Talk:Robert Falcon Scott

Subarticle

I have created Robert Falcon Scott controversies Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Real estate is a great investment these days!!!!

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Crane on the honour of reaching the Pole

What does Crane say exactly in pages 397–99? Not sure whether or not I should expand on this. Ottre 13:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'd really need to read the pages yourself. They contain the three quotations cited in the Preparations paragraph, from RGS, Scott and Markham, but there is little extra which in my view could expand on this. In any event it is clear what Scott saw as his priority. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with your judgement, but Ponting does seem sure about the honours involved. The introduction by Evans makes it clear the expedition was carried out primarily for science, and he also stresses that he stayed up throughout the night -- several times -- to film the landscape. Ottre 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Disregard that, I now see it was obviously being done for dramatic effect. There was a lot about the beauty of Ross Island, probably more than was necessary for a film about Scott's leadership, to lend weight to Ponting's work there. Watched the intro again and the science was clearly of secondary importance. Fifty minutes in he cuts to a title scene reading "Now for the main object of the Expedition ---- the conquest of the South Pole". Ottre 14:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a tendency, after the expedition was over, to claim science as the major or equal objective – in The Worst Journey Cherry-Garrard says "We marched for Science". But Scott's unequivocal statement about his objective is difficult to get round. That is not to say that science wasn't taken seriously. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're right, of course. As a matter of interest, have you read any of the articles mentioned by Jones in his 'Martyrs of Science' chapter? There might be a few good lines in the Nature report that we could use, alongside the claims made by Cherry-Garrard. Ottre 08:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to Nature. I think the issue of Scott's priorities is pretty well covered as it stands, and I don't myself fancy trawling through a lot of material in the hopes of an extra quote or two, but please dig deeper if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately neither do I, but still we could easily find somebody who has a subscription through the help desk. I was hoping you could do that for me actually. I really do need to get to work on the draft, as I've been away from town vacationing over easter, and the library is taking longer than expected to get the relevant materials in (Anzac Day in Australia). Ottre 07:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not researching Scott at the moment, and am busy on other projects. I'll watch the page to see if you comep with anything. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(PS: I have, however, slightly amended the "Preparations" paragraph, to get rid of a lingering POV feel)

New "Modern" Section

After being banned briefly for attempting to participate in this section, I'm pleased recent revisions have, coincidentally or otherwise, mostly conformed with my prior observations.

Recent editing history utterly confirms my earlier primary point: that this article is wonderful example of WP:OWN.

I would never DREAM currently of so much as making a spelling correction on this precious creation, as it would be utter futility

One might wish that ideally there were some way to put controls on the behavior of incompetent, foolish and abusive administrators such as Rhurfish as well as on similarly misguided WP:OWN editors.

But it's obviously quite doubtful this is possible. There are many small areas in which Wikipedia is harmed by "empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors." [[1]]. Just the way it is.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked you for disruptive editing. You did not do anything deserving of a ban (a ban would block from editing ever again). If you have valid suggestions, please make them here, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

PS I really don't care if you call me incompetent, foolish and abusive - there are certainly times when the first two have been true, but I do not think any of these are the case here. I am open to recall - if you can find 9 other editors who agree with you, all 10 of you should post your complaints on my talk page and I will give up my admin post. Finally, before calling others names, you might want to read up on WP:NPA. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

PPS Your quote is about people attacking articles for lack of notability (not the situation here). I prefer this quote from the same article: "The cranks had to consort with the mainstreamers and hash it all out—and nobody knew who really knew what he or she was talking about, because everyone's identity was hidden behind a jokey username." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Current version

I like it. It follows my various suggestions, for which Rurfisch banned me. He's a great administrator. Very careful sensitive and reflective.

I've made a couple of careful and minor edits just now.

Keep up the good work Rurfisch. I love your contributions. You are a true asset.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you make useful suggestions for the most part. However, this is a Featured Article and as such must follow all the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Inserting your opinion without a ref to back it up violates WP:NPOV and WP:V and WP:CITE, and so I reverted your recent edits.

I blocked you for diruptive editing for a short period of time - please see Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I never banned you - a ban would be a total revocation of editing priveleges - please see Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

100 Greatest Britons sentence

User:Calamitybrook added this sentence:

Respondents were self-selected and "voted" via phone calls to a TV station .

Aside from MOS problems (ref should go after the period without a space, ref needs title, publisher, access date, etc.) there are some other issues with the sentence. First off the ref makes it clear that people could vote in three ways (phone, internet or digital TV). It also points out that some 30,000 voted and I would describe the BBC as a netowrk, not a station. I know User:Brianboulton mentioned at least two authors referred to this poll regarding Scott's status, which seems to be a better sentence to add to me. Thoughts? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When polls are cited in general discourse, for example, in mainstream news media, the assumption is they are reputable and that respondents are not self-selected. The convention in news reports (where readers typically encounter poll results) is to offer brief statistical explanation of poll results and margin of error, which seems inapplicable to the BBC "voting." My first point is that this was not an actual poll, as the term is widely understood.

While doubtless briefly entertaining to the English BBC audiences of 10 years ago, and perhaps retaining some sort of current interest and relevance, these results would never be presented by a reputable polling organization as a scientific measure of pubic sentiment

Further, it's presented here as if it reflects a historical trend in public opinion -- 'as if according to a scientific measurement, Scott's popularity had declined over a period of time.

However, since no comparable measures from previous years are presented (nor presumably available) Obviously no trend can be inferred.

Had the BBC conducted a similar call-in program in 1955, '65, etc., it's merely my/your personal view that in earlier years, Scott would have ranked much higher than the ranking of Boy George, et alia, in the early 21 Century BBC "poll".....

Am I at least partly stating a semi-plausible case for why this may be non-useful information?

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are, thank you very much. I know Brianboulton is one of the main authors of the current Main Page FA (Rhinemaidens) so he may be too busy to reply right away. While I agree this is not a "scientific" poll, it is still a broad measure of public opinion about Scott and Shackleton which has been mentioned by at least two reliable sources. So I think it should be mentioned in the article, but agree it could be better described. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't he the only author?

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, please see this Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with downplaying the result of the BBC poll, and suggest something along these lines: "A rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men was provided in 2002 by a BBC survey purporting to discover the '100 greatest Britons'. A self-selected sample of respondents placed Shackleton in 11th place, with Scott down the list at 54th." Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it worth mentioning that "over 30,000" respondents participated in the survey? That is a pretty large sample, even if it was self-selected? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

BBC did indeed release its list of "Top 100" based on 30,000 respondents.

BBC's numerical "rankings" of the 100 apparently weren't disclosed until, after the "poll" was rather heavily flogged in a series of broadcasts, in which each of the "Top 10" were advocated by various celebrities/authorities/commentators, and during which time a vastly larger number of "voters" called in.

I seem to remember the final number on order of 130,000. Whether or how this affected final rankings, is apparently unknown. Obviously these people were if nothing else, in some degree, TV fans.

The Wikipedia article seems to fully accept the validity of the BBC "poll" (which was not at all focused on Scott). Further, the article implies (to me) that the poll revealed a decline, over time, in Scott's popularity with the British Public.

Seems like a reasonable thesis, but without comparable "polling" data from previous periods, this is not more than interesting speculation on the part of whatever author is cited.

For deep background, Wikipedia itself has a number of (non-featured) articles that are somewhat relevant with regard to the rather complex topic of polling, including sampling error margin of error, tracking poll, straw poll, and various other topics.

I'm certainly uninformed, and given my narrow reference points, not up to contributing to the Paragon of the publishing world represented by a Wikipedia Featured Article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are basing this on, Calamitybrook. The reference you provided when you added this sentence to the article was published on October 19, 2002, once the top 10 had been released, but before the 10 separate hour-long specials for the top 10

aired beginning October 20, 2002. The ref you added says in part:

The top 100 was arrived at following a BBC poll last Autumn. The BBC launched a publicity campaign and ran a series of trails [sic] asking people to nominate their greatest Briton of all time by phone or through the BBC website.

Over 30,000 people responded and the results were collated. From this we have the top 100 that will be counted down in order from 100-11 in the Great Britons launch programme on Sunday 20 October, followed by the announcement of the top ten in alphabetical order.

I repeat, while I do not have access to the sources, Brianboulton says two reliable sources cited this survey as a measure of Scott's popularity in 2002. I also note that any number of FAs on music albums and songs mention equally unscientific surveys. Whatever the limitations of the survey, Shackleton and Scott faced the same biases and Shackleton just missed the top ten, while Scott did not even make the top half. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsure about Ruhrguy Statements

Is this administrator trying to discuss available facts?

The BBC released an unranked list of "100 Greatest Britons" based on 30,000 self-selected "voters."

BBC only somewhat later, ranked this list, following ten hours (?) of further programming and 100,000 additional "votes." This ranking then put Scott at 54th in popularity.

It simply unclear whether this 54th ranking is based on 30,0000 or 130,000 "votes."

Moreover, whether a few years earlier, Scott may have ranked higher or lower in a similar poll, is, despite implications of current article, certainly unknown.

If anybody can clearly and simply explain ranking methodology, and/or what this "poll's" value may be as objective, fairly presented and relevant information regarding Scott, this could help justify it's inclusion.

If inclusion of his info is purely a matter of citing WP:RS, then based on this idea, one can more-or-less endlessly add cited material to this article, which as a previous Wikipedia Featured Article is doubtless a major Paragon in the world of publishing.

Ruhrguy may not understand these issues, but his misunderstanding so far isn't made very clear.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am simply reading the source you added to the article. The BBC is certainly a WP:RS and their press release titled "BBC TWO reveals the ten greatest Britons of all time" is dated "19.10.02" (or October 19, 2002 in typical American date format). In it they reveal the top 10 Great Britons in alphabetical order based on the poll / survey where "over 30,000 people responded". They then say "From this [survey] we have the top 100 that will be counted down in order from 100-11 in the Great Britons launch programme on Sunday 20 October, followed by the announcement of the top ten in alphabetical order." So the next day they officially announced numbers 100 to 11, which included both Scott (54) and Shackleton (11). The same press release notes that "The battle of the Britons commences on Tuesday 22 October at 9.00pm on BBC TWO when Jeremy Clarkson makes an impassioned case for Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806-1859)." (note Brunel was first by alphabetic order of last names). So just to belabor the point since you seem to miss this on reading it, the press relaease is dated October 19, the top 100 were revealed October 20 (with numbers 100 to 11 given in order that day) and the top 10 vgiven in alphabetic order only. On October 22 they started the series of 10 one-hour specials on each of the top ten. The public "voted" on these and then they released the top ten in order based on two rounds of "voting".

• There are all sorts of measures of public opinion cited in the article which are non-scientific polls - surely almost all "more than 30 monuments and memorials [which] were set up in Britain alone" were funded by a self-selecting sample of the public. The popularity of the film is not diputed though the moviegoers were also self-selecting (though the film probably should have a reference). The article has to work with the materials available. There is no official office of public opinion surveying Britons (or anyone else) about their opinions on Scott or Shackleton or other public figures in any systematic way. The BBC is a public organization and supported by public monies. They set up a survey of public opinion about notable figures in British history. Using non-scientific methods they got a snapshot of the public's opinions on 100 figures, two of whome are relevant to this article. Barczewski, a relaible source, refers to this BBC survey and is properly referenced. According to Brianboulton (whom I trust in every respect) at least one other relaible source also cites this BBC survey.

• Calamitybrook, in my opinion your own arguments are severely undermined by your inability to read what the source you added to the article says about the BBC survey. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand

Here are the current two sentences in the article:

This decline in Scott's reputation was accompanied by a corresponding rise in that of his erstwhile rival Shackleton, at first in the United States but eventually in Britain as well.. A 2002 nationwide poll in the United Kingdom to discover the "100 Greatest Britons" showed Shackleton in eleventh place, Scott well down the list at 54th.

Brianboulton has suggested a replacement for the current last sentence:

This decline in Scott's reputation was accompanied by a corresponding rise in that of his erstwhile rival Shackleton, at first in the United States but eventually in Britain as well.. A rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men was provided in 2002 by a BBC survey purporting to discover the '100 Greatest Britons'. A self-selected sample of respondents placed Shackleton in 11th place, with Scott down the list at 54th.

What of we attribute this to Barczewski (and the other source?) and add the number:

This decline in Scott's reputation was accompanied by a corresponding rise in that of his erstwhile rival Shackleton, at first in the United States but eventually in Britain as well.. Barczewski notes that a rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men was provided in 2002 by a BBC survey purporting to discover the '100 Greatest Britons'. A self-selected sample of over 30,000 respondents placed Shackleton in 11th place, with Scott down the list at 54th.

How is this? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence above still implies that the BBC Poll showed change over time, which obviously it didn't do.

I'm done with the topic.

The Wikipedia convention of writing history as if it were fact based on a single "reliable" source I guess just means readers must beware.... although one has no reason to doubt that Barczewski is a scholar & gentleman, or woman or whatever...

Yes, I misread the press release. It's somewhat clear to me now that during the television series, one could only vote among the "Top 10" already chosen. (Gee, I wish you could get that show on DVD)...Sorry for my uncertainty about the number 30,000.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I see the implication being the change in popularity between the early 20th century and 2002, with the previous section establishing their relative status in the past. Do you have a suggestion on how else to word this? How about moving "in 2002" earlier? so Barczewski notes that a rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men in 2002 was provided by a BBC survey ... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I left a note on Brianboulton's talk page to see if I had correctly recalled the second source. Below is what he posted on my talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No, you're not hallucinating. The other reference to the BBC poll is in Max Jones (2003): The Last Great Quest (already used as a source in the article). Page 289 reads: "Shackleton's bravado and charismatic leadership define a modern Britain, which has shaken off the straitjacket of class prejudice and preoccupation with heroic failure represented by Captain Scott. When the BBC recently asked viewers to nominate the greatest Britons ever, Shackleton came eleventh, Scott came fifty-fourth." This brief mention is within a passage dealing with Huntford's depiction of Scott as an emblem of decline. It is important to realise that neither Jones nor Barczewski claim that the poll proved anything; they each mention it as an indicator of the relative public perceptions of Scott and Shackleton in late 20th/early 21st century, Since both these scholarly sources refer to the poll, I think it's worth a sentence in the article – but no more than that. Brianboulton (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So how about something like this? Perhaps also add the bbc ref for the 30,000? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This decline in Scott's reputation was accompanied by a corresponding rise in that of his erstwhile rival Shackleton, at first in the United States but eventually in Britain as well.. Barczewski and Jones each note that a rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men was provided in 2002 by a BBC survey purporting to discover the '100 Greatest Britons'. A self-selected sample of over 30,000 respondents placed Shackleton in 11th place, with Scott down the list at 54th.

The bare-bones syntax above is:

Scott's reputation declined. Demonstrating this, a poll in 2002 put him in 54th place.

Thanks for the comments Calamitybrook - for some reson none of your recent edits are showing up here - not sure what the problem is. I can see your edit in the edit window, just not on the Talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me. The syntax is obviously inaccurate, but it doesn't matter.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you ;-) Would you please suggest an alternate sentence / syntax? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The assumption that Scott previously ranked higher than 54th among "Greatest Britons" should be plainly stated, perhaps through some commentary of cited authors.

If that's not the assumption, then what is the point of mentioning 54th ranking?

(Purely as an aside, I'm uninformed about whether a better-educated (???) pre-TV population of say 1940 or whatever, couldn't have come up with a list of 53 Britons "greater" than Scott.)

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I do not have the sources although Brianboulton has quoted both sentences from Jones' book above. I think what the BBC poll shows is the change in relative popularity between Scott and Shackleton. When Scott died there were over 30 memorials in the UK alone and decdades later a very popular film about him. When Shackleton died there was relatively little in the way of memorials and no film, yet now Shackleton (who never reached the Pole) ranks one out of the top ten and Scott (who was in the second group to reach the Pole) is four places out of the top half. It is not the shift of Scott in general - it is the shifts of both men relative to each other. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How did these two guys rank in earlier polls?

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Ah, now I think I understand your objection. As far as I know there were no earlier polls. If this were a scientific experiment, then I agree you would want as many things to be the same as possible (only variable would be time). However, this is not a scientific experiment or even a scientific poll, but I do think it tells us something about the relative popularity of the two in 2002. Scott and Shackleton were the two best known and popular British explorers of the early 20th century. The died within a decade of each other and we can compare the public's reactions to their deaths in three ways. In the first two or three decades after their deaths, Scott had more memorials in the UK, Scott had more books written about him, and Scott was the subject of a popular semi-fictional movie (Scott of the Antarctic (1948 film)) while Shackleton had none (until a TV miniseries in 2002). Scott was much more popular by each measure. Then 80 years after Shackleton's death and 90 years after Scott's death the BBC ran a "poll" which showed Scott was now clearly much less popular. So Scott went from clearly more popular to clearly less popular than Scott. This is how I see it, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not then compare the number of books, films and memorials concerning Scott, versus Shackleton in the contemporary era vs. Edwardian etc.? Surely there are bibliographies.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Books seem like a good comparison. Most memorials are built in the first few decades after someone dies, so I am not sure that is the best metric (although the centennials in 2012 and 2022 might be interesting). Films are such rare beasts, and the Shackelton "film" is a television miniseries, which did not exist in the first half of the 20th century. The BBC poll is one measure of relative popularity. Although it is not a scientific poll, it is from a reputable source (BBC) and two schlarly works on Scott cite it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Memorials and films were previously mentioned by Rurfisch, but are no longer valid for this discussion?

OK, fine, let's forget them. but then forgive me if the discussion seems to be going all over the lot.

Books are still okay? Are there more or less books about Scott now than previously? What about relative to other antarctic explorers.

I assume there is an argument that Scott has particular relevance to views on latter British Colonialism (or something related), but I'm not certain this is established by the article. Doesn't this all raise a concern about WP:OR?

Also, where in article is relevance of Shackleton stated? An equally or perhaps more obvious comparison would be Amundsen.

I get that Scott and Shacketon were both English, both famous and both associated with Antarctica in early period. But there is a separate article on Shackelton. Why is Shackleton in the Scott article and why in particular in the BBC Poll discussion? Because Amundsen wasn't British? Why is the poll significant?

Why aren't BBC poll partisans for Boy George et alia, also given space in the Scott article? I'm not suggesting they oughtll to be, but they too are British, and the case isn't crystal clear.

A couple of authors' views about a single data point (BBC "poll") I suppose conforms for mention with regard to WP guidelines...

But without more information, the reader can't really assess whether these two authors' views about the poll are reasonable.

Typically, poll data is used to show change over time by comparing with polling data from an earlier period.

If you say 12 percent of respondants liked Danish modern furniture in 1995, and sales of this furniture in 1952 were $11 billion, it's not going to imply anything about the rise or decline in the popularity of Danish modern furniture.

Nothing can be deduced, even using WP:OR or readers' interpretation, soley via these two data points.

00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not asking the readers to deduce anything, we are telling them that reliable sources, who are also used elsewhere in the article, note that Scott became less popular and Shackleton became more popular, and that these sources cite the 2002 BBC poll as one measure of that. Although the other data is not explicitly cited in the article, there is a strong body of evidence that Scott was more popular than Shackleton from around the time of Scott's death until many decades later. This is like saying that in 1960 carrots were the favorite vegetable of 11% of the population and green beans were the favorite of 25%, but in 2000 carrots sales were $12 billion and green bean sales were $6 billion. Even though they are two different metrics, the trend is clear.

As for your other points, I searched and the name Shackleton appears 33 times in the article (and has its own section) while the name Amundsen appears 18 times (and does not have its own section). While it would be interesting to talk about, without reliable sources (do you have some?) I am not sure what we can say about Amundsen's popularity today relative to Scott (the two are already discussed in some detail in the Glorification section). I have no problem including memorials as a comparative metric, but my guess is that the number built for both men since 1980 is the same (zero). Films are also fine, but have two problems. First, is a theatrical release film comparable to a television miniseries? Assuming they are comparable, then comparing one of each seems a bit odd. I do like the number of books notion. I do not have a source for this though, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Although your assumptions may indeed be reasonable, this supposed "strong body of evidence" amounts to "orignal research."

It's simply impossible to say -- or imply or deduce -- that the 2002 BBC "poll" (if you insist on calling it such) reveals anything about Scott's popularity prior to 2002.

It's like saying unemployment was 9% in december. This is only informative by reporting what the rate was in November, or December a year earlier, or whatever. This should be self-evident.

--Calamitybrook 85.127.28.245 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

Two new images have been added to the "Reputation" section in the past month or so - one of Scott's hat sword and medals in Christchurch Museum, and one of a statue in Regents Street. There are now four images of various memorials in the article. IS this OK or too many? If too many, which if any should go? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think four is too many, three just about OK. The statue is dodgy for PD, so I have removed that and rearranged the others for less clutter. Brianboulton (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We can only surmise why Oats left the tent; we cannot know.

It says in the article that Oats voluntarily left the tent and walked to his death "... in the hope that this sacrifice would save the others." That may well be the case; however, since he didn't tell anyone why he was leaving, both the author and the reader can only surmise. The article ought to read simply that Oats, "...voluntarily left the tent and walked to his death." Just my view. He was a braver man than me either way.

No I think because this was a FEATURED ARTICLE" there is no longer any editing that can be done. It's reached a state of perfection. Apparently, there are two or three people who are somewhat obsessed with Scott, and are therefore completely objective, who will more or less inform you about all of this.

They will mention, quite properly, that they don't WP:OWN this article. Also, that their judgments are what makes the article perfect.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

11-year-old Mary Steel poem

It's frustrating that both the hits on this poem in Google Books, "The last great quest: Captain Scott's Antarctic sacrifice" and "When Devil Fish Come Out to Play", do the exact same thing we do and print just the last four lines of the poem. (Shows signs of unimaginative cribbing, IMO.) Do any of them cite an actual source for the full poem so I can put the whole thing on Wikisource?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jones (The Last Great Quest) gives three sources for the poem: Daily Mail 14 February 1913, Daily Chronicle (now defunct) 13 February 1913, and a manuscript titled "Heroes - on the Scott Tragedy" by M.W. Steel, held by the Scott Polar Research Institute, ref MS 1453/31. Whether these sources quote the full poem I don't know; an enquiry to SPRI could help. Brianboulton (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Failure to use dogs was the cause of Scott's death ?

Scott's plan was not to use dogs on the return journey, and his plan was working perfectly manhauling until the inclement weather hit them on the barrier. Scott did use dogs on the outward journey. I don't consider it fair to suggest in the opening paragraph that the lack of dogs caused the failure. It was not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilmc (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Put simply: In planning his expedition, Scott either underestimated the capabilities of dogs or was not confident he could utilise them properly. He did not take Nansen's advice to rely on dogs, preferring to build his transport strategy on a combination of dogs, ponies and motor sledges, with plenty of good honest man-hauling. This was not particularly successful; Amundsen relied solely on dogs and made a rapid journey to the pole and back. All this is very well documented. Leaving aside the ways in which Scott deployed the dogs on his outward journey, and the conflicting/confusing orders he sent back to base re the future use of the dogs, the last line of the lead seems a fair statement. Note that it says "a critical factor", not "the critical factor" that cost him and his party their lives. The unusually inclement weather was another. The difference is that the first was avoidable, the second not. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have, however, transferred the paragraph in question from the lead into the main body of the article - the "Reputation" section, where it seems to me it more properly belongs. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the article reads far better now. For the record though I still disagree with you regarding this dogs issue. You seem to be saying that the only way to get to the pole was to use dogs, but Scott had this foolhardy idea of doing it by manpower because that was the real way to do it, when in fact of course he was happy to do it the easiest way possible. At the time of the expedition, nobody knew how successful Amundsen would be. Previous attempts at using dogs had not gone so well, dogs have a tendency to fall into crevasses dragging the sledge and men with them. Scott wanted to avoid this so left them when he reached the Beardmore. He based his plan on the most successful trip south to date, the Shackleton expedition where manhauling on the plateau got them to 100 miles of the pole. He just wanted to do the extra 200 miles and claim the pole. When he planned it there was no race, he was just doing the most likely thing to succeed, and he was right, but was unlucky with the weather. Regards Neilmc (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:OR come into play here. The facts don't matter; what matters is what the reliable sources say on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree and was basing my statements on Ranulph Fiennes recent biography of Scott. Neilmc (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Amundsen was a Norwegian and was familiar with the use of dogs while Scott wasn't. The use of the ponies, likewise, showed Scott's lack of experience and knowledge. Amundsen, being a Norwegian, likely had a much better knowledge of the dangers of this type of travel. The question is whether Scott should have consulted and learned more, from those who were experienced, about the use dogs and ponies - as well as the dangers that could occur.Somaeye (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

DOGS OR MANHAULING

The point about whether it was best to use dogs or not forgets the fact that Amundsen started alot closer to the pole anyway and had that as a single objective whereas Scott didn't even know he was involved in a race until the last minute and was involved in scientific survey.

Image clutter

As a consequence of images having been added or repositioned there is significant image clutter in mid article, resulting in text being squeezed between images. I am removing some of the less important images with a view to reducing this clutter. I don't believe the article suffers thereby; if you disagree, then rather than simply restoring an image, perhaps you would raise the question here, so that we can find a way of putting it back that does not resurrect the clutter problem. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Last Entry and Date of Death

The last entry in Scott's diary is not dated March 29. That's the *second* to last entry. The last entry (titled "Last Entry", and in larger handwriting) was done later. Possibly on a later day. This may be morbid, but March 29 may not be the date of death, nor the day after.74.88.202.18 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)captcrisis

New play - Mythmakers - about the friendhip between JM Barrie and Scott

• Two friends who took the world by storm, The Scotsman, 2 September 2010

--Mais oui! (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lower case

I'm unconvinced that all of these changes to lowercase are correct, although some of them may be. Anyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of these, especially the military ranks, would all have led with upper case letters in Scott'sday, but usage is more relaxed now and the lower case formats are acceptable, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Britannia picture

From the image caption: "The first of two HMS Britannias which served as naval training ships between 1859 and 1909. Scott trained on the second, which came into service in 1869." would it be possible to have a picture of the Britannia that Scott trained on, rather than the one he didn't? I fail to see how a picture of a ship unconnected with Scott helps the article. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The HMS Britannia on which Scott trained was this ship, no picture in the article though. I agree it would be far better to have a picture of the actual ship! DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a picture about three-quarters of the way down this page, but I do not know the copyright status so cannot upload it here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Could well be out of copyright. You could claim fair use for the ship's own article, but not here. However it does look very old, perhaps copyright (photog's lifetime+70 years) may have lapsed if he died before 1940. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Terra Nova map

The article says that Scott et al. died 11 miles away from One Ton Depot, but 24 miles past its intended location at 80° S. Looking at the map included at the beginnig of the Terra Nova section, it has Scott's last camp somewhat south of 80° S. Is there a problem with the map or am I misunderstanding where One Ton Depot was? 184.56.92.166 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Scott was Sixth to the Pole

I have revised the introduction paragraph by stating that Scott was the Sixth person to reach the South Pole. However attempts are being made to delete my revision, the given reason being that my facts were already included elsewhere in the Article. This is not acceptable: first of all nowhere does the Article say that Scott was actually Sixth, and secondly we are looking here at the Introduction -- every part of it is repeated elsewhere! To omit the historical fact that he was Sixth, shamelessly steals the laurels, the honour, from those brave men who, struggling to the pole with Amundsen, won 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th positions of honour. In the best interests of Honour, and of Wikipedia standards, I shall always reinstate my accurate text. Ruhrfisch appears to be the Offender/Vandal/Deleter. Any further Vandalism on his part will be reported to Wikipedia and relentlessly pursued. (204.112.57.130 (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

I have moved this thread where it belongs (bottom of the talk page). Will repsond shortly, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: This wretched creature continues deleting without explanation and has been reported to Wikipedia.(204.112.57.130 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)) (01:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

See here. New posts are placed at the bottom of the talk page. I'll be moving this where it goes and then the edit can be discussed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (After edit conflict)

1. Per WP:TOPPOST, new discussions go at the bottom. You also should not delete my or anyone else's comments, so please stop.
2. Calling me a vandal and a wretched creature is not nice and does not follow No personal attacks
3. You have violated WP:3RR and will be blocked for it shortly. I am an admin and would do it myself, but do not like to do so when I am an involved party. Please take the break to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
4. More on actual content to come, but I am busy in real life and have some things to do in it right now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. Regarding the content, I think it's fine to emphasize in the Amundson page they arrived at the pole first and if necessary link in here. The emphasis here is a biography of Scott's entire life, and should the lead be left as is. The lead states they reached the pole only to find that they had been preceded by Amundson, so it's quite clear they did not arrive first, which isn't in dispute at all. Anyway, like Ruhrfisch I actually have a life too, but will keep an eye on this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a Featured Article and as such has been identified as meeting the highest standards Wikipedia has. The lead must follow WP:LEAD, which says that the lead is a summary of the rest of the article. The material in the article itself must be verifiable and cited to reliable sources. The material that the IP user has added to the article at least four times is mostly already in the article and lead (the first paragraph of the lead makes it clear Amundsen and his party were first to the pole and Scott and his party were second to the pole). As for who was the sixth human being to the set foot on the actual pole, all the sources I have seen count by parties (Amunden 1st, Scott 2nd) not by people. How do we know which of the 5 men in Scott's party was first to the actual pole? Maybe Scott was 7th or 8th or 9th or 10th ("No, no, be a good chap and step on the spot before me, I insist.") Even if Scott was sixth to the pole, it needs to be sourced to a reliable source and included in the body of the article. This claim is the level of detail which does not seem to me to belong in the lead, let alone the first sentence of the lead. This is in no way meant to disrepect Amundsen and his party and their achievement, nor is it meant to belittle what Scott and his party did, but to me the sixth claim is trivial and smacks of WP:OR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the page after a third registered user reverted the IP's contributions. I am reluctant to do this as an involved party, and if another admin wished to un-protect, please feel free to do so (I will not wheel war). I just thought this was a way to force the IP user to discuss content and not edit war, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

PS The IP has clearly earned a 3RR block, but I will not do that as an involved party in the content dispute. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs semi-protection, and I've blocked the IP for violation of the WP:3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I hope that once the block is over the IP user will discuss things here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Robert falcon scott.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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) 09:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Research by Krzysztof Sienicki Sheds New Light On Weather Conditions Experienced by Scott

Research done recently by Krzysztof Sienicki sheds new light on what happened to Scott and his men on their fatal journey back to base:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1272v3

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5355

Owing to the shattering conclusions backed by solid research and sources, I believed that this should be brought to the attention of the people who maintain this page.

Edit: I have added Sienicki's work into the Modern Reaction sub-section and have fully sourced it, as well as mentioned and sourced the New York Times' chilly review of Crane's book. I have added Sienicki's work and expanded on it in the Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott page. 96.42.255.124 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your additions are going to have to be altered slightly, as you use un-encyclopædic terms like "troubling" and seem to be working on the assumption that Sienicki's work is infallible and supersedes all other research, which simply isn't true. Even if his work is correct (and looking through his sources that's a colossal if) his unsubstantiated claims still don't deserve undue weight in this article. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch is handling it. Like I said to him, one wonders how anything ever gets on here and stays here, given the sheer regulation. As for Sienicki's sources, they appear to support his thesis (independent of peer review, etc.). Regarding your assertion that I assumed that it's "infallible", that comes across as jumping to conclusions.

96.42.255.124 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss

Here is the text, which I just removed per WP:BRD:

However, the New York Times review of Crane's book was icy, pointing out Crane's support for Scott's disproven claim about the circumstances of the freeing of the Discovery from the pack ice during the Discovery Expedition, and concluded that "For all the many attractions of his book, David Crane offers no answers that convincingly exonerate Scott from a significant share of responsibility for his own demise." Far more troubling is research completed by Krzysztof Sienicki, which using thorough research and the same sources that Solomon used, concludes that Scott and Bowers falsified their weather logs, that Solomon deliberately falsified her data by mixing daily minimum temperatures with lowest daily temperatures and committed a gambler's fallacy by stating that because a cold streak happened in 1988, one did happen in 1912,, and that Scott's nine-day blizzard never occurred.

First off, I am concerned that arXiv itself is not peer reviewed and would be much more comfortable adding this to the article once it has appeared in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Second, I am concerned that the conclusion seem to go way beyond the data analysis in many cases. While I understand the basic arguments (weather patterns in Antarctica do not occur in isolation, analysis of modern weather data in the same region shows that temperature and wind conditions there are correlated so extreme cold or gale conditions should be seen elsewhere, and contemporary weather records do not correlate with those of the Scott party for the last few weeks of their lives) and they seem reasonable, I am not an expert and would like some sort of peer review and publication in a reputable journal to confirm that experts agree with the methods and analysis used, and their results.

What I find more troubling are the conclusions reached from the weather analysis. It is one thing to say the other data, which all modern records show is correlated, does not correlate with Scott's data for the last few weeks of his life. It is another to say based on that the temperature data reported by Lt. Bowers and Captain Scott himself in late February and March 1912 were distorted by them to exaggerate and dramatize the weather conditions. My results clearly show that Captain Scott, Dr. Wilson and Lieut. Bower’s deaths were a matter of choice rather than chance. The choice was made long before the actual end of food, fuel and long before the end of their physical strength to reach imaginary salvation at One Ton Depôt.[2]

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I do wonder how anything ever gets put on here and stays up on here, though, given the sheer regulation. However, permit me to point out that I believe the paragraph preceding what I entered violates WP:NPOV:

In 2005 David Crane published a new Scott biography which, according to Barczewski, goes some way towards an assessment of Scott "free from the baggage of earlier interpretations". What has happened to Scott's reputation, Crane argues, derives from the way the world has changed since the heroic myth was formed: "It is not that we see him differently from the way they [his contemporaries] did, but that we see him the same, and instinctively do not like it." Crane's main achievement, according to Barczewski, is the restoration of Scott's humanity, "far more effectively than either Fiennes's stridency or Solomon's scientific data." Daily Telegraph columnist Jasper Rees, likening the changes in explorers' reputations to climatic variations, suggests that "in the current Antarctic weather report, Scott is enjoying his first spell in the sun for twenty-five years".

This paragraph offers nothing but praise for Crane's book, despite the fact that there is a more critical review of his book which points out a serious problem with the author's credibility, and that this review has been used as a reference elsewhere in the sub-section.CITEREFNew_York_Times.2C_3_December_2006 In that, I believe the above paragraph violates WP:NPOV:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."

I don't think Sienicki's work is that much of a jump. He showed that Scott's temperatures remained consistent with Simpson up until a certain point, then became highly inaccurate and stayed that way. Using the same Schwerdtfeger weather station data as Solomon, his neural network worked out with reasonable accuracy what the temperatures would have been like. Note that up until February 27, they are quite close to Scott's recordings. Still, your concerns about arXiv and wish for these to be reviewed in a peer reviewed scientific journal remain.

96.42.255.124 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: I expanded on this further in the Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott page. Could you edit this as well?

96.42.255.124 (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Information on arXiv

Here's a statement which is relevant: "A typical endorser would be asked to endorse about one person a year. The endorsement process is not peer review. 96.42.255.124 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott

The edits I made there have not been rolled back. I tried to roll back the edits in one action, but my skills are not that great. Ruhrfisch, could you roll back the edits I made there? 96.42.255.124 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not see this until now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Paragraph in Modern Reaction subsection in violation of WP:NPOV

I believe the following paragraph in the Modern Reaction subsection is in violation of WP:NPOV:

In 2005 David Crane published a new Scott biography which, according to Barczewski, goes some way towards an assessment of Scott "free from the baggage of earlier interpretations". What has happened to Scott's reputation, Crane argues, derives from the way the world has changed since the heroic myth was formed: "It is not that we see him differently from the way they [his contemporaries] did, but that we see him the same, and instinctively do not like it." Crane's main achievement, according to Barczewski, is the restoration of Scott's humanity, "far more effectively than either Fiennes's stridency or Solomon's scientific data." Daily Telegraph columnist Jasper Rees, likening the changes in explorers' reputations to climatic variations, suggests that "in the current Antarctic weather report, Scott is enjoying his first spell in the sun for twenty-five years".

This paragraph has reviews with nothing but praise for Crane's book, despite the fact that there exists a more critical review which raises serious questions about Crane's integrity, and furthermore that said review is used as a source elsewhere in the article.

This paragraph is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." I don't believe that the New York Times Book Review would be considered a minority viewpoint. Thereby I am adding one sentence to the end of this paragraph to reference the NYT book review and bring this paragraph into line with WP:NPOV.

96.42.255.124 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

meeting with 'Prince Heimlich'

Just browsing on this article & noticed a link to Prince Heinrich of Prussia. When I clicked on the link, it goes to somebody who died when they were 4 yrs old; needs fixing I guess but I don't much about the principals involved. Shall I leave it with one of the regular visitors to this article? Thanks Scoop100 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. It was supposed to be his dad - the article had been moved and we now call him Henry for some reason. Yomangani^talk 13:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible factual error

In the article about Robert Falcon Scott, it is claimed that the family was forced to move to Shepton Mallet to run a brewery, I believe that he in fact moved to Holcombe, Somerset http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=holcombe+somerset&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x4872289665069d47:0x66cfae1b1f3ec6c1,Holcombe,+Radstock,+Somerset&gl=uk&ei=GOTbTq28NpTv8QOp5-zNDA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=2&ved=0CFEQ8gEwAQ

If you zoom in the large house with a swimming pool is where he lived at the time, it's on a road called Brewery lane. If you then go onto street view, carry on up Charlton road, past the guy in the green shirt standing at the end of Silver Street, and then take the left hand turn after the red Corsa, down burrows lane, the lane that you can't go down leads to the Church where the Scott family grave is located.

I only actually heard that he was in any way involved in brewing from this article, but it would seem to make sense to me. Any criticism would be greatly welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.245.72 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. The Shepton Mallet sentence is sourced to page 22 of Ranulph Fiennes' 2003 book, Captain Scott. If you want to change it, you will need to provide a published reliable source that backs up your claim (and hopefully addresses why Fiennes' statement is in error). Please also see Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Opium?

Is it true that Scott and his team had opium pills with them which they ingested in their last hours/days, according to a TV documentary?--Severino (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sienicki's Work Now Published In Peer-Reviewed Journal

Sienicki's recent research about Captain Scott's weather has now been published as part of a collection of notes about polar meteorology in PROBLEMY KLIMATOLOGII POLARNEJ (The Issues of Polar Meteorology), a peer reviewed journal about polar meteorology produced by Gdynia Martitme University.

Link to abstract: http://ocean.am.gdynia.pl/p_k_p/pkp_21/21-a02.html Link to PDF: http://ocean.am.gdynia.pl/p_k_p/pkp_21/Sienicki-pkp21.pdf

Now that his work has been published in a peer reviewed journal, I believe that we should reconsider it for inclusion in this article and the Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott sub-article. 96.42.255.124 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I have read most of the article. While I am not an expert on the math involved, that seems the most reliable part of the article. I am quite concerned by this quote from page 72 Additionally, I wish to thank the editors of Monthly Weather Review for finding that “the field does not find your analysis compelling” and especially to Dr. Tom Hamill (NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory) and Dr. David M. Shultz (University of Manchester) who enthusiastically and hypocritically participated in censorship, corruption of a review process and corruption of science. What did you want to add? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to add Sienicki's findings from pages 49-65 of his article. I have been in contact with Sienicki: from what he has told me, he had raised objections to Solomon's and Stearn's article On the Role of the Weather in the Deaths of R. F. Scott and his Companions, and his objections were ignored. He at first contacted Solomon and Stearns directly to point out several mistakes and the use of logical fallacies (specifically the gambler's fallacy and the affirmation of the consequent fallacy: Sienicki pointed out some of the mistakes, the gambler's fallacy and also the affirmation of the consequent fallacy (without naming it as such) in pages 9-11 of http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1272, which this peer reviewed article contains a part of), but got no reply. He then contacted the editor of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) with his objections, but the editor declined to consider them. These remarks are evidently the result of his attempts to point out the problems with Solomon's article and book to others as well. I will contact Sienicki again and ask him about these remarks before I make any edits.

96.42.255.124 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is an odd mishmash. There is mathematical analysis, which seems OK (but I am not an expert). If I had to summarize the math it would be that: 1) modern weather data do not show any events like what Scott encountered; 2) that there is a correlation between weather observed along the path where Scott was and that seen at the base his men were at; and 3) that this correlation fails for the extended cold and extended gale Scott reported. There are also several conclusions unsupported by any evidence - saying that weather was the only factor (when Scott did not use dogs and Amundsen did) or saying that Solomon falsified data and most troubling of all to me is My results clearly show that Captain Scott, Dr. Wilson and Lieut. Bower‟s deaths were a matter of choice rather than chance. The choice was made long before the actual end of food, fuel and long before the end of their physical strength to reach imaginary salvation at One Ton Depôt.

I also read the passage I quoted above as attacking a journal (Monthly Weather Review) which rejected this work. I note that a new section has been added to the article about Spitsbergen's weather (which I must admit I did not read closely and does not seem to fit with the whole Scott focus of the Arxiv papers), and that the journal which published this article (Problemy Klimatologii Polarnej) and the person who provided the Spitsbergen data are both based at Gdynia.

Anyway, I can see adding a sentence or maybe two that says that mathematical analysis of weather data show a correlation between different points on Scott's path, but that these mathematical models do not support either the extreme cold or the prolonged gale Scott reported. What were you thinking of adding? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're putting words in his mouth. If you read page 50, he clearly declares his assumption: "However, as far as the Amundsen and Captain Scott expeditions and reaching the South Pole is concerned, it is useful to make a ceteris paribus assumption. The assumption is that, in spite of different methods, means, and human effort, both expeditions were able to reach the South Pole and both teams were capable of returning safely to the base camp at Framheim and Cape Evans (Hut Point), respectively. This leaves the weather, understood as a combination of temperature and wind velocity, as the only independent variable." He did this to isolate one variable: claiming that he did not take travel methods into account is incorrect. He states that Month Weather Review did not find his analysis compelling: you're assuming they're talking about particular this article when they do not state which analysis they rejected.

I have asked Sienicki what he meant by his remarks in the Acknowledgements: he has told me that he is too busy to explain the whole story right now. Given WP:NPOV, at this point I believe that adding a sentence or two immediately after the sentence about Solomon is acceptable, if it states what you suggested.

96.42.255.124 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I was not trying to put words into his mouth. I do disagree with his assumption that weather was the only independent variable (other possible variables include dog sledding vs man hauling, Scott's decision to take a 5th person when they only had rations for 4, and the somewhat different routes taken by the two parties). Anyway, would you like to suggest a sentence or two to add (since you've obviously spent more time thinking about this than I have)? I am not sure you saw it above, but I missed your previous request to revert your edits to the controversies article - sorry for missing that until now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PS This is a bit off-topic, but since we have seen the Arxiv versions of the two predecessor articles and this published article, I think it is safe to assume that at least some of the Scott weather analysis in those articles was submitted to Monthly Weather Review in some form similar to what is at Arxiv and/or here. Beside the point thou - I look forward to seeing your suggested additions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PPS I think the Controversies article could have more detail than this one on this material (i.e. one or two sentences here, more there). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware that you missed my request to revert my edits to the controversies article, so I reverted them myself. Apology accepted. After further talking with Sienicki, I have decided that I will not make the edits, since you seem to miss the point: namely, that his focus was on the weather reported by Captain Scott, independent of all other variables (how does the mode of transportation affect the weather?) and that he made this clear. As long as this remains a point of contention between us, I do not believe that any edits would be productive.

96.42.255.124 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘OK. Just to point out, I suggested above ...mathematical analysis of weather data show a correlation between [conditions observed at] different points on Scott's path, but that these mathematical models do not support either the extreme cold or the prolonged gale Scott reported. as a very rough idea of what to add, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)