Talk:Robert Falcon Scott

Captain Scott's watch

A youtube video has been added to the external links about Captain Scott's watch (much of which is a reiteration of who Scott was). We have quite a lot of external links already and the connection here seems pretty tenous - what next, Captain Scott's underpants? What do other editors think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkbeast (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 September 2017 UTC) (UTC)

That quote again.

The written instructions left by Scott for Meares as recorded by Evans in his book South with Scott appear here in a heavily edited form, All the passages that contain any advice from Scott regarding the choices that might be made concerning this journey have been removed and once again the "intsructions" are presented as "orders".

Scott made it clear that this journey was non essential. This is the qualifying paragraph that is constantly removed from the actual text. "You will of course understand that while the object of your third journey (to 82.30) is important, that of the second is vital. At all hazards three X.S. units must be got to One Ton Camp by the date named (Late december early January) and if the dogs are unable to perform this task a man party must be organised."

Given Scott took Mears an extra 450 miles towards the pole he would not have been available to carry out this journey as stated and had a man party not followed these instructions to the letter, there would have been no rations in place for the earlier returning teams of Atkinson and Evans. On December 12th, Meares was still at the foot of the Beardmore Glacier whereas when writing these instructions Scott was calculating that Meares would be back at Cape Evans by December 19th. Meares willingly returned on short rations, generously donating extra food to the heavier working man haulers to the very last day. If we use Amundsen's capability as a guide, Mears would take 15 days to return to the base. So there would be no question of him taking the rations to One Ton Depot on the "vital" second journey. Meares had been out on the ice for as long as the first members of the Polar team, simce Octorber 24th. Returning to base at the end of December with all "vital" rations in place, he apparently decided that he would take no further part in the logistics of the Polar attempt and this responsibility was passed up the chain of command to Simpson who was left in charge at Cape Evans.

Scott made it clear that at all times his subordinates should "proceed in accordance with your own judgement rather than the letter of these instructions, where the further information you posess may cause it to be more expedient."

Rescuing the 2 men, Evans who was in the advance stages of scurvey and Lashly, who had remained on the ice shelf to nurse him, 30 miles from Atkinson was understandably more expedient than sending the dogs on a 3 week journey to find news of the success or failure of the Polar Attempt and to bring them some sweets and chocolate.

The only way that Scotts instructions can be construed as "Orders" that were "disobyed" is by the constant revision of history within these pages in a form that would be more in keeping with the Ministry of Information circa 1984 than an accuracte and faithful historical record.

I find it astounding that the same book which is continously quoted to claim Scott's orders for the dogs were disobeyed `contains the following paragraphs. Concerning the attempts to support the Southern Party, Scott's instructions were quite clear and they were certainly obeyed. As a matter of fact there was never any anxiety for the Southern Party until after March 10th (When Cherry-Garrard departed from One Ton Depot)

It was decided that Cherry-Garrard should take out the dogs with twenty four days food for his own unit and two weeks SURPLUS stores for the Southern Party with all kinds of special delicacacies (ie: not essensial sledging rations) The real object of this trip was to hasten the Southern Party's return rather than to succour them.

Atkinson did not "effectively cancel the orders to meet Scott at 82.00" There was no longer time for Cherryy-Garrard to meet Scott at 82.30 on Martch 1st. Cherry-Garrard only reached One Ton Depot on Marth 4th. He was not told by Atkinson to go no further but it was left up to him "to decide what to do". He had 2 choices. He could have continued to the next depot or remain where he was. Much is made of the notion that Cherry-Garrard had poor navigation skills and bad eyeshight but the next depot had been named Mount Hooper because Evans and the Motor Party had occupied themselves while waiting for the Ponies on the outward journey by spending 6 days building a cairn of gigantic proportions by the depot. Cherry-Garrard wouldn't have found it any more difficult to find the Mount Hooper depot than One Ton Depot. His indecision was two-fold. The continous bad weather that had delayed Atkinson at Hut Point from 13th February to 19th February was one concern and he was also worried that if he went forward he might miss Scott marching in the opposite direction. Had Oates been fit, Scott would have reached Mount Hooper earlier and there was a real risk that under his original Schedule Scott would reach the depot before Cherry-Garrard. As Evans said. HE very properly remained at One Tonn Camp and made his depot on March 10th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.186.208 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the controversy that surrounded the announcements regarding the attainment of the North Pole, it was important that the news of the Polar attempt was carried back to the outside world on the Terra Nova. This could only be achieved by the dog teams meeting Scott as requested and then speeding back before the ship needed to escape the advancing ice. The dog teams could not have carried back all the men, nor could they escort the walking men back as they still would not have been in time for the departing ship. If Cherry-Garrard had continued beyond One Ton Depot, he would have reached the Mount Hooper Depot on 7th March 2 days before Scott and would have had to deposit whatever food he had brought with him and return to base before his dogs started eating each other.

Scott arriving on the 9th with Wilson, Bowers and an increasingly weakening Oates, would then know that there was no hope of his party's survival. At most they would have 14 days sledging rations plus Seaman Evans ration to share between them and the Surplus stores of special delecasies brought out by Cherry-Garrard. At One Ton Depot 2 weeks XS rations awaited them. Following Scott's actual trail it took them 12 days to reach the final camp where they were forced to sit out the blizzard. They were making only 4 miles headway per day, so all the sledging rations would have been consumed by March 23rd, Leaving just the surplus rations of the dead men and the luxury food to remain. Had the blizzard abated and had the three remaining frostbitten men managed to drag themselves another 11 miles to One Ton Depot, they were still 130 miles from safety, a 12 day march for fit men in reasonable weather. It should also be noted that it took Scott 24 days in January and February the previous year to advance his stores to One Ton Depot where on February 17th (a year to the day before Oates died) he abandoned his attempt to advance to 80 degrees South. In those 24 days the depot laying team were often held in camp by bad weather just as Scott was on the return from the Pole and just as the dogs teams were at Hut Point between February 13th and 21st 1912. By the end of March, with, at a push 2 weeks sledging rations and whatever remained from the Mount Hooper cache Scott would need to make that 130 mile journey in rapidly decreasing temperatures. Atkinson had struggled out to corner camp and left another weeks rations there. Again fit men in good weather would have had no difficulty in making the journey on the rations that were put in place. Rations were not the issue. The issue was the worsening condition of the men and the onset of winter due to their slower progress. 86.165.186.208 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Scott polar party had rations but they ran out of paraffin oil with which to operate the spirit burners they used to thaw out the food so they could eat it. They were therefore unable to eat any of the food they still possessed. This was one of the reasons for their debilitated state which, apart from the blizzard halting their progress, would have otherwise slowed their progress considerably. The paraffin containers were found to be either half full when opened or in some cases, empty, having either been not correctly filled at the factory, or having leaked during transit. It was this factor that made them unable to sit out the blizzard.

The shipping containers used for bulk transporting small quantities of fuels such as petrol and paraffin were flimsy square tins which proved easy to damage and notoriously leak-prone, leading the British Army to abandon the use of these containers in around 1942 adopting instead a version of the German jerrycan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue with the paraffin was that the containers had just leather seals and the paraffin evaporated through them at low temperatures. In the end Scott Bowers and Wilson resorted to consuming the frozen pemmican. They didn't simply sit there looking at food while they starved to death. Scoot's dairy recorded their arrival at their last camp. "We have food for 2 thin meals and fuel for one." It should also be noted that in the closing stages of their march home, Lashley and Crean did not always eat the pemmican ration, having grown tired of their monotonous diet. Scott's dairies showed a certain amount of confusion in a man considered to be meticulous in his planning. Before Oats died he had lost track of the dates. On approaching Mount Hooper depot he lamented They would arrive in their depot the next day but would barely make the next depot and would certainly not make it to One Ton. One Ton was the next depot. This appears to be a momentary loss of focus which was not repeated. The dates however remained out of synch. 90.248.77.28 (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

References

GEOGRAPHICAL miles (1.852 km), not STATUTE miles (1,609 km)

A grave error of the article (and of the comments, for that matter) is that it's not realized that Scott's expedition gave all distances in geographical miles (1.852 km), and NOT in statute miles (1.609 km). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:F72A:1596:88AA:1814:6588:ECDD (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there is little doubt that the expedition gave the distances in geographical miles (~1,855.3 km) or the closely related nautical mile (1,852 km). I encourage User:Brianboulton to have a look at this and consider if there is any need for correcting this and other articles related to Antarctic exploration. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Antarctica#miles?. - 4ing (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Historical units

I'm suggesting to use the same units (with the modern equivalent unit) as Scoot was using. This will ensure coherence between historical account and wiki account. Thus the distance unites should be in geographical miles and temperatures in °F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New-polymath, please don't. We do not use the historical units of the time, but the modern ones that are understood by modern readers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

However, as is now the article is difficult to follow. Everyone knows that Scott's tent was 11 miles (geographical) from the next depot. And suddenly the article at wiki gives 12 miles. And also the line "the 82°S meeting point for the dog teams, 300 miles (480 km)" is incorrect and it should be 475km, 295m, 256nm. These differences are significant, and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest, however, to stay with the sources. In this case, Scott's journal reads "Wednesday, March 21. Got within 11 miles of depot Monday night …"  The figure "11 miles" is repeated in every book about Scott. what then in the wiki it is 12 miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Two things. 1. Not "everyone" knows the distances. That's why we have to be careful about what we put here. I suspect nearly everyone who visits the page has no idea of the distances involved. 2. We don't use historical measurements because that confuses the living daylights out of everyone who hasn't read the original sources (99.9% of the world's population, I would guess). We use modern measurements that people understand, while ensuring the meaning has not been changed from the original. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry mixing unites as you are suggesting is leading to problems as described in the entry above "A grave error of the article (and of the comments, for that matter) is that it's not realized that Scott's expedition gave all distances in geographical miles (1.852 km), and NOT in statute miles (1.609 km). Your suggestion "I suspect nearly everyone who visits the page has no idea of the distances involved." is undocumented. However, if you are correct, that all the distances, geographical locations should be removed from this entry. However, the wiki should also be a reference source and regardless of unites used it should give correct values. And at this moment it does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath (talk • contribs) 08:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Your suggestion "I suspect nearly everyone who visits the page has no idea of the distances involved." is undocumented": a. That's why I said "I suspect", and b. coming from someone who said in their previous post that "Everyone knows that Scott's tent was 11 miles...", that's a bit rich. The idea that we should remove all geographical locations is, frankly, ridiculous, and I'm not sure whether you should be taken seriously or not. You've not edited WP much, and you need to understand that there are ways we do things, and ways we don't. We don't, for example, use archaic measurements, which is why we don't refer to rods or chains in articles.

If you want to change the mileages, it has to be done properly:

• It needs a modern source to give the actual mile of km distances;
• this needs to be used in inline citations in the article;
• It then needs to be consistent throughout the article.

One further point: could you please sign your posts by using four tildes at the end (~~~~). – SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, caould we agree that each distance in this article will be reviewed and given (if) in nautical miles (km equivalent). For example "this and that at 100 miles (185 km)." New-polymath (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• No, because that is confusing for most people, who would expect to see 100 miles (160 km). This is the way the MoS advises and the way most readers expect to see articles. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• OK, that is fine. That is what I meant. Could you suggest the final format? "this and that at 100 miles (87 nmi)" I'm sorry for omitting signature, I was thinking (assuming) that it was automatisch.
• I just noticed the following inconsistency

Section Introduction "...12 miles (19 km) from the next depot,..."

Section Last March "...11 miles (18 km) short of One Ton Depot..." 

Not a big deal just a 1-mile difference.  However, the author of these lines not realized that Scott's expedition gave all distances in geographical miles.

Wiki entry on Amundsen expedition https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Amundsen%27s_South_Pole_expedition is very consistent in distance measure which is given at all times in nautical miles with conversion to km.

Let me point out that the author of the above entry That quote again is using nautical miles to account for depot and Hut Point distances.

New-polymath (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are you changing what we have agreed to be adjusted? New-polymath (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Because we did not agree to do it that way. There is no point having nautical miles for a land-based distance. Two commonly used measurements (miles and km) are perfectly acceptable and understandable. Having three measurements for each distance trips uo readers by stopping the flow of reading. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Scott's last entry reads "Every day we have been ready to start for our depot 11 miles away, but outside the door of the tent it remains a scene of whirling drift..." and since then (29 March 1912) in every book (see the references) and various papers including newspapers Scott's tent (last camp) is (was) 11 miles from One Ton Depot. Why then at Wiki the tent location is at a different distance from One Ton depot. And do not say that the difference is due to different distance definitions. Scott's tent was 11 miles from the depot. New-polymath (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Which miles? (Feel free to give a km distance, to avoid confusion). - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Your thinking is described in your previous line "There is no point having nautical miles for a land-based distance." and contains confusion related to different scales for measuring a distance BUT more importantly about the adherence (usefulness) of a given measuring scale to the actual situation. I would say that the variation of human activity measured from the origin counts. Using nautical miles is not related to sea-based distance, BUT to the distances covered by ships, and a natural measure = nautical mile as one minute (do no tthink about time in here) or one minute of latitude along any line of longitude. Antarctica explorers like a seaman moved over great distances and if the distance was measured in nautical miles (overland) one easy could translate it into latitude. Pure and simple. Scott, Shackleton, Amundsen, Mawson,..., used nautical miles for the above reasons. ALL historical accounts are in nautical miles and all books (see references to this article) are using nautical miles (provided that nautical mile ≈ geographical mile).

One should also observe established methodology in the historical analysis of using original (historical) measures of the past time, eventually providing modern equivalence. Such an approach is coherent and commonly accepted. In historical research, the authors frequently cite the original texts, which contain the original measures. For example, Scott's own line cited in the Terra Nova Expedition article at Wiki is "Every day we have been ready to start for our depot 11 miles away, but outside the door of the tent it remains a scene of whirling drift..." Should we change Scott's line and cite it as "... our depot 12.66 miles away...". SchroCat (Schrödinger Cat I presume) should we change Scott's line to modern unites in the Terra Nova entry?

For those reasons my suggestion to change all distances in Scott's article to

• nautical miles (≈geographical miles) (miles equivalent, km equivalent)

OR

• nautical miles (≈geographical miles) (km equivalent)

is pending. Please consider the above and let me know.

New-polymath (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I already told that all authors (historians) writing about Scott are using nautical (geographical) miles. The sample of these books (authors) is given below. Why the entry in Wiki should be different and not credit expertise of these authors is unclear and unjustified.

• Barczewski, S. (2007). Antarctic Destinies: Scott, Shackleton and the Changing Face of Heroism. London: Hembledon Continuum.
• Crane D. (2005). Scott of the Antarctic: A Life of Courage, and Tragedy in the Extreme South
• Fiennes, R. (2003). Captain Scott. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
• Huntford, R. (1985). The Last Place on Earth. London: Pan Books.
• Max Jones: The Last Great Quest: Captain Scott's Antarctic Sacrifice
• Preston, D. (1999). A First Rate Tragedy: Captain Scott's Antarctic Expeditions
• Sienicki, Krzysztof (2016). Captain Scott: Icy Deceits and Untold Realities
• Susan Solomon (2001): The Coldest March,
• Turney Chris (2012). 1912: The Year The World Discovered Antarctica. Melbourne

New-polymath (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with either option, but I think at the first occurrence of "miles" in the article, it should be made clear which mile we're talking about, so that there's no confusion. So perhaps either something like 12.7 statute miles (20.4 km); or maybe 11 nautical miles (12.7 mi; 20.4 km) or 11 geographical miles (12.7 mi; 20.4 km). In any case, it's a bit confusing if Scott's diary uses "mile" unqualified to mean "nautical mile", but we're using "mile" unqualified here to mean "statute mile". So I think it would be valuable to clarify that somewhere, perhaps with a citation. For example, here's an excerpt from Race for the South Pole: The Expedition Diaries of Scott and Amundsen, p.xvii:

Units are a bugbear. For distance, both Amundsen and Scott, being seamen, use the nautical or geographical mile. It is equivalent to one-sixtieth of a degree, or one minute of latitude. It is fixed at 1.85 kilometers or, in imperial measure, 6.080 feet, equivalent to 1 1/7 statute miles. The statute mile is 1.6 km. It is sometimes uncertain which mile Scott is using. Amundsen sticks to the nautical mile.

For obvious reasons, Scott consistently uses imperial measures. The pound (lb) for weight, equals 454 grams, and the ton of 2,240 pounds, is equivalent to 1.017 metric tonnes of 1,000 kilograms. For length, there is the foot, corresponding to 30.48 cm, the yard of 3 feet (0.91 m), and, for depths at sea, the fathom or 6 ft (1.82 m). In the case of volume, the imperial gallon equals 4.55 litres or 1.2 US gallons or 3.79 litres.

The Norwegians were still imperfectly metricated. For mass, volume, and everyday length they used metric units. The nautical mile for distance was one exception; altitude another. They still measured this in feet. [...]

For temperature, Scott used Fahrenheit, Amundsen, centigrade (Celsius) throughout. [...]

Direction can be even more confusing. Both expeditions used the traditional mariner's compass, with its 32 points. A 'point' is 11 1/4°, and 1/4 point is the smallest practical unit, about 2.81°. To complicate matters, Amundsen uses plain degrees to express magnetic variation.

Personally, I think it makes the most sense to use the unit used in the source material, and then provide unit conversions to the common ones in parentheses for convenience. This makes it clear which numbers are the original, and which numbers are derived. Conversions can introduce rounding errors not found in the original measurements. Ahiijny (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Having three separate conversions at every mention is a recipe for making the prose clumsy, clunky and unreadable. Most of the measurements will be rounded up or down anyway (was Scott exactly 11 miles from One Ton? No, of course not: he was approximately that distance.

Most people who read the article will not know what a nautical mile is, and when they read it, they will wonder why we're being so ridiculous as to insist on archaic measurements when the two most commonly used ones—miles and kilometres— and being shoved afterwards in brackets. It's possibly the most unhelpful thing we can do for our readers, who will not care what measurements the sources are in, but only about whether it is something they need can understand. - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind nautical miles as a unit that much (maybe it's I read a lot of Tintin when I was younger, so I'm somewhat familiar with things like knots and nautical miles), but I suppose I'm not "most readers". If we do omit the nautical miles, I think it should be very explicitly stated in a footnote somewhere: like "Scott's diary uses nautical miles, but statute miles are used here for clarity" or something. I can't help but feel a bit irritated every time I see the unit "mile" used without qualification in this context, because I'm like, "Mile? Which mile??" I feel like there is so much more potential for confusion here compared to your typical article because in this specific context, other source materials often use the nautical mile instead of the statute mile.

Re: "Approximately". Yes, indeed, I agree. But I'd still argue that in situations like this, there is the potential for introducing ambiguities and errors. For instance, suppose we see the source says "11 nautical miles", and helpfully translate that into 20.4 km or 12.7 miles. This loses some nuance, because those additional significant figures suggest a greater precision that actually exists. In my view, it would be best in this situation to round to 20 km or 13 miles, which better reflects the accuracy of the original (this is typical error propagation practice). But then we've strayed farther from the original measurements; if someone decides to convert back to nautical miles or a different unit again, the error has the potential to compound. So that's why if we do go this route, we should explicitly clarify that we've done a unit conversion, so that any researchers on this topic know to look to the source material to obtain the original numbers.

Side rant: I personally find it kind of annoying when books over-localize and silently do unit conversions behind the scenes, because I have no way of knowing if this was the original author intent or if it was put there by the translator. I want the original numbers, not the filtered altered ones! If you're converting the units, at least add a footnote somewhere so that I can examine the math! Ahiijny (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

To wrap up I suggest the following changes. Example from the Introduction section. The text:

A planned meeting with supporting dog teams from the base camp failed, despite Scott's written instructions, and at a distance of 162 miles (261 km) from their base camp at Hut Point and 12.7 miles (20.4 km) from the next depot, Scott and his companions died.

will be replaced by:

A planned meeting with supporting dog teams from the base camp failed, despite Scott's written instructions, and at a distance of 141 nautical miles[1] (261 km) from their base camp at Hut Point and 11 miles (20 km) from the next depot, Scott and his companions died.

with a footnote:

[1] Scott's expedition gave all distances in nautical miles (geographical mile is equivalent to approximately 1.00178 nautical miles.). All distances in this entry mark as miles are actually nautical miles. Conversion to kilometers is also provided and rounded to the nearest integer.[[1]] New-polymath (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No, no, no. That is fundamentally the wrong way to do things. We do not aim to confuse the crap out of our readers by using an obscure measurement with one that most people will not understand. Burying the explanation in a footnote is not helpful for mobile or iPad readers (the navigation is a pain to do for many) and it will be missed by many readers who will end up more confused than any other way of providing the explanation.

New-polymath, that's the second time you've tried to base a change on something that Wikiwand does. Please note that Wikiwand is nothing to do with Wikipedia and has no bearing on how WP deals with any matters of style, grammar or presentation.

Ahiijny, I agree that we need to be clear and careful about naming the type of mile used, but I think it makes sense to have (at first mention) "a distance of 162 statute miles (261 km)from their base camp". - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello SchroCat, are you saying that more than 10 authors of the books listed in references to this article are WRONG because they are using geographical (nautical) miles?New-polymath (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I have not said that at all, so please don't try to put words in my mouth. I am saything that Wikipedia has it's own way of doing things and we do not have to slavishly follow what others have done. We are here to try and make things as clear and easy to read as possible for as wider audience as possible. How many people do you think readily understnd what a nautical mile is (let alone care). Giving two measurements is absolutely fine for 99% of anyone coming on to this article. There is no need to adhere to this archaic practice just for the sake of the 1%. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Adhering to wiki policies I supported my argument (of change) by citing +10 books that use only geographical (nautical) miles to write about Scott's journey. My argument is supported by these +10 (+TEN) references (bboks) which attained recognition and many positive reviews. All these +10 books went through a peer-review process, a thorough editorial process. AND ALL OF THEM USE GEOGRAPHICAL (NAUTICAL) MILES. Your argument "...we do not have to slavishly follow what others have done." is not referenced, is not supported by anything along with wiki policy requirements. New-polymath (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, which "wiki policies" are you using to make the text lumpy and clumsy for readers? You don't have to keep banging on about the books: we all about what they say, and no-one is questioning their validity: I am asking on what "wiki policies" you are basing your statement. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that my argument of changing all distances to geographical (nautical) miles is supported by +10 BOOKS (Authors), who along with reviewers, editors and publishing houses supported (USED) geographical (nautical) miles. DOT. And you are not supporting your argument by giving and responsible reference (source). On the contrary, you base your argument on subjective (your) feeling of "lumpy and clumsy". as for now you are 1:(+)10 not to make a change.

Is that possible that one person (you) can overrun 10 persons, publishers, and peer-reviewers?

Let us stop here, I will in a short time make changes as described above. New-polymath (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

New-polymath, If you make those changes, you will be reverted. There is this open discussion ongoing, and you do not get to decide on what happens when. That is not the way things work here. (See WP:BRD, WP:STATUS QUO and WP:CONSENSUS)

It does not matter what formatting, language, abbreviations, grammar or measurements any other organisation, publisher or website uses. We abide by our own WP:Manual of Style. It is this that governs the way we approach the articles, and what to include. When there is a lack of clarity or a grey area, then we WP:DISCUSS until we reach a WP:CONSENSUS.

Now, do you have any basis in Wikipedia's own style guides or policies that mean we have to use nautical miles, then also include statute and km conversions afterwards? - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I have only one argument to use geographical (nautical) miles. The argument is that everyone who ever attempted to write about Scott and his journeys (books, papers in journals, motion pictures, documentary, etc.) was using geographical (nautical) miles to account for Scott's story. And now you, one person, say no, no this is wrong we should go for miles.

Moreover, let us talk about consensus as a democracy. Your suggestion stays alone (ONE) agents the entire rest (Crane, Solomon, Huntford, Jones, Barczeski, Sienicki, and SCOTT) + Editors, Publishers and names it. Kids in the school are thought that Scott's tent was "11 miles from salvation" (depot with food and fuel).

And you are alone and asking for consensus. New-polymath (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm afriad we're going round in circles here. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. That explains how we work things out on WP. We have a framework of the WP:Manual of Style, and use that to WP:DISCUSS things until we reach a WP:CONSENSUS. This isn't something I am making up to try and 'win' something here: it is how we work together without anyone trying to force their own way on things.

As I have already said several times, it does not matter what formats the books use, we use our own guidelines. This is not me-v-books, this is just the way things work on WP.

Now, do you have any basis in Wikipedia's own style guides or policies that mean we have to use nautical miles, then also include statute and km conversions afterwards? - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I have only one argument to use geographical (nautical) miles. The argument is that EVERYONE whoever attempted to write about Scott and his journeys (books, papers in journals, motion pictures, documentary, etc.) was using geographical (nautical) miles to account for Scott's story. And now you, one person, say no, no this is wrong we should go for miles. And then you say "...we use our own guidelines...". I'm sorry you=we is incorrect.

Is that possible that one person at wiki in the name of wiki policies (you) can overrun 10 persons, publishers, and peer-reviewers?

New-polymath (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not seem to understand what I am trying to explain. We have policies and guidelines that determine how we deal with things. I have provided some links for you to read, and I advise you to read them. You cannot come along and demand that things are done in a particular way if you do not take the time to read how we deal with such matters here. I advise you to read those guidelines and then show which of Wikipedia's own style guides or policies that mean we have to use nautical miles, then also include statute and km conversions afterwards. - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm an old-school fellow, and I might not be able to follow these modern texts, however, could you please as an experienced person, point out where these policies formulate the notion that we cannot use nautical miles in Scott's entry. New-polymath (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to change the way things are done, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find the information that says we must use them. The information can be found in the WP:Manual of Style. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Precisely. From these policies, I read "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]"

My challenge is that I give you (see above and/or references in Scott's entry) +10 books describing Scott's story and all of them use geographical (nautical) miles. I'm proving that the usage of geographical (nautical) miles is a part of understanding by historians and the public. I could that +10 books edited and peer-reviewed and widely acknowledged by the readers represent reliable sources (different authors, different publishers, different times of book publication). What else is needed to prove the notion that geographical (nautical) miles should be used?New-polymath (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You are conflating the guideline for one point to falsely argue a second point. Yes, or course the information needs to be cited to a source (that is to confirm that the information is correct), but that does not necessarily mean we use the format from the source, just the information. Having three different distances (nautical mile, statute mile and km) makes for very uncomfortable reading (and don't forget, there will be people with weaker reading skills than others that we need to consider). The aim of good writing for these articles is to cleanly provide information to readers, not to confuse the crap out of everyone solely in order to make you happy by relying on an archaic sytem of measurement most people won't understand. You have provided no guideline or policy that says we have to include all three measurements, or that we have to make life difficult for all our other readers simply to make you happy. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Consulting Unites of measurement [[2]] I read

• Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, provide a conversion in parentheses. Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long. The template is useful for producing such expressions.

and if we assume that English-speaking country is Antarctica and if we know that the explorers used "different unites for the same measurement" than we should go for option as suggeste before.

geographical (nautical) miles {conversion to km, or miles) New-polymath (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You will note that the examples they give show "2,320 miles (3,734 km)" and "2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi)": that is what this article does at present: it provides a main measurement, followed by the secondary one. None of the examples give more than two measurements. - SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello let me reiterate that I'm suggesting the following changing procedure:

To wrap up I suggest the following changes. Example from the Introduction section. The text:

A planned meeting with supporting dog teams from the base camp failed, despite Scott's written instructions, and at a distance of 162 miles (261 km) from their base camp at Hut Point and 12.7 miles (20.4 km) from the next depot, Scott and his companions died.

will be replaced by:

A planned meeting with supporting dog teams from the base camp failed, despite Scott's written instructions, and at a distance of 141 nautical miles[1] (261 km) from their base camp at Hut Point and 11 miles (20 km) from the next depot, Scott and his companions died.

with a footnote:

[1] Scott's expedition gave all distances in nautical miles (geographical mile is equivalent to approximately 1.00178 nautical miles.). All distances in this entry mark as miles are actually nautical miles. Conversion to kilometers is also provided and rounded to the nearest integer.[[3]]

The above is in line with wiki policies and with our shared understanding. New-polymath (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No. This is not "in line with wiki policies" and there is no "shared understanding" on this point.

We currently have—in line with the guidelines you have quoted just above, and with other articles on WP—a single consistantly used distance followed by a conversion in km. I agree with Ahiijny (and I think you) that we need to clarify the type of mileage we are using and I also think it would be good to have a footnote to explain that Scott used nautcal miles in diaries, as other explorers also did. However, that does not mean that we should breach the common practice of articles on WP by having giving nautical miles followed by two conversions. That will just make the reading too awkward and cumbersome for many - particularly those who have weaker reading skills. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you misread my comment. I'm saying that we will ahve one conversion of a geographical (nautical) mile to km or international mile. Would you prefer converstion to km or mile — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No, no, no! If you have that, you will piss off about 50% of any ready who comes along and is utterly confused by what the hell has happened with the measurements. We currently have statute miles and a conversion to km. That's sufficient to provide readers with the correct information they need to take on board. This is pointlessly going round in circles now. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

SUMMARY

For the reasons stipulated above, I insist on making changes of all distances given in Scott's entry, that is:

distance in geographical miles (conversion to km)

These changes are in line with wiki policies including:

1. Unites of measurement [[4]] and that the explorers of Antarctica used geographical (nautical) miles and,

2. The burden of proving the rationality of the above as evidenced by +10 books (mentioned above).

3. Additional reasons are evidenced above.