Talk:Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured list Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on December 10, 2012.
December 17, 2008 Featured list candidate Promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Antarctica (Rated FL-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lists (Rated FL-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment[edit]

Congratulations on getting this featured. However, the problem of the German flag I mentioned in the FAC still stands: the German flag listed in the article is anachronistic. You want  German Empire instead (or German Empire Germany) instead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to do this - it is now done, and thanks for pointing it out. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Accidents galore![edit]

Any particular reason why Robert Brissendon is listed as having been the victim of an accidental drowning? Other than the poor depressed chap in Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, I've never interpreted drowning to be intentional.

Also, for Charles Bonnor, instead of Accident (fell from ship's mast), why not just write Fell from ship's mast? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair points both; have amended as suggested. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

North pole achievement is disputed[edit]

The current version of this entry states that "During the course of these expeditions the geographical and magnetic poles were both reached." -- but Peary's having reached the North Pole is disputed. This sentence needs at least a citation, and some further qualification as well. Clevelander96 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Peary's claim was accepted at the time; the disputes came later. I have added a footnote, with citations, to explain the position. You are welcome to add further explanatory text if you think it necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious error in first sentence...[edit]

The Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration describes an era which extended from the end of the 21st century to the early 1920s.[1]

???

The /end/ of the /21st/ century? does someone know something I don't?

Can someone who actually knows something about the subject please correct this -.o;

Hideki (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone's idea of a clever joke, I think. Since corrected. Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Robert falcon scott.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Robert falcon scott.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Pole-observation.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Pole-observation.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ross Sea Party was part of the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition[edit]

...and consequently, only the ITAE should be included in the list of expeditions.

The Ross Sea party was one of two groups of explorers that set out to support the single most important goal of the ITAE, that of the crossing of the continent via the pole by Ernest Shackleton and his men. Often, in contemporary and later accounts, the other party, the Weddell Sea party, is taken as synonymous with the ITAE partly because it was the party that initially brought the famous expedition leader, Shackleton, to the Antarctic, and the Ross Sea party, if addressed at all, is mentioned separately. The reasons for this may be complex and not limited to the fact that Shackleton never made it across the continent to connect with the disparate Ross Sea Party. However, that does not mean that Ross Sea party was not part of the ITAE. The planning for the expedition called for the coordinated efforts of the two parties. Fulfilling the purpose of the expedition required both parties. And presumably, both parties were spawned from the same expedition funds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.81.203 (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Australasian not Australian[edit]

The Australasian Antarctic Expedition was a cooperative effort by Australia and New Zealand and yet is credited as Australian only. Can someone proficient in table edits correct this please? Djapa Owen (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

White Ensign[edit]

The Quest sailed in 1921-22 under the White Ensign, but the expedition is flagged in this article with the Union Jack. If the purpose of the flags in this article are to serve as nationalistic identifiers, then the right flag is there right now; but if the purpose is to identify the historic identities of the ships after which each expedition is named, then the flag ought to be changed. Bigturtle (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I beleive the intention is to identify national origin as a number of the other vessels would have also been sailing under naval ensigns (although not all) and none are represented thus in the table. Personally I feel the current situation is acceptable. Djapa Owen (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Rude, unrefined" sounds rather elitist[edit]

"The explorers of this age are not remembered merely as scientists and sailors; on one hand objective, calculating, and on the other rude, unrefined." Is it reasonable to suggest all sailors are by nature rude and unrefined? Neither the writings of Stan Taylor [1] nor Bert Lincoln [2] strike me as either rude or unrefined. Perhaps we can move into the 21st century and abandon the class attitudes of the 19th? Djapa Owen (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wooden ships[edit]

Why were wooden ships used so often in this? Seems like metal ones were mainstream at the time, for everything else. --184.158.88.47 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wooden ships were still quite common well into the 20th century. The metal hulls of the time were usually riveted which did not necessarily result in a structure which was as resilient as a metal plated wooden hull. Modern icebreakers have welded metal hulls which are probably much stronger. Djapa Owen (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edgar Evans[edit]

I think in his case the cause of death should also be "brain damage". What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllYourPowers (talkcontribs) 14:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if that would be technically accurate, do we have any medically educated eyes on this who could offer an opinion? Certainly head injury would be a reasonable inclusion. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that was Dr Wilson's diagnosis. He was definitely weakened by scurvy and cold (I don't know about the "starvation" part I think it was a bit too early for that at that point). But of course he died much earlier than the others and I wouldn't say it was only because of his size or even his wounded hand but rather a mix o all that, so scurvy, cold and that terrible fall he had merely two weeks before his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllYourPowers (talkcontribs) 15:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen that quote. I am not sure though that we might not use the term brain damage a little differently thn we might have 100 years ago, but you may be right. If you have a reference for Dr Wilson's diagnosis (or if it is in one of the references listed already) and you want to change it to brain damage then I think that would be reasonable. I also think your comment about starvation makes sense. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
PS; you know about signing your posts don't you? Put four tildes as shown just below the edit window and you will get a neater signature at the end of your post.
I doubt that Wilson was able to give a correct diagnosis in such circumstances or that this is how how he described it in his journal (which I haven't read and I'm not even sure it was published). I thought I've read it in one of the books but it turned out I was just quoting Susan Solomon. She also added "scurvy, dehydration, high altitude, or a combination of all these factors" so in general all that unpleasantness that comes with a death in the Antarctic. Not that we can add all that and the fact that with him being so sturdy he had higher sensivity to cold or that it was basically Oates's old war wound that killed him. This can be included in their respective articles but the description here has to be as brief as possible so I say what we have now is enough. We'll never know more about his death than we do know. We definitely know more about his than Mackintosh and Hayward's. AllYourPowers (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)