Talk:Terra Nova Expedition

message: Leaving some notes here that I gathered on British Antarctic Expedition crew members while researching their exact locations and movements during the expedition. This level of detail is not needed in this article, but might be useful for articles on the individuals themselves where such articles exist. Possibly a list article of expedition members (with the usual divisions of 'shore party' and 'ship's party', and the shore party sub-designations of 'officers', 'scientific staff' and 'crew') might help at some point. The aspect I had most difficulty researching was the names of who went on various expeditions and when (such as the depot laying treks before the 1911 winter, and various subsidiary treks not mentioned in the article). Anyway, the notes I have are:
*Shore party photos here: Robert Falcon Scott, Edward Evans, Edward Adrian Wilson, Edward L. Atkinson, Victor Campbell, Apsley Cherry-Garrard, Henry Robertson Bowers, Bernard Day, Frank Debenham, Tryggve Gran, George Murray Levick, Cecil Meares, Edward W Nelson, Lawrence Oates, Herbert Ponting, Raymond Priestley, George Simpson, Thomas Griffith Taylor, Charles Seymour Wright, Thomas Williamson, George Abbot, Walter Archer, Frank Browning, Thomas Clissold, Thomas Crean, Harry Dickason, Edgar Evans, Robert Forde, Dimitri Gerov, Patrick Keohane, William Lashly, Anton Omelchenko, and (not in the linked list) Frederick Hooper.
*Among the ship's crew we have articles on: Harry Pennell and Alfred Cheetham. We could probably have an article on the ship biologist Dennis Gascoigne Lillie, and possibly some others of the ship's party that went on to later achievements.
*More obscure is the case of people that are mentioned in some of the histories, but either never travelled on the expedition (e.g. Thomas Feather) or sailed but are not mentioned on the official lists (e.g. Alfred James Brewster, see below). Both Feather and Brewster provided autographs for the auction item listed here.
Brewster is mentioned by Lieutenant Evans in his account here, in some other expedition member diaries (e.g. the one by Charles 'Silas' Wright), in the 1910 newspaper list here, and in Katherine Lambert's books Longest Winter (2002) and Hell With A Capital H: A New Polar Hero (2012) (see this Google Books search). The official lists probably only cover those who were on the ship when it reached Antarctica. Brewster could possibly be briefly mentioned in a footnote in the Terra Nova article. Mentioning Feather might usefully illustrate some aspects of the selection and de-selection processes. I still find it quite astounding that some 8000 people applied to join the expedition! Carcharoth (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Briefly noting here that archive collections exist for two of the expedition members and the NZ agent: Francis Drake; Dennis Lillie and Sir Joseph Kinsey. The other thing I discovered was a German Wikipedia list article on the expedition members: :de:Terra-Nova-Expedition/Mannschaftsliste. Something like that might be useful over here. I think something like this was present in earlier versions of this article (see discussions further up the talk page), but was mostly removed (presumably too detailed) as the article was taken to featured status. If the information was resurrected, it would have to be in a subsidiary article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on Expedition members 

message: In the seven years since I steered it through its FAC, I haven't often looked at this article. Fortunately, a number of enthusiastic editors have maintained an interest and worked on it. When this was promoted, requirements for inline citations were much looser – this has now beeen resolved and the article is I believe fully cited. Two different systems of citation were in use, which I have standardised into one.
A fair amount of text  has been added in the last seven years, much of it to do with the vexed questions of Scott's orders concerning dogs and the failure of his comrades to mount a rescue operation in time to save him. A lot of material relevant to this question had been duplicated or even triplicated within the article, added by different editors at different times. I think I've sorted that, now. One new source that caused some excitement a year or two back was Karen May's article in the Polar Record, with hints of new "discoveries". I found this article disappointing in terms of new revelations, though it does draw attention to material that other historians have glossed over. The fact is that Scott's orders about how the  dogs were to be used to help him home are fully spelled out in Edward Evans's South With Scott, an unfashionable (and poorly written) account which   more recent historians have tended to ignore. And I didn't pick it up, either, although I have the book. It's all there now, though. I  take issue with May over her suggestion that Atkinson invented the story that Scott was anxious to save the dogs for the following season's work. Atkinson may have got certain priorities wrong, but a letter by Scott to his New Zealand agent, quoted by Susan Solomon, makes it clear that Scott did indeed intend to have another go if his first attemot failed, and he would have needed dogs for that. 
My objective to returning to the article now is to ensure that it meets today's rather more stringent FA standards. I shall continue to tweak a bit more, but in general I believeits looking in rather better shape than it did.  Brianboulton (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Brianboulton, Some of the text flows better after your changes, thanks. But I am amazed that you wrote that Atkinson instructed Cherry to wait at One Ton Depot. Cherry himself makes no such claim. Which source do you have that from? I am genuinely interested, because this statement occasionally crops up on Wiki now and again, always without a reference. I have reverted your change meanwhile. Sherlock.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.23.137 (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Hi Brianboulton, I'm proposing to alter your statement on the main page that "However, Scott had made it clear in a letter to his agent in New Zealand that, should the first attempt on the pole fail, a second effort would be made in the following year, for which dogs would be needed". Your evidence for this comes from Solomon's "The Coldest March", p.250, but her endnotes on p.360 (TCM, Chapter 11, endnote 5) show that her source was a letter written by Scott to Kinsey on 26 October 1909. It is clearly an honest mistake from Solomon (her honesty is shown in her clear citations of primary evidence) but it is still not best historical practice to insert a letter from 1909 (written by Scott in a hopeful mood, before he knew the full extent of his resources/the threat from Amundsen) into the 1911-12 narrative and to argue that this 1909 letter somehow trumps the written primary evidence from 1911 (Scott's written orders asking for the dogs to meet him) or from 1912 (Scott's journal, in which he makes clear mention of expecting to meet the dogs on his return march north). Looking at Scott's 1911 orders, I can find mention of a plan that "an attempt will be made to cross the Barrier in a S.S.E.ly direction in 1912-13", but this does not mean another attempt at the Pole; this means crossing the Barrier at some point, probably for scientific research. This would have been feasible using the new animal transport from the ship, or even manhauling (as with the "Spring Journey" in 1911). Above all, it's planned to be "an attempt", nothing more solid than that. Had Scott wanted to plan a second serious Polar attempt and hence planned to move from the Barrier up to the Polar Plateau, he would have outlined this new Polar plan clearly in the 1911 set of orders, and he did not do so. I therefore think that it would be best to delete the sentence "However, Scott had made it clear.... for which dogs would be needed." Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.41.18 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on some recent changes

message: Regarding the instruction to carry 5 XS rations to One Ton Camp.
Scott issued 2 orders, one was for the dogs to carry 5 weekly Rations and one was for a man hauling party to carry 3 weekly rations. If the 2nd order was carried out there would have been no missing rations. 3 units was the amount required to be taken being the bare minimum to allow one week's rations for each of the parties returning from the Plateau.
"at some time during this month or early January you should make your  second jouney to One Ton Camp and leave there: 5 Units X.S ration 3 Cases biscuit 5 Gallons Oil As much dog food as you can carry (for third journey) This depot should be laid no later than January 19 in case of rapid return of first unit of Southern Party"  South with Scott 1953 page 170 
"At all Hazards three X.S. units of provision must be got to one ton camp by the date named, and if the dogs are unable to perform thiss service a man party must be organised."  South with Scott 1953 page 171 
However, having read this Wiki page for the first time, I believe there is an error, perhaps an historical error in the amount of rations that were taken to One Ton Camp.
Edgar Evans in South with Scott relates that Cherry-Garrard arrived at One Ton Camp on March 4th with "2 weeks surplus stores for the Southern Party with all  kinds of special delecicies"  South with Scott 1953 Collins page 245 
so in any case it is incorrect to say nobody brought the "missing rations" as Cherry-Garrard had made up the difference. 
Evans further states that Cherry-Garrard turned back on March 10th "after satisfying himself that over a month's travelling rations were in the depot."  South with Scott 1953 Collins page 246.  Presumably the 2 weeks supply he had just brought and 3 weeks supply that had been brought by the man hauling party. This leaves a discrepancy, in that the 2 returning support parties of Wright/Atkinson/Cherry-Garrard/Keohane and Evans/Lashley/Crean would have consumed one week's rations each. Therefore in order for over one month's supplies to be in place on March 10th, 5 units of rations would have had to be carried there by the man hauling party. The alternative being that the other 2 returning parties had nothing to eat after passing One Ton Depot. 
"Karen May of the Scott Polar Research Institute goes further by suggesting that the instruction about saving the dogs for the following season was Atkinson's own invention.[146]"  Scott's original Intructions for the Dogs dated January 20th 2011 contains the following qualifying statement. You will carry beyond One Ton Camp one X.S. ration, including biscuit and one gallon parrafin and of course you will not wait beyond the time that you can safely return on back depots.  South with Scott: Evans 1953 Collins p 171   86.165.246.193 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pole party didn't run out of rations. They had plenty for five men. Due to leakage or evaporation they ran out of paraffin with-which to heat their tent, and thaw-out the rations so that it was possible to eat them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some details that could be clarfied on this page. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Terra Nova Expedition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030210163731/http://heritage-antarctica.org/ to http://www.heritage-antarctica.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Terra Nova Expedition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516075523/http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/Robert%20Falcon%20Scott2.htm to http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/Robert%20Falcon%20Scott2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Three of the XS rations required for One Ton Depot had been man-hauled there by a party which left Cape Evans on 26 December,[132] but neither Meares nor anyone else transported the missing rations or the dog food to One Ton Depot.[133]
There was no "missing rations". Scott's requirement was for 3 (or 5) units to be placed at one ton depot by 26th December. This was one unit for each of the returning parties that had reached the top of the Beardnore Glacier. Plus 2 units in reserve. One unit would have been consumed by Atkinson's team and one unit by Evans Lashly and Crean. If only 3 units had been placed there by the man hauling team, then the barest minumum of 1 unit would remain for Scott's team. However when Cherry-Garrard set out with "2 weeks EXTRA rations, with all kinds of special delecasies" these were not sledging rations but treats and luxuries to provide comfort to the returning polar team. Evans writes that when Cherry-Garrard left One Ton Depot on March 10th, He was satisfied "that over a month's travellimg rations were in the depot." That would be the 1 unit of XS rations, the two weeks supply of all kinds of special delicasies and what else? the two suppossedly missing units of XS rations. The discrepency being that the "missing rations" were eaten by Atkinson and Evans teams.
Furthernore, Atkinson did not belatedly set out to meet Scott on February 13th and arrive the Hut point on February 19th.
He arrived at Hut point of February 13th E.R.G.R. Evan South With Scott p245 Collins 1953 giving him ample time to meet Scott at 82.30 16 days later, he had dog food for just over one month. So enough to meet Scott as arranged on March 1st and return to Hut point by March 15th, according to Scott's written request under ideal circumstances. (although he would not have been able to carry 3 - 5 extra men back on the 2 sledges in the same time)
He was held up by bad weather at Hut Point until 19th March when Crean arrived with news of Evan's collapse. E.R.G.R. Evan South With Scott p245 Collins 1953 The weather was so bad that Atkinson had to wait for conditions to improve before rescuing Evans and Lashly 2 days later. It was after this that the time table to meet Scott was significantly changed.
It is incorrect that Cherry-Garrard had never driven dogs before. Evans notes in South with Scott "Scott and Wilson got their hands in at dog driving now, as I did, ocasionally myself. No one could touch Meares and Dimitri at dog team work, although later Cherry-Garrard and Atkinson became the experts."  E.R.G.R. Evan South With Scott p75 Collins 1953
I find it tiresome that so much effort is put into smearing other men's reputations to try to improve the image of Scott by default. It simple, his team suffered from frostbite and eventually could only make 4 mile instead of 10 mile journeys per day.
86.165.186.208 (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is still an issue, 

message: Where did this gem of information come from?
According to Teddy Evans
South With Scott Chapter V
Scott and Wilson got their hands in at dog-driving now, as I did occasionally myself. Nobody could touch Meares or Dimitri at dog-team work, although later on Cherry-Garrard and Atkinson became the experts.
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18129/pg18129.html
So rather than being a poor choice to go to One Ton Depot, as far as dog driving goes, Cherry-Garrard was the best choice once Atkinson was duty bound to care for Teddy Evans.
I assume it was Huntford that made the claim and because he had his work published everyone assumes it must be true. However it seems like Cherry-Garrard made the claim himself in The Worst Journey In The World. So there are 2 conflicting 1st hand accounts on the matter. Cherry-Garrard may have been exercising license to make his story more dramatic, whereas Evans was simply making a casual remark. It is not within the remit of these records to make any kind of judgement but merely to acknowledge that there is conflicting evidence as to the suitability of Cherry-Garrard for the task that was assigned to him.
86.165.185.45 (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the expedition had Cherry ever handled a dog team? DrKay (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherry-Garrard  "had never handled a dog before" 

message: The problem with this section is there is a central issue which is poorly researched and poorly verified.
The opinion of one person (Karen May) is used to indicate a revision of the reputation of Scott based upon her "discovery" of Scott's written instructions regarding the use of the dogs. There is no link to her actual work on this subject, just a link to an article in the Daily Telegraph in which she posed the question Could Scott have been saved if his orders had been obeyed?, within that article there is a a small passage of Scott's instructions quoted that gives a false impression of what he expected from Meares and the dogs.
I have only seen this opinion of Karen May presented in the Daily Telegraph, there is no evidence that it became a widely accepted theory. Her own article was published in the Scott Polar Institute's own Journal and is not available for veiwing. and is not referenced as a source anywhere on Wikipedia.
In fact when reading the full passage in South With Scott it is clear that Scott's instructions left a great deal of licence for Meares or others to act under their own initiative. While Karen May's article is genuinely part of the "controversy" it is more because of how it has been used to protect Scott's reputation at the expense of others, unnecessarily as the confusion over Scott's orders exists mainly in those who fail to understand them.
It is ironic that the book that inspires her to ask the question Could Scott have been saved if his orders for the dogs were obeyed? also contains a passage that states "Concerning the attempts to support the Southern Party, Scott's instructions were quite clear and they were certainly obeyed."
 All reference to Karen May's article now seems to have been removed from this section at some point. 
I have spent over a year attempting to balance the revisionist arguments against the source material in both Evans's and Cherry-Garrard's books and have had to deal with a considerable amount of resistance in introducing qualifying information from both eyewitness accounts.
In order to present an unbiased and balanced view of who did what and why' I think it is necessary to rewrite this entire passage showing more fully what Scott's instructions were and explaining through the content of the published works why his subordinates acted as they did. This can then be compared to what his contemporary detractors and supporters (Huntford, May and Fiennes) created controversy over.
Rather than continue to get involved in edit wars with various "protectors" of wikipedia I would prefer to write a new passage on this talk page and present it for review and/or resolution. So please bear with me, it may take some time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.255.74 (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for other editors, but from my perspective, the issues are of sourcing content and of presentation of said content. This edit, for example, attempted to (re)introduce the phrase "The dogs had made heavy weather of the return journey", which is nonsensical. You are absolutely right that we can't accept original research or syntheses of existing articles, and you may also want to familiarize yourself with WP:TRUTH. Finally, while I can't address all of your points individually, I would suggest that you read the Karen May article, as it does explicitly state "She believes Edward Atkinson, the expedition surgeon who was in command at base camp in Scott’s absence, invented the order." NekoKatsun (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, that phrase isn't nonsensical at all, although I'm not sure it's an idiom I would employ in an encyclopadia. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh! TIL. My apologies! Is this more common in British English, do you know? I like to think I'm pretty good at the pidgin dialect that is American, and I haven't heard this one before. NekoKatsun (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems likely - there are no idiomatic American uses on Wikiquote. I would expect any British person to understand the expression. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

text: The other issue is that this, and your other edits to the talk page, are extremely incoherent. It is difficult to assess a proposed edit when it and the rationale are expressed in this rambling fashion. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attemps to Relieve The Polar Party 

message: "On 18 February, Crean walked on alone to reach Hut Point (covering 35 miles of difficult terrain in only 18 hours), where he found Atkinson and Dimitri with their dogs, pausing in their journey to meet Scott."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.11.67 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evans able to cover distance, Atkinson not 

message: I've added a brief section on Scientific legacy that can and should be expanded. This article, while documenting a momentous expedition, seems overly devoted to the events as they happen, and almost entirely neglects the legacy and impact of the expedition. The fact that a large portion of of the citations are from primary sources (the memoirs and journals of those who were on the expedition) only further cements this into the past. I recognize this is a "Featured Article", but the standards in 2008 were somewhat relaxed compared to today's. Rather than a play-by-play recap of the expedition itself, ending in the 1910's, a more balanced article would explore the impacts and lasting significance: basically "why should anyone beyond survival junkies and polar enthusiasts care?" --Animalparty! (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legay/impact needs contemporary update 

message: There was a well known play based on the expedition that was produced by The Yale Rep in 1977 - 
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/29/theater/how-one-play-flourished-for-years-beyond-broadway.html
Perhaps a section on the Expedition in the media could be added
Sokolow~enwiki (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add section for Tera Nova in media 

message: It's makes little sense to me that an article about the expedition itself, not just about the people in it (Scott has his own page), would contain pictures the expedition took of other things besides themselves... 2601:192:4800:7F20:7F0E:55E2:2838:6DD3 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the pictures only composed of people? Surely, surely there are other pictures they took of landscapes and nature?