dr.frog 20:30, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think that being one of Scott's critics makes one a "revisionist". Scott was a hopelessly incompetent polar explorer. The fact is that in almost identical conditions Amundsen not only beat Scott to the South Pole, but got his men home safely and in perfect health. Essentially all of the major criticisms levelled at Scott by Roland Huntford are valid: reliance on ponies and man-hauling instead of dogs, inadequate food and clothing, failure to take proper measures to avoid scurvy, supply depots too far apart and inadequately provisioned, the last-minute decision to take 5 men to the Pole, and the conflicting orders Scott sent back for the relief and resupply of the Polar party.


 * That's definitely a valid viewpoint, but its not the only one. My original point when I wrote that some 18 months ago was that the article only presented that viewpoint. It then went the other way (as Dr. frog pointed out). Since then, I thought it had back into a reasonable balance. Do you not agree? Pcb21 Pete 11:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Applying the term "revisionist" to Scott's critics implies that their viewpoint somehow flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Perhaps the article should just say that current opinion on Scott is somewhat divided, "Scott's defenders say x, while Scott's detractors say y", and just leave it at that.


 * I would also question the value of Fiennes' book. It does not read like a scholarly, meticulously-researched or well-reasoned work, and offers no new information or compelling arguments. Susan Solomon's book The Coldest March is also thoroughly unconvincing. Even she admits that Scott had pretty average Antarctic weather for the first four months of his journey. It was only over the last three weeks that they got unusually cold temperatures. It's hard to see how it exonerates Scott in any way. One of his party was already dead before the weather turned bad, and it ignores Huntford's argument that Scott and his men should never have been man-hauling on the Barrier in March after more than four months and 1500 miles. Scott had planned to man-haul most of the way, had planned to be still man-hauling in March and had optimistically counted on agreeable weather all the way to the Pole and back.


 * I'd call the implication Scott was a less-capable leader because he didn't use Innu-style gear a bit POV. The article also misses recent research suggesting Scott planned on the basis of typical weather, & by sheer bad luck got one of the worst winters for a century. Had he gone in 1913, it suggests, he'd have made it. Trekphiler 18:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Scott's failure to adopt the way of the Innuit does call into question his competence. Successful Polar travel was not much of a secret. There was all kinds of literature on the subject that Scott never bothered to read. And Scott was close friends with both Nansen and Peary, both of whom strongly advised him to use dogteams and caribou skins. Furthermore, the "bad weather" argument is a really weak, post hoc attempt to salvage Scott's reputation. The truth is that Scott got colder-than-usual weather for three weeks in a 5-month journey, and the types of temperatures he saw, -20°C to -40°C, are not all that cold by Polar standards.

One book not mentioned is Diana Preston's "First Rate Tragedy". It's an odd book in that the thesis of the book is to rebut "revisionists" who have criticized Scott, yet her arguments are so unconvincing that by the end the reader is left no choice but to agree with the "revisionists". Blaming the weather is not an acceptable reason/excuse. Planning and supplying for a four man run to the pole, then deciding to take five to the pole at the last instance is just not good leadership. Using the same fuel tins which on a previous expedition failed is not good planning. Not learning from the experience of numerous Arctic expeditions is not good planning. sending a navy man to Siberia to purchase ponies rather than an experienced calvaryman is just not smart. In the end, while his bravery and valor in the face of adversity was admirable, it also cost the lives of four other men who depended on him for really nothing more than personal ambition.

Stirred whose heart?
The recent edit changing of "stirred the heart of every Briton" to "stirred the heart of every Englishman" has me wondering: Is there a discrepancy between the handwritten journals, and some edited, published version? Or is this just someone's miscopying that has been fairly widely repeated? Gene Nygaard 14:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Fiennes book has "Englishman", for what it's worth. Pcb21| Pete 20:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made the change to the quote. I have several books which quote the diary, including a recent edition of Scott's diary itself, first published as "Scott's Last Expedition"; Cherry-Garrard's "The worst journey in the world"; and "South With Scott" by Edward Evans, which all give the quote with the word "Englishman". Scott's manuscript diary is on display at the British Museum but I have not checked it myself. I believe facsimile editions have been published. I have never seen the word "Briton" in this quote in any published reference. Martin Lyster

Two issues
1. Has anyone check if this page oversteps the bounds of fair use in regards in to Fiennes' work? The last part, defending Scott, reads somewhat out-of-place in its tone and language. I've never read his book but if someone else has, please verified that we're on the safe side of fair use.


 * The last section ("the debate") was added, almost in its entirity, by a person other than those of use who wrote the first part, so I am not surprised that it sounds different in tone. Like you I am not convinced that it is sufficiently neutral, whoever I have the Fiennes' book and no cpvios spring out. Pcb21| Pete 22:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

2. Is there a better word to use than "revisionist"? The word has a bad connotation. Yes there are people who criticize Scott and his legend but we should refrain from making judgments on this. Instead, we should present the information objectively. Revisionist is a relative term as well. Wouldn't those who made counter-claims and critisms of Scott call the modern defenders "revisionists"? I think a less controversial and more neutral term would be better.


 * Feel free to tinker. Pcb21| Pete 22:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Comatose51 21:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Posthumous Knighthood ?????
Can somebody provide a source for this information? If this is true, it would be the only time it has ever happened. This debate was revived after George Harrison's death, when fans suggested he be posthumously knighted to give him the same status as Paul McCartney. Buck Palace responded by saying that knighthoods are never awarded posthumously. No mention of any exceptions like Scott. I have always understood that Scott was posthumously awarded a CBE or something similar, but not a knighthood.

Sometimes a person's knighthood is announced post mortem only because they died suddenly after accepting it and before the announcement was scheduled to be made, eg. Sir Henry Cotton. Scott had not been offered any such honour prior to his departure for Antarctica, so he could not have accepted. JackofOz 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought it was his wife that got the knighthood (and so became Lady Scott) precisely because knighthoods are not given posthumously. She was a living proxy for him. Can anyone confirm? Pcb21| Pete 08:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As the wife of a knight, Kathleen Scott would have been called simply Lady Scott. If she had been "knighted" in her own right, she would have been Dame Kathleen Scott.  But her page says "When her first husband was posthumously knighted, she became a widow of a Knight Commander, Order of the Bath.", ie. Lady Scott.  No mention of Dame Kathleen.   But where did the info about KCB come from?  It doesn't appear next to Scott's name on his own page.  JackofOz 23:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Further research indicates that "In 1913 she was granted the rank of a widow of a Knight Commander, Order of the Bath". This means that, for the purposes of establishing precedence on official occasions only, she was treated as if she were the widow of KCB.  But a KCB was not actually awarded to anybody.  Scott did not posthumously become Sir Robert, Kathleen was never the widow of an actual KCB, she was never Dame Kathleen, and she did not become Lady Scott until her second marriage to a man who became a peer.  JackofOz 00:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Great sleuthing Jack! Looking forward to seeing it integrated into the two relevant articles. Pcb21| Pete 00:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a note. In the US the abbreviation RN is used to denote a registered nurse. I know that used here it's for royal navy and it should be written royal navy.
 * Oh, please. It's not like nobody in NAm knows RN=Royal Navy. Besides, talking about a Br Cpn, he'd have been called "Scott, RN". Trekphiler 18:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

British propaganda machine
I think there should be some mention of how the legend of Scott is in large part due to the british propaganda machine. If Scott had been just about any other nationality, I doubt he would get anything more than a footnote in the history books.


 * That argument could be applied to lots of people. Scott and his party are remembered because of their valour, and because they knew there was an even money chance they would not make it back alive.  They went anyway, and all of them died, within a few miles of safety.  Also, they were in a race with Amundsen to be the first to get to the South Pole, a colossal human achievement akin to Neil Armstrong and Edmund Hillary.  That Amundsen got there first, and returned safely, is no reason why Scott & co shouldn't be remembered.  If Scott had been Uruguayan, he would still be remembered.  But I do agree that Amundsen's name is sort of downplayed in Britain and former British colonies, and Scott gets a disproportionate amount of the limelight.  JackofOz 22:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Snowball
I reverted the edit concerning the song: :Scott's fellow Plymothians Datapan wrote the track "Snowballs" in tribute to him (it is a commentry of his famous last expedition).

Edit was unsourced and seems a little suspicious to me as that editor made another edit with a datapan reference. . Feel free to reinclude it or source it if I am wrong. No Guru 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The image is labled "Shackletongroup.jpg"
The picture of Scott's final party (which all perished) is incorrectly labled Shackletongroup.jpg and may confuse readers as this was not Shackleton's party and Ernest Shackleton is not in the photo.


 * The image has now been renamed. Ian Dunster 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How did Scott lose his right foot near the end?
At the very end of Scott's diary, Scott has an entry that reads:

"My right foot has gone, nearly all the toes--two days ago I was proud possessor of best feet. These are the steps of my downfall. Like an ass I mixed a small spoonful of curry powder with my melted pemmican--it gave me violent indigestion. I lay awake and in pain all night; woke and felt done on the march; foot went and I didn't know it. A very small measure of neglect and have a foot which is not pleasant to contemplate."

I am trying to interpret this entry but what actually happened escapes me. How does indigestion from curry powder result in a frost-bitten foot (I assume from "nearly all the toes") in two days? Any thoughts? I can't find any discussion or mention of this passage online either.
 * His sleep was constantly interrupted by indigestion ("awake and in pain all night"), so the following day he was exhausted ("done") and failed to notice the onset of frostbite ("foot went and I didn't know it"). If he had had a proper night's sleep he would have noticed the loss of feeling as frostbite progressed and been able to avoid the loss of his toes. EdC 11:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

removal of reference to a comic sketch
Wikipedia aspires to be a serious reference work. This article about Scott is essentially biographical, with additional material on the history of Polar exploration. Given this, the reference to "Scott of the Sahara", a comic sketch was redundant in this context. There is a case for including this material in an article about popular culture, or Monty Pythons Flying Circus, but the material was located at an unsuitable place within the main article about Scott's last journey --Rmackenzie 21:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Terra Nova expedition 1910-1912
The Terra Nova section of the article is well-written and quite riveting, but it contains some information that seems to be in conflict with information in the Terra Nova Expedition main article. Offhand, the way Oates and Evans died. In addition, the TN section of this article contains a great deal of info not in the main article, I wonder if whoever wrote this article might go and add to/spruce up the main article?--Anchoress 07:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why was the Terra Nova section removed?--Anchoress 10:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverted to version including the TN section since I didn't hear back from the editor who deleted it.--Anchoress 04:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The TN section was vandalised by 220.233.80.213--Anchoress 10:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in the Debate
Well I've made an attempt. There are some links and references to be made, and no doubt some spelling corrections. In the meantime if there are any contra-assertions or interpretations I'll be v. happy to view/consider them. Cheers,Tban 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article as a whole now it strikes me that the 'debate' about the man is larger than the section on the man (as in life so it shall be in Wiki..). Then I notice that the 'Discovery' section is way under done compared to the Terra Nova (which seems about right in length tho a little too much focused on how he died rather than how he lived). So I think the Discovery section needs another couple of paragraphs about what was planned, what was achieved etc and Scott's role in that.

I'm also still looking at some 'strong opinions' in regard to personal 'motives' that are left in the article. I have a history of being rather ruthless in culling them out if they are 'self evident', 'not consistently expressed' or 'implausible'. So for example I struggle with the necessity to tell us that Scott is at once 'obsessed' by the idea of the Pole, and keen to achieve financial security for his family, and keen to do it for his country. I'm not really getting any real information about this except that he was a 'regular joe' - a mix of motivations like all of us. This also suggests that Scott was the trigger for the Terra Nova expedition and I don't buy that story. Now he may have agitated for it, but I doubt he had the clout to actually conjure it out of thin air. What I'd like to know about the Terra Nova expedition is who 'created it' (the Navy? British Industrial interests? the Press? or some combination of forces), and what were their private motives (if we can determine them) and what was the stated (public) aim it was to achieve. And then - how did Scott fit in. Was he comfortable with the 'expedition aims', was he the 'best man for the job', and to what degree was he involved (distracted by perhaps) the necessity to raise money vs make arrangements for the expedition. How much did it cost, and was there a view it was underfunded. Note that this last issue is something relevant today - the UK's failed Beagle expedition to Mars has lots of echoes in Terra Nova, as does (in some ways) NASA's Space Shuttle program.Tban 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling this article into some kind of shape. Need to put equal weight on the Discovery Expedition, and fill in the gap leading up to the Terra Nova. Fairly happy with the Debate section, and the Legend section now. Might make mention of Peter Scott's achievements (legacy of Scott). Also like to make observation at some point about how Scott preferred 'tried and true' (eg companions to Pole being ex-Discovery men, and ponies) but also liked 'the new' - dogs and motorised sleds, and snowshoes for ponies; but that he left the latter in the hands of others (Meares, Dimitri, Day and Oates) but wasn't always happy with the way they managed their responsibilities. Weaving in at several points observations about Amundsen, particularly those flowing from (my new) awareness of prior Norwegian involvement in the Ross Sea area. We weren't taught that in school! Tban 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Flagged this as NPOV because the "grounds for comparison" section contains many assertions that are either not supported with footnotes or are simple advocacy. Famouslongago —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC Documentary
Someone has just posted a reference to a BBC doco (August 2006) that recreated Scott and Amundsen's expeditions (same equipment etc). I'll try and get a summary of the doco/conclusions. The reference to the doco has been inserted in the debate section, and probably belongs there with some extra remarks about what we can learn from it. The contributor has chopped up the 'concluding' paragraph of the debate section to 'fit' this in (correctly). I'll come back and stitch the original intent back together sometime soon - the point it was trying to make was that the 'relevance' of those journey's to us today is VALID, but not in the sense of how they travelled, or even WHERE they travelled. The relevance is in how they financed, planned and managed the expeditions. That's to say that the South Pole journeys were important in the history of expeditioning, perhaps more so than they were important historically.Tban 05:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pemmican
The debate section of the article refers to Scott making the mistake of taking pemmican and then states that pemmican is not high in fat. On the first episode of the BBC doco aired last night they stated that both Scott and Amundsen took pemmican as their main (only?) source of food. It was also stated that pemmican is high in fat (50%).


 * Very good point. Wiki's article on pemmican suggests it is high in fat, and is basically an american indian/inuit foodstuff.  Cherry-Garrard describes expeditioners carrying equal weights of pemmican and 'antarctic' biscuit.  Cherry says the biscuits were 'designed' by Wilson and a chemist employed by Huntley & Palmer.  During the Winter Journey Wilson, Cherry-Garrad and Bowers experimented with different diets.  Cherry-Garrard noted the need for fat.  He also noted that the pemmican was made by Beauvais in Copenhagen.


 * The original contribution in the Debate section about diet pre-dated me. I left it in when I did some large edits a few months ago.  I now wonder if the original author had confused pemmican with 'jerky' (dried meat).  Pemmican (as I understand it) is basically finely shredded jerky set in a roughly equal weight of fat.   If someone want to edit that section in the debate text they are very welcome, elsewise I'll get around to it shortly.  I think it's fair to say though, that there might have still been (valid) questions relating to diet and health - and maybe the BBC program will shed some light on that.  I'm thinking particularly of issues relating to the ability to digest/metabolise the food they were eating.  But it may be that the whole dietry thing has been 'overated' in importance; the cold and the blizzard were sufficient explanation (to my mind) for the death of Scott, Wilson and Bowers south of the One Ton Dump, and for their slow progress to that point.Tban 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't think so - diet was a factor (other than the simple fact that Scott was constantly a day or two from starvation and Amundsen had an excess). But pemmican was NOT the "main" source of food - it was one of the the main sources. The other source - sledging biscuit - was an even greater proportion of the calories. Amundsen's was made with whole grain flour and contained whole oats, whereas Scott's were made from white flour. There is something to the diet argument. Huntford even has an addendum to his revdised edition on the subject. However my knowledge is really only based on Huntford's account so I don't feel comfortable editing on this subject - we need more info on the dietary section. Kgdickey 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that's there's more to be said on this matter. I'd noted that they carried roughly EQUAL weight of Pemmican and Biscuits.  I tried to 'get inside' the biscuit (so to speak), but all Cherry-Garrard has to say about it was that it was a 'special formula' (see my original entry).  I was hoping that the BBC doco would do the leg-work on that.  Did you have a source for the 'white flour' observation?.  Strictly speaking though, I'd agree that poor nutrition slowed them down to the point where they were 'caught' in the blizzard season, but I'd maintain they died of 'exposure' (cold) when their heating oil ran out.  Some people seem to think the 'cause' of death is important, I don't.Tban 01:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My source is Huntford's The Last Place on Earth - Scott and Amundsen's Race to the South Pole. I refer to the Abacus trade paperback edition of the third Random House edition of the book, updated in 1999. I believe this is the third edition, as Huntford edited the book in 1983 and 1999.


 * There are two particular passages of interest to this discussion. On page 247: "The Norwegian Army had been experimenting with pemmican as an iron ration, adding peas to give fibre and make it more digestible. Amundsen heard of this, and after some trials of his own, ordered pemmican to which oatmeal and peas had been added."


 * The gist of this section is about diarrhea - or diarrhoea, to use Huntford's spelling. He points out that Amundsen understood that such a condition could be deadly when trying to do one's most personal business in the open at 40 below - not to mention the difficulty working. The extra whole grain and vegetable matter were absent from Scott's party's diet.


 * The second interesting citation is an extended discussion on diet, appearing on pages 492-3 of my edition. One key point is that both expeditions allowed for 4,500 kcal per man - but remember that one expedition was skiing and dog driving, and the other man-hauling. 4,500 calories is not bad for any human, unless they are being subjected to forced labor. In fact, Scott's men were performing exactly that, and were thus underfed by at least 1,000-1,500 calories. Amundsen's men actually gained weight on the trip, whereas the diaries of Scott's party were filled with talk of hunger - there is even talk of "hunger dreams," which are common in people who are starving to death. Huntford claims that Scott's diet was too short in thiamin (Vitamin B1) riboflavin (B2) and nicotinic acid, all part of the B complex, and "a deficiency can have mental and nervous effects." Amundsen took dried milk and more chocolate per man, both sources of the B complex. But the real difference in Vitamin B was due to:


 * ...the biscuits used by each expedition on the march. Both were specially produced for concentrated nourishement. But Scott's biscuits, baked by Huntley and Palmer's, contained white flour, with sodium bicarbonate as leavening. Amundsen's, on the other hand, made by Saetre, a Norwegian firm, were based on wholemeal flour and crude rolled oats, with yeast as the main leavening. Yeast and whole grain are potent sources of Vitamin B.


 * Huntford also makes a major point, both following the above quotation on page 493, and also elsewhere, about the base camp diet. Amundsen ate loads of undercooked fresh seal meat - the proven antiscorbutic of not only the Inuit, but also of the Jackson-Harmsworth expedition. Koettlitz, a member of that expedition and later the Discovery expedition, insisted on fresh seal meat during the first winter, when Scott's entire expedition suffered from scurvy. Scott refused, because he didn't like Koettlitz and because he didn't like killing seals. Koettlitz ultimately saved the expedition from scurvy by disobeying orders while Scott was away from the base. Scott, amazed by the recovery of his men upon his return, gave in and stuck with the new diet. The lesson was forgotten on the Terra Nova expedition, however, when tinned food was used almost exclusively - a mistake that not even Shackleton made four years earlier. Amundsen ate seal meat throughout the winter, and set off with ample supplies of B complex and Vitamin C in his body. Back to page 493:


 * Three months is about the longest the human body can store Vitamin C. Amundsen who, reducing his philosophy to its simplest terms, had seen safety in speed, was back to his sources of Vitamin C at the seal meat depots in two and a half months. Scott had (been) on the road for almost exactly the same time, and he had not done half his journey yet. Vitamin deficiencies and general malnutrition go far to explain Scott's afflictions from about 88º South: his susceptibility to cold, his manifest weakness. Lack of Vitamin C would account for the festering cut on P.O. Evans' hand and its obstinate refusal to heal.


 * It is hard to disagree with Huntford's conclusion here. Amundsen and Scott encountered very similar conditions on the Ross Ice Shelf - in fact Scott had fewer blizzard days. But when one considers that Scott's party almost certainly was at least 1,000 kcal short for the work they were doing (over five months), were suffering from at least a Vitamin C deficiency (if not all-out scurvy) and a Vitamin B deficiency due to the makeup of their biscuits - and then consider that they died only 13 miles (13 miles!) from a huge fuel depot (One Ton Dump) - it is inescapeable that diet was a factor - a major factor - in their deaths, even if their lack of fuel in the cold was most directly responsible for killing them. Remember that they stayed alive in the tent for almost eight days before their deaths. They died because they were in no condition to continue. It does not take eight days to freeze to death.


 * You are doing a great job with this article Tban - it has come a long way. I am willing to incorporate some of this into the entry but first I will wait for some discussion on this point. I worry because so much of it is based on Huntford, who is one side in the "debate," and I don't want to create biased articles. But I have researched the subject extensively and Huntford scores a lopsided win in this debate, maybe even a knockout. His logic, research, and the weight of his other great books on Nansen and Shackleton are so compelling that the later authors who defend Scott come across as little more than apologists by comparison. I am interested in digging out whatever truth that exists, that is true. And the truth usually is in the middle. But just because someone writes a book claiming that the sky is green doesn't mean that an encylopedia should describe it as greenish-blue. Scott's incompetance is so overwhelming, and so easily documented (and not only by comparing him to Amundsen, which is unfair, but even by looking at Shackleton or even James Ross, almost a century earlier), that it is very difficult to advocate staking out a position very far from Huntford on most subjects, even if some would call it taking sides. Regards, Kgdickey 22:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gday Kgdickey, well said.  I should have been clearer; my view is that the 'immediate' cause of death was not (in my view) vitally important, but it seems pretty clear that the ultimate cause of their deaths was 'bad planning' (not just 'poor execution of plans').  Which is why I had the view that the 'final word' on the expedition should be a reflection on 'planning', as central an issue today as it was then.  Understanding the 'points of failure' in the planning is not an exercise designed to heap scorn on Scott, but simply to illustrate how 'well meant', 'intelligent', 'experienced', and 'brave' people (and I'm collectively referring to the Scott expedition members) can die and trigger some thought about what we can learn from that and apply in the modern day.


 * It sounds like a 'Nutrition' section in the article is warranted. Thank you for the excellent information.  In fact I'd like to see most of the material in the 'Debate' section eventually moved into a series of more 'meaningful' sections in the main article on the Terra Nova Expedition (such as Nutrition/Weather/Transport/Scientific Achievements).  The section about the 'Debate' really only should (to my mind) include a reference to the prejudice against Amundsen and a brief coverage of Huntford etc and links.  The 'Debate' should tell the story of the 'Debate', not the story of the expedition.   The reader should (to my mind) then be able to understand the issues that the 'Debate' section refers to by reading the main article (and not by recapping the story of the entire expediton within the Debate section).  But it's an evolutionary process, and I (for one) had to get my thoughts 'straight' in the context of the 'Debate' before feeling we had some NPOV concensus about how to tell the story of the Terra Nova expedition.


 * Similarly, the 'Legend' section might someday be retitled something along the lines of 'After Scott's death' - some neutral term to describe 'events after his death'. Inside that section we could talk about 'the legend' and the doubts, and ultimately incorporate the story of the 'Debate' in there.  The remaining task seems still to be to get the material on the 'Discovery' expedition into shape, and (I suspect) illustrate how all of the expeditions (Scott's and others) 'interacted' (positively and negatively).  We tend to run the risk of creating a somewhat 'false' view of history in encyclopedias by concentrating on 'separate achievements' that have clearly defined start-end dates and 'players', but (generally) under-report the degree to which expeditions (in any field) built on the work of previous ones, particularly 'foreign' ones, and how they exist in the context not just of the 'morality' of the time, or 'personal or national ambition', but also in the context of 'commercial interest'.    Anyhow, that's all getting a bit 'heavy'.  Cheers, Tban 23:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stumbled across another interesting fact today. In George Seaver's 1965 introduction to The Worst Journey in the World, he recounts a visit to Cherry-Gerrard in the Winter of 1929. He recounts that Cherry "spoke...of the lack of vitamins that finally starved the Polar Party." (on p. lxxi of my 1994 First Lyons Press edition). Interesting that as early as 1929 Cherry - who was obsessed with the demise of Scott's party - to Cherry's detriment - for the rest of his life, believed that the cause of death was clearly malnutrition. Not saying this refutes any posed by Tban, but it is an interesting fact considering the conversation. Cheers. Kgdickey 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gday Kgdickey. I have a great respect for Cherry, seems to me that he was a deep thinker and - as you say - seemed to spend the rest of his life going over this ground repeatedly.  My recollection is that his 'verdict' in his original text was that it was down to the leaking heating oil in the dumps, and Scott's selection of his Polar party, and (if I remember correctly) adverse weather.  It seems to me that it would be 'just like Cherry' to want to acknowledge 'all of the evidence and facts' and 'add in' vitamins as a factor once the importance of vitamins became more apparent through the 1920's.   But he didn't change the original text and I get the sense that he still saw the failure of the Polar party as due to a mix of factors, including the one he only hinted at, and that was the character and ability of Scott.  Cherry's most telling remark was to compare Scott with Shackleton and Amundsen, noting that Amundsen was best for a 'quick dash', Scott for scientific endeavour, and Shackleton for making sure that everyone got back alive.  The inference is that he distrusted both Scott and Amundsen to a degree in terms of 'doing everything to look after their people' (Amundsen's reputation was not perfect in this regard).  My interest in this issue is not to say anyone is right or wrong, and particularly not to 'knock anyone down', but to reflect that failure (like success) has many 'fathers and mothers'.  We run the risk when we focus on a 'particular factor' to miss the subtle influence of many others, and if we then extrapolate that observation to present day events we run the risk of looking for (expecting to find) simplistic 'silver bullet' solutions, or worse still finding them.  And then finding we haven't found them at all.   But opinions are best formed by facts, and in the absence of certain facts, then by other opinions, so nothing but good can come from debate.  Cheers, Tban 06:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Geological specimens and their value
I have removed (again) the reference to the piece of coal recovered by Scott (and subsequently by the search party) that helped establish the theory of plate tectonics. No such sample was collected by Scott. I believe this is an erroneous reference to an actual piece of coal - which did contribute in some way to this theory - which was recovered by Shackleton, not Scott. According to the literature I have read, none of the geologic samples collected by Scott's Polar Party were of any use to science. Kgdickey 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Gday Kgdickey, I have a sense that you are 'fighting to get at the truth' (or maintain the truth). Of course the 'truth' is a slippery customer... Here's a quote from Cherry-Garrard that I think (hope) gets us some way to the heart of the matter..(we can remove it later if it clutters things up here too much):

They left the Upper Glacier Depôt under Mount Darwin on February 8. This day they collected the most important of those geological specimens to which, at Wilson's special request, they clung to the end, and which were mostly collected by him. Mount Darwin and Buckley Island, which are really the tops of high mountains, stick out of the ice at the top of the glacier, and the course ran near to both of them, but not actually up against them. Shackleton found coal on Buckley Island, and it was clear that the place was of great geological importance, for it was one of the only places in the Antarctic where fossils could be found, so far as we knew. The ice-falls stretched away as far as you could see towards the mountains which bound the glacier on either side, and as you looked upwards towards Buckley Island they were like a long breaking wave. One of the great difficulties about the Beardmore was that you saw the ice-falls as you went up, and avoided them, but coming down you knew nothing of their whereabouts until you fell into the middle of pressure and crevasses, and then it was almost impossible to say whether you should go right or left to get out.

Evans was unable to pull this day, and was detached from the sledge, but this was not necessarily a very serious sign: Shackleton on his return journey was not able to pull at this place. Wilson wrote as follows:

"_February 8, Mt. Buckley Cliffs._ A very busy day. We had a very cold forenoon march, blowing like blazes from the S. Birdie detached and went on ski to Mt. Darwin and collected some dolerite, the only rock he could see on the Nunatak, which was nearest. We got into a sort of crusted surface where the snow broke through nearly to our knees and the sledge-runner also. I thought at first we were all on a thinly bridged crevasse. We then came on east a bit, and gradually got worse and worse going over an ice-fall, having great trouble to prevent sledge taking charge, but eventually got down and then made N.W. or N. into the land, and camped right by the moraine under the great sandstone cliffs of Mt. Buckley, out of the wind and quite warm again: it was a wonderful change. After lunch we all geologized on till supper, and I was very late turning in, examining the moraine after supper. Socks, all strewn over the rocks, dried splendidly. Magnificent Beacon sandstone cliffs. Masses of limestone in the moraine, and dolerite crags in various places. Coal seams at all heights in the sandstone cliffs, and lumps of weathered coal with fossil vegetable. Had a regular field-day and got some splendid things in the short time."

So you are right, Shackleton did it first. Wilson 'added' to the collection. I searched for some reference to the speciments that Wilson collected (I believe they are in the British Museum), but didn't turn up anything earth-shattering. I agree that the original entry may have 'over-rated' the importance of Wilson's speciments in the 'history of geology'. Given that fossils are always 'interesting' to someone and would have been looked at by 'someone' in some basement of some 'institution' somewhere, could we perhaps put together some words that mention Shackleton (because he deserves more mention), then something about Wilson collecting more 'which added to an understanding of antartic geology etc'. Scott's second volume (science achievements) would probably have more to say about geology. My emphasis on 'science' in the article (raising the profile) as it were is intentional. 'Scott's' expedition included two geological expeditions (with noted geologists) that scarcely rate a mention in most articles.

Curiously, just yesterday I was in the university library looking up books on plate tectonics, chasing any reference to Antartic specimens. Still looking! For the moment I agree, let's leave the reference out, and at some stage I'll put together some words along I've outlined above. Cheers, Tban 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit First Paragraph
I agree that the first para may have been a little confusing for those trying to establish whether Scott actually reached the South Pole. I also agree that to talk about 'first' and 'second' is probably the easiest way to 'convey the notion', and in a sense it fits in with the 'race to the South Pole' concept, which - while an unfortunate simplification (and to some degree a misrepresentation) of what was going on - was the picture most of the public had 'at the time', and since.Tban 23:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lady Scott and Nansen
The claim that Kathleen was having an affair with Nansen was cited by Roland Huntsford in his book which compares the methods of Amundsen and Scott (and has been seen as a demolition job on the latter). Can't remember its title though. Soz. Plutonium27 13:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain Robert Falcon Scott
Does this look familliar? (-dogman15 07:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Dogs, etc
I have added a paragraph to the Debate section about the possible effects of Scott's supposedly contradictory orders about the uses to be made of the dogs after their return from the Barrier, as little is otherwise made of this controversy in the main article. I have already aired this question in an article on Atkinson.

Incidentally the Debate section begins with the assertion that Cherry-Garrard opened the debate about Scott when he published The Worst Journey in 1922. It may have been opened to a small group of cognoscenti and expedition junkies, but the debate was hardly an open one. During my childhood in the fifties, and for years thereafter, you simply didn't criticise Scott. In general public terms the Debate only got under way seriously with Elspeth Huxley's 1979 book Scott of the Antarctic and Huntford's Scott and Amundsen that same year. Even then the debate was muted until Huntford's book was televised in 1985 as The Last Place On Earth and republished under that title.81.79.171.189 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)