This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic 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.
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I've started this timeline, but it is by no means complete. Please add to it. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
the 2011 expedition needs to be removed. the telegraph have retracted the story and apologised with correction. That expedition fell over 400 miles short of the north pole and Ice was not free - there was still over 4 million square kilometres surrounding the true pole. This reference should have been checked before taking a stories word for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I have made a number of additions, although the list is still incomplete. It would be better entitled "List of major Arctic Expeditions". I don't believe that the WW2 Arctic convoys should be included, as their purpose had nothing to do with exploration. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Removed the Arctic convoys. Fixed a couple of redlinks (Luigi Amedeo, Duke of the Abruzzi, who I added to the category "Explorers of the Arctic", and Georgiy Sedov), and some other minor copyediting. Also changed Karl Koldewey to Carl Koldewey (based on de:Carl Koldewey - which has a picture, will try and get a stub or translation started) and mentioned Melville in the Jeanette entry. I will address the article name below. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
From a quick scan of the Friedland, Hughes (2003), Mills, and Nansen references in the Didrik Pining article the contention that Pining reached Greenland seems to be plausible, interesting, and unproven, but to have attracted discussion from serious scholars. If a list entry links to a well-sourced WP article do we need to duplicate the referencing here?
What I haven't seen in the sources so far is a statement that the specific objective of the expedition was to contact the Norse Greenland settlements. Dankarl (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
My sense is that it's a minority viewpoint - since there's no evidence that this group of people went to Greenland, there's not much point in listing it here. Of course, we will have to go by what the sources say. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Nansen p 127:
"...in any case there was in his day a tradition of the voyage of Pining and Pothorst. We must therefore assume that they were despatched on a voyage of discovery by Christiern I (some time before 1481, when he died), probably at the request of the well-known King Alfonso V. of Portugal (1438-1481). As Hvitserk must be on the coast of Greenland, they seem, in agreement with the other sober statement in Purchas, to have really reached Greenland, perhaps more than once, and to have traded by barter with the natives...."
Nansen was writing a very long time ago, his work is mostly speculation, and I don't know of much in the way of modern scholars who think he is correct. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
1) So who rebuts him and what do they say re Greenland?)
2) Bear in mind, the contention is not that the visit is proved, but that it is plausible and has been considered seriously by respected scholars.
3) A list such as this is a navigational aid. The place for detailed analysis is the Pining article. Dankarl (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)