Talk:Robert Falcon Scott/Archive 2

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) Calamitybrook (talk) 15:08, 2 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.

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)

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 &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 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 . Please assume good will and accept my further apologies...

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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. 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:

4/08
 * “Are you aware this is a top-importance Antarctica article?”
 * “Please don't revert again or I will have to file a report.”
 * 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:
Calamitybrook (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "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."
 * 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 &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 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 &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 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”. 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, 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.

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”. The television version reinforces this image, with added fictional sequences designed to discredit Scott. 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, who also draws attention to Huntford's expressed prejudices, including his personal hatred of Scott. 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. Writing in the shadow of Huntford, Francis Spufford asserts that, like Sir John Franklin before him, Scott “probably died of incompetence”. More harshly, he goes on: “Scott doomed his companions, then covered his tracks with rhetoric”.

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. 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) underlying Huntford's and TV scriptwriter Trevor Griffiths's attacks, and casts doubts on the credibility of much of Huntford's evidence. 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". 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. 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. One hundred years after their rivalry, Shackleton's bravura and charisma define a modern Britain which has "shaken off the straitjacket of class prejudice" 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". By contrast, Captain Scott, with his aura of heroic failure, is out of fashion.

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." 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." []

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, [] who described it as "therefore the most balanced biography yet" on Scott.[] 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. []

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." [] Stephanie Barczewski's "Antarctic Destinies"  (2008) was also notable for the personal nature of its attacks on Huntford. []

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". 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.”

Comments
Ruhrfisch comments Here are some comments, mostly initial WP:MOS issues on Version two: Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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).
 * 2) As has been noted, the bare external links (urls only) need to be converted to references per WP:CITE
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) Per WP:MOSQUOTE, the very last quotation needs an inline reference
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) I like starting the section with Scott's last words.
 * 7) 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.

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:

...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)

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.
 * 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 &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now looked closer at the New York Times reviewer. The correct source is as follows:

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 &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 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 AN/I. 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 &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 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 &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 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:
 * 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)


 * A brilliant counter argument!!! Very subtle. Many discussion points!!

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)