Talk:Robert Falcon Scott/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Robert Falcon Scott. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Professionals at work

"...overall effect... was to make the article.... look unprofessional." But are there Wikipedia "professionals?" What are their credentials?

Seems like these Wikipedia professionals are mainly programmers, rather than editors. In general, the Wikipedia "professionals" seem to seek anonymity due to their various and extremely undesirable psychological characteristics.

So let's be friends. Oh-- and I have have something approaching or surpassing 10 million bylines in newspaper imprints.

Am deeply certain you cannot imagine the extreme degree of professional editing this accomplishment required. So thanks y'all "peer."

--banned editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

German Wikipedia blocking users for trying to repair and clarify fraudulent misinterpretations in the German Article of Captain Scott.

German Article alledges, for example, Scott was the 10th person to reach the pole, instead of second (as Expedition leader). Alledges that Capt. Scott was completely uninterested in polar research (hahaha) and totally driven by impulses to make money and achieve personal gain. Etc.pp. And when you are unmasking this non-sense as a clear distortion of facts, they are trying to muzzle and gag you and impudently block you for trying to rectify the matter. Big Up.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that the perpetrator of the German wiki article is rather stupid. Alas, my German writing is non-existent, otherwise I'd weigh in. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 15:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so there is not much anyone here can do about the German Wikipedia. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, anybody here on the English wikipedia can go to the German one and can try to rectify the false allegations in the German article. You just have to be aware the "perpetrator of the German Wiki" will immediately claim that you attacked him on a personal basis and will try to block you...--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

he did it with me and got away with it and German Wiki isn't even replying about the matter. Some Admins seem to be chummily associated with that bloke and they help him trying to give you the chop. It's a real shame.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A user even deleted my comment that someone should either explain how Scott can be called to belong "to the first ten people to reach the pole" or rephrase as he was actually second as expedition leader... Told Wikipedia to withdraw that deletion, but nothing is happening. This is probably what you call a democracy without any kind of censorship.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It is really unbelievable, they have neither responded nor took back the deletion of my comment.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, complaining here on en will not do any good on de (except perhaps make you feel better by venting). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the Commissioner, whilst clearly venting his frustration, is hoping that by doing so an interested party who is a German speaker will take a look at the article and rectify its shortcomings. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I took a brief look at the German article on Scott (although I am an admin on en, I only rarely edit on de). No user whose name contains "Gordon" has edited the article or its talk page that I could see. I believe the sentence Commissioner Gordon does not like is in the lead "Er zählt zu den ersten zehn Menschen, die den geographischen Südpol erreichten." which I would translate as "He [Scott] is one of the first ten people to reach the geographic South Pole." (As literally translated as I can it would be "He counts as one of the first ten people, who the geographic South Pole reached." It does NOT say he was the tenth person to reach the pole.) Since Amundsen's expedition had 5 members and Scott had 5 in his group (even if he might have done better with the planned 4), this statement is factually accurate (i.e. Amundsen's 5 and Scott's 5 were the first two groups to reach the pole and they totaled 10 people). There is a very long discussion on the talk page, but I have little stomach for such talk pages in English, let alone auf deutsch. See WP:TLDNR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The wording "He [Scott] is one of the first ten people to reach the geographic South Pole." is an obvious attempt to circumvent and disguise the fact that Scott's expedition reached the pole as the second. It would be equally misleading to write "Amundsen is one of the the first five people to reach the pole." It is also very misleading as it can be misinterpretated that with "ten people" would be meant expedition leaders and thus that there were ten expeditions to reach the people and Scott's would be just one of this whole lot. Plus, it does not comply with the rule that expedition leaders are counted first before attendants. (Amundsen first, Scott second etc.)Generally speaking, this example is just the tip of the German article's Eisberg.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say something like "Scott led the second expedition to reach the geographic South Pole.", but as I have also said, there is not much we here on en can do about de. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone from the English wikipedia can visit any wikipedia site in the world including the German one and do the same thing as here, namely trying to improve and rectify articles! --Commissioner Gordon (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have the time to do anything on the German Wikipedia. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is suspicious that Ruhrfisch (a German name...) is trying to defend the problematic German site and discouraging us from discussing it here in English (and thus alerting a worldwide audience to the potential fraud...). Can Wikipedia step in and sack the German wiki administrators who are responsible? As far as I can make out from the German website, there is one main perpetrator calling himself "Jamiri", and one or two supporting sycophants. Taking out the main perpetrator would probably suffice as the first step, so Ruhrfisch should have nothing to fear, initially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.44.59 (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not made an edit on the German Wikipedia since January 2013 - see here and I do not recall ever editing their article on Scott (and even if I have, I am not a major contributor to the article). Please also note that some of my edits on the German Wikipedia seem to have been imported from the English articles I work on (most of the ones I saw with English edit summaries). Have you tried posting your concerns on the talk page of Wikipedia's founder, User:Jimbo Wales? I am done with you. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for article improvement

"However, having taken this step, his name became inseparably associated with the Antarctic, the field of work to which he remained committed during the final twelve years of his life."

It could be added:

...the field of work to which he remained passionately committed during the final twelve years of his life.

See Shackleton's, Cherry-Garrard's, Priestley's, Wilson's, Crane's, Fiennes' or virtually anybody's comments on Scott's eagerness in this respect.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

" From a previously unassailable position, Scott became a figure of controversy, with questions raised about his competence and character."

One could add:

From a previously unassailable position, Scott became a figure of controversy with questions raised about his competence and character, while it remains unclear, whether these doubts are just a product of a character assassination campaign driven by feelings of envy, grudge and jealousy created by supporters of other polar explorers like Amundsen and Shackleton, who felt offended as they alledgedly came short concerning publicly displayed honour and appreciation towards them.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

" Commentators in the 21st century have on the whole regarded Scott more positively, emphasising his personal bravery and stoicism while acknowledging his errors, but ascribing his expedition's fate primarily to misfortune."

You could substitute the word stoicism with a more positive word. Something that is more about "staying true to your principles". Something that gives account to the fact that Scott did not engage in a race to the pole with Amundsen but honestly pushed through the scientific ambitions of the expedition.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"There were committee battles over the scope of Scott's responsibilities, with the Royal Society pressing to put a scientist in charge of the expedition's programme while Scott merely commanded the ship. Eventually, however, Markham's view prevailed"

Maybe, there could be added the fact that Scott had a very powerful and knowledgable scientist at hand as his very close friend and companion in Edward Wilson, with whom he discussed and reviewed every single expeditionary and/or scientific problem, making them almost the perfect tandem to lead a polar expedition.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Please read WP:LEAD about the lead or initial section of the article. The lead is a summary of the article and so should not say anything that the article does not. The article does not use the world passionately, so the lead should not either. The article must follow two more Wikipedia policies and guidelines - it must be based on published reliable sources and it must have a neutral point of view (although quoting others' points of view is OK as long as they are from reliable sources). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't quite follow your line of argument as the word passionately or a synonym could easily be added both to the lead section and the article... And as I said, you don't need to read very far in any remotely impartial and unprejudiced book about Scott to have a proof of the argument. I'm actually wondering why you are questioning the wording passionately not belonging to a neutral point of view. To give a glimpse, I'll let the Cherry take over the talking:

"Scott, who astounded me for his enormous volume of work, which he easily coped with, was undoubtedly the expedition's prime mover. In the hut, he worked quietly, designing plenty of charts and formulae, with the highest interest for scientific questions and not seldomly, he wrote about any kind of abstruse deriving from the immediate neighborhood.He was anxious for suggestions in case they were practicable and he was permanently eager to sieve even the most fantastic theories, when they could lead to the desired success in any kind of way. A swift and modern brain, which dedicated itself with diligence to any kind of theoretical or practical question." (A.C.G. - The Worst Journey in the World, translation from the German version from page 274)--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that the article text here is neutral and avoids adjectives like "passionately" in almost all cases. I note that your translation does not include the word, and searching the English edition of the book on Amazon, it only uses the word passion 4 times in over 340 pages of text. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to become set on "passionate". Cherry's book, while, as you say the word itself only appears 4 times there, is full of transliterations of the word "passionate", describing the love of Scott to the art of polar exploration. You do not need to follow Taylor more than a single page and you will encounter the wording "incredulous delight", which even is a much stronger diction than "passionate".

(The whole passage is:"No one will forget Captain Scott's almost incredulous delight at the goodwill and harmony of his little company under the trying conditions of Ross Island.")--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The word stoicism in the sentence "Commentators in the 21st century have on the whole regarded Scott more positively, emphasising his personal bravery and stoicism" is improvable as it also bears the meaning "indifference/languidness" apart from "persistence". Possible substitutes:"persistence","perseverance","determination","tenacity" - Taylor is using the word "endurance"--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What dictionary or source do you have for "stoic" or "stoicism" meaning indifference or languidness?? Merriam Webster's website defines the adjective "stoic" as "not affected by or showing passion or feeling; especially : firmly restraining response to pain or distress" [1]. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked at http://dict.leo.org/#/search=stoicism&searchLoc=0&resultOrder=basic&multiwordShowSingle=on, where it is translated as "Gleichmut" in German which is "equanimity" or "equability" in English. Another source which I came upon is

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stoic:

sto·ic (stk)

n.

1. One who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain.

I think Webster's definition also bears "indifference" as "not being affected by feelings" is basically pretty equal. I have included further propositions in response to Awien's post below, if you like to take a look--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither the Concise Oxford nor the Gage Canadian hints at languidness; they mention "indifference to pleasure and pain", which is completely different; and Oxford stresses that the stoic has "virtue as the highest good". Awien (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, it can also bear the meaning of "emotional indifference" to feeling like joy and pleasure, and that is a bit contradictory to his overall emotional dedication .You're indeed right with the aspect of virtue, it is also described in the link I posted above where it is said:

2. Stoic A member of an originally Greek school of philosophy, founded by Zeno about 308 b.c., believing that God determined everything for the best and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Its later Roman form advocated the calm acceptance of all occurrences as the unavoidable result of divine will or of the natural order.

but it could still be misconceived as a lack of emotion and commitment or something like that, (from the meaning of "seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy,, grief, pleasure, or pain"), so I would either suggest it could be added an adjective that adds the aspect of dedication and commitment or devotion or maybe make it an adjective -stoic and add a noun?--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, for native English speakers, there is no sense of languidness or indifference, and stoicism here is seem as a positive. Do you know the phrase "to keep a stiff upper lip"? The sense of stoicism here is similar, and is echoed in Lawrence Oates' emotionless self-sacrifice.

Translating "stoic" into German, and then translating it back into English is hardly the way to get the definition - it reminds me of the joke about the computer program that translated the Bible verse "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" into Russian and back into English and gets "The wine was agreeable but the meat was spoiled". Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Stoicism is a universal term and idea and for the native English speaker there is certainly a sense of indifference:

stoic: "someone who is seemingly indifferent to emotions, Synonyms : unemotional person." http://www.mnemonicdictionary.com/word/stoic

Similarity of adj stoic: unemotional (vs. emotional) http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/stoic/

Antonyms for stoic: INDIRECT (VIA unemotional) -> emotional http://www.synonym.com/antonyms/stoic/

And your comparison with Oates shows that you don't get my point, but it is a good affirmation of mine. Oates was very introvert and divulging very few of his emotions, so the term stoic applies to him but not to Scott, who was a much more emotional and passionate character. In addition, the collocation "to keep a stiff upper lip" is more related to stamina and endurance than to stoicism. --Commissioner Gordon (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Commissioner Gordon, you have made it clear that you are not a native speaker of English, and I am done arguing definitions of words with you. More importantly, this is a WP:FA, and as such must meet the FA criteria, of which criterion #1a is "It is well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;". More importantly, the article has to follow what reliable third-party sources say about Scott. The sentence we are discussing is in the lead and says "Commentators in the 21st century have on the whole regarded Scott more positively, emphasising his personal bravery and stoicism while acknowledging his errors, but ascribing his expedition's fate primarily to misfortune." So let's please confine this discussion to what 21st century commentators on Scott say. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's logical, you're the native speaker of us since I have proven you wrong that the discussed term "stoic" indeed includes the meaning of "indifference". And you know what? There's another thing you don't even have mused about, it also implies the sense of "stolidity". Another point proving that your allegation "stoicism" is completely positive is false... And you know what? I think you are doing this all on purpose. Principally, like you have attested in your benevolent comments and edits in the "Shackleton" article, you are some sort of henchman of his and that's also the reason why you are simply not interested in rectifying things in the "Scott" articles.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I freely admit that I do what I can to try and keep this article and the one on Shackleton up to the Featured Article standards (and I do that on purpose). I have no idea whose henchman I am supposed to be, nor do I care. Nowhere do I make the "allegation [that] 'stoicism' is completely positive". If you have a better summary of the last two paragraphs of the article than the sentence I thought we were discussing, then please provide it. Please also read WP:No personal attacks. Finally, I am about to invoke WP:Bold, revert, discuss and remove ·some of your edits to this article, so we can discuss them. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, in your statement "stoicism here is seem as a positive" you did make the "allegation [that] 'stoicism' is completely positive". Here, one should consider the difference in the word's archaic and modern understanding and meaning. I already suggested the word could either be paraphrased or it could be extended with a verb. Concerning the supposed personal attack, it must be said that you were setting the stone rolling by trying to diminish a fellow user's linguistic proficiency - saying "you have made it clear that you are not a native speaker of English", thereby attempting to derogate my standpoints on a personal basis and thus getting personal. In addition, trying to sound on someone to find out whether he might be influenced by personal preferences or affections towards the two articles' protagonists or whether he might have a preconceived opinion is not viewed as a personal attack and it is neither intended nor do I claim that this is necessarily the case with you. Please do not take this amiss.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of English and am fairly proficient in (but not a native speaker of) German. Because of this, there are words I do not know and mistakes I make in German, and I know I cannot write as well in German as I can in English (and my comprehension is not quite as good either). Commissioner Gordon you came here complaining about the German Wikipedia, quote sources in German, and to try to understand English words by translating them into German first. All of this, and the way you write and do not quite comprehend some words show me that English is not your native language. There is no shame in that (and I think your English is probably better than my German), and it is not meant as an insult or attack. It is what it is. Your language skills are what they are, and just as I cannot run a 4 minute mile (1600 m), you apparently do not understand all the connotations stoicism or some other words have in English. Finally "a positive" is not the same as "completely positive" - if something were 75% good, it would be positive, but not completely positive. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bold, revert, and discuss

Per WP:BRD, I am removing two additions to the article which do not meet the Featured Article criteria, both of which were added by Commissioner Gordon.

The first was added to the "Dispute with Shackleton" section diff and reads:

Antithetic to this view, Raymond E. Priestley (Member of the Terra Nova Expedition), writes in his diary that his group could not "according to etiquette trench on their [Amundsen's] winter quarters" ^[1] , implying it is part of the unspoken "etiquette" between explorers that it is principally indecurous to work on terrority that has already been engaged by another explorer, proven by the fact that his Terra Nova group did not land at the Bay Of Whales, where Roald Amundsen had set up his camp, but conceded the field of work to him and searched for another place to land.

Note the edit removed the title of a source used (Riffenburgh), resulting in a broken reference, and does not spell "indecorous" or "territory" correctly. More importantly, most of it is completely unsourced and seems to be or border on original research. There are also issues of WP:WEIGHT - to what extent is this needed in an article on Scott?

The second addition (in two edits) is from the "Modern reaction" section diff and reads (with the existing text in brackets for context)

[Huntford's thesis had an immediate impact, becoming ~~the~~] a [new orthodoxy^[2]] and at the same time drawing a significant amount of criticism for the alledgedly prejudiced and unfair style of the conclusions he is jumping to, as proven by Climate expert Professor Jane Francis of Leeds University saying the weight and impact of the geological samples picked up by Scott and his men during their return from the pole "would have made little difference to the energy they expended" and he "probably gave his men a rest before the last trek home" ^[3], while Huntford deprecatingly describes this as "a pathetic little gesture to salvage something from defeat at the pole".

First off, ththere is yet another spelling error (alledgedly), the reference is a "bare URL" and is not formatted properly as to date, author, work, etc.) and the quote at the end is especially problematic. It is not cited (no reference is given) despite WP:MOSQUOTE and the use of the word "deprecatingly" violates WP:NPOV, as does the whole "alledgedly prejudiced and unfair style of the conclusions he is jumping to, as proven by..." - Wikipedia articles have to follow their sources and the source neither calls Huntford's comment prejudiced nor unfair, nor does it say that Francis' comment proves this.

Thanks to Commissioner Gordon for being bold and adding these, I have reverted them, now let the discussion begin. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

PS I will have limited internet access the next few days and so it may take me some time to respond. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

For the moment, I'll just tell you that basically half of your argumentation is based on pointing out 3 minor spelling mistakes and it doesn't exactly help your cause. And btw, your depiction of Shackleton's claims in the article is not at all neutral as it is only pointing out (overly doubtful) arguments for Shackleton and the only pro for Scott's stance is that Wilson was strongly on his side. Not exactly objective or well-balanced at all.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. There is no explicit mention of Shackleton in the edits being discussed here (which you originally made). As for the spelling errors, I tried to point out all the problems with your edits, which included three spelling errors (I did not mention all of the errors - another trivial one is that refs should follow punctuation per the Manual of Style). Perhaps I did not stress the most serious of the errors your edits introduced, so let me repeat them here. Please note that because this is a WP:FA, it is held to the highest standards, which is why even small errors matter and the major ones must be fixed.

In the first section you added, you broke an existing reference, removing the source cited. This violates WP:CITE and WP:V.
More importantly, about 2/3 of what you added ("... implying it is part of the unspoken "etiquette" between explorers that it is principally indecurous to work on terrority that has already been engaged by another explorer, proven by the fact that his Terra Nova group did not land at the Bay Of Whales, where Roald Amundsen had set up his camp, but conceded the field of work to him and searched for another place to land.") has no citation (although at least one is required, see above).
Equally importantly, this reads as your interpretation / original research, which violates WP:NOR. I would add there is a question of WP:WEIGHT - this is an article on Scott the man, not every detail of the final expedition he lead.
In the second section you added, you again violate the policies and guidelines on citations (adding a bare URL, omitting information for the newspaper article cited, and the last quote is missing a citation altogether).
Finally, and at least as importantly, your edits have a strong point of view, which is strongly pro-Scott (and anti Scott-critics) one. The English Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, so bias like this is not allowed in articles (note I am not attacking you or your opinion, just keep it out of the articles you edit). It is OK to quote reliable sources that express opinions, but the article voice itself should and must be neutral.

In closing, I am not one of the principle authors of this article, so when you write "your depiction of Shackleton's claims in the article", you are barking up the wrong tree. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply to your other points when I have the time to do so. The point I'm thinking about right now is that you accepted the edits I made for over one week in which you were present in this thread repeatedly and thus had enough time to evaluate the truth to them and then - absolutely coincidental, when you felt slightly offended by a comment of mine, you all of a sudden change your mind and revert them...--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as it took you several days to respond to my post here, it took me some time to notice your edits. I reverted your problematic edits the day I noticed them, but please note that I did not revert all of your edits (which I imagine I would have done if it were spite that motivated my reversion, rather than your wanton disregard for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially for FAs). I am busy in real life and do not always notice everything right away. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

PS Please read WP:AGF and see that we are supposed to assume good faith here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of other users here who didn't object my edits, at all, the only one is you,actually, and, like it is evident in the discussion history you were present here several times before you reverted...--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning point 1: I didn't do that on purpose, you should know that, and using this as an argument why my edits are not right, is off-topic, as are the minor spelling mistakes, and pointing them out for like the 10th time is actually a bit of nit-picking, to be honest.

Point 2: My addition:

"... implying it is part of the unspoken "etiquette" between explorers that it is principally indecorous to work on territory that has already been engaged by another explorer, proven by the fact that his Terra Nova group did not land at the Bay Of Whales, where Roald Amundsen had set up his camp, but conceded the field of work to him and searched for another place to land."

indeed has a citation, as it is a transliteration of the quote I added in front of it explaining it and adding no personal view at all.

"Our plans have of course been decided for us. We cannot according to etiquette trench on their winter quarters, but must return to McMurdo Sound and then go off to Robertson Bay and settle ourselves as best as we can"^[1]

(Concerning the situation that Amundsen already landed at the Bay Of Whales, where a part of the Terra Nova expedition initially planned to land but did not do so according to etiquette).

Point 3: This is not a detail of the expedition, but an important fact concerning the doubtful reproach you quoted, that Scott "should have never ethically demanded" Shackleton to land elsewhere. Your quote is completely ignoring the wide-known fact that there's the etiquette between explorers I quoted from Priestley...I'll come back to the other points another time.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Without wishing to hammer this small point to death, the "etiquette" issue is problematic. Scott himself had no compunction, when he led the Discovery expedition, in following in the footsteps of Borchgrevink. In fact, he specifically sought out Borchgrevink's landing place on the Great Ice Barrier as a possible base for his own expedition, before settling for McMurdo Sound. Scott's rivalry with Shackleton led him to demand that the latter did not encroach on McMurdo Sound, but he had no acknowledged right to do so. The reason Campbell's eastern party did not set up camp at the Bay of Whales was less a matter of etiquette, whatever Pristley's diary says, rather that Amundsen's was a rival expedition in direct competition with Scott's. Amundsen saw the issue differently, and offered Campbell facilities, which were politely declined. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to commend you,Brian, for the input you gave and the aspects you mentioned, they are interesting and give food for thought. Let's start with your assumption that "The reason Campbell's eastern party did not set up camp at the Bay of Whales was less a matter of etiquette, whatever Pristley's diary says, rather that Amundsen's was a rival expedition in direct competition with Scott's.. Please not that the etiquette I am talking about is all about rival expeditions in competition and it doesn't necessarily is limited to simultaneousness. Although Scott and Shackleton were not competing in a contemporaneous expedition, they still were in direct competition to conquer the pole for their fatherland. I'll get round to this later on. Let's stick with Amundsen for now.

His offering of facilities probably has to be seen as some kind of indemnification for the concealing of his intention to challenge Scott to a duell, just like his try of reparation by sending Scott the telegram he'd go southwards at the very last moment(with the word AMUNDSEN in capital letters at the end, by the way). Once again a matter of etiquette, or rather its blatant breach.

Your theory that Amundsen's offer to Campbell was some kind of recompense for his misdeeds is domewhat fanciful, and is not supported by sources. The fact is that, although Amundsen was wide condemned, particularly in England, for his deception in concealing his intentions, he was absolutely entitled to attempt to reach the South Pole, as indeed was the Japanese expedition at the sam time.

Concerning the interpretation "Scott himself had no compunction, when he led the Discovery expedition, in following in the footsteps of Borchgrevink"., you have got to take into consideration that Borchgrevink was not in direct competition with Scott and he did not state his intentions to undertake another antarctic expedition anytime before the Discovery-Expedition, until 1902, eventually. Consequently, there was no obligation for Scott to feel any kind of compunction towards him, while it was sufficiently known to Shackleton that Scott was aiming for another expedition to Antarctica.

Borchgrevink, by the way praised Scott as "the first in the field with a finely organised expedition and the first who did systematic work on the great south polar continent" and this statement is pretty strongly contravening depictions in the article like "In Markham's view, professionalism was considered less praiseworthy than "unforced aptitude",[21] and possibly Scott was influenced by Markham's belief" and both the preceding and the subsequent sentence's description. But this is another topic.

Well, as is evident below, he said no such thing. But whoever said it, it does not alter Markham's view, expressed in the source, that "obvious professionalism was less praiseworthy than to excel by unforced aptitude". That is what, according to the source, Markham thought. Scott himself, in The Voyage of the Discovery, admitted that his expedition's ignorance was "deplorable". It is made clear in all the expedition histories that the Discovery expedition was underprepared; much had to be learned on the hoof, and not all the lessons were absorbed - but that, to paraphrase you, is a different topic. Brianboulton (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What Borchgrevink did say is "Noone without personal experience of what antarctic cold means can speak about it or understand it.". The other quote from above was not said by "anyone", but by Capt.Einar Mikkelsen, an explorer by himself, therefore another calibre than any so-called "experts" who wrote a book presuming judgement and not owning sufficient capability to fully understand all the implications. Concerning Scott's quote of "ignorance", it might be referring to inexperience rather than unpreparedness. What Mikkelsen is driving at is that the expeditions precedenting the Discovery one were inferior both in terms of degree of organization and the amount of systematic work.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, although Scott and Shackleton were not competing in a contemporaneous expedition, they still were in direct competition to conquer the pole for their fatherland.In addition,Scott already had carried out preliminary work at the McMurdo Sound, therefore making it a tilled field and gaining priority of a legitimate claim. You are claiming Scott had an obligation to give Shackleton complete leeway towards their mutual, ultimative goal - namely the pole, by offering him on a silver table the opportunity to beat him as a competitor and shatter his life's work , taking all the credit and becoming the hero both were rather eager to become, while harvesting the fruits of the labour Scott had already carried out? This is actually a bit much. Which competitor, which contestant would have agreed to this? Probably only a pretty stupid one... And asking for altruism during a competition where it is played for high stakes is a bit too much of a demand, especially at a rival explorer competing for the same, glorious task. Hence it is actually pretty far-fetched to blame Scott for not offering the victory on a silver table! What you are demanding of Scott even isn't only offering a silver but a golden table with diamond decor and platin ornamentation. Therefore the cited quote that it "never should have ethically been demanded" is quite a bit of non-sense, in my humble opinion.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I admire your enthusiasm, but you mustn't let it run away to the extent of overstating your point to this exaggerated degree. At the time that Shackleton set up the Nimrod expedition, Scott had not announced his intentions to lead another expedition. Under pressure from the British polar establishment Shackleton agreed to avoid landing in McMurdo Sound. Even Scott's generally sympathetic biographer David Crane thought Scott's attitude on this occasion was ungenerous and unworthy, and the polar historian Beau Riffenbaugh is even more vehement. Shackleton did indeed attempt to honour the undertaking, but when the practical choice, in his view, came down to going to McMurdo Sound or withdrawing his expedition altogether, Shackleton chose the former course. Modern accounts tend to absolve Shackleton from any real blame, while accepting that events may have been regarded differently at the time. I have slightly added to the text to clarify this point, and am convinced that it properly reflects the sources—your own outrage on behalf of Scott notwithstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Scott's intentions to field another expedition must have been sufficiently known to Shackleton. In their conversation(s) about Shackleton's demand concerning the McMurdo Sound, this surely was the very first argument he was given by Scott. Therefore the argument, that it hadn't been announced publicly, does not really apply. Nor it is taken into account or given reference in the article that Shackleton had set up Scott against him during the Discovery-Expedition and to what extent he therewith undermined Scott's cooperativeness.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally: I entirely support Ruhrfisch's decision to revert the edits of Commissioner Gordon, which I believe breached WP's neutrality policies. As one of the article's principal authors I'd like to thank Ruhrfisch for his patient and courteous efforts to maintain the article's quality at featured standard. I have not myself edited the article in any significant way for several years; I don't consider my prose as set in stone, and within the overriding constraints of reliable sources and neutrality, positive contributions are always welcome. Scott still seems, 100 years on, to inflame and divide opinion, and one of the problems in writing the article was to balance the highly contrasting perspectives presented on the one hand by critics such as Huntford, and on the other by Scott loyalists like Fiennes. Encyclopedic neutrality will never satisfy those who want Scott to be uncompromisingly vindicated, nor those seeking his permanent discrediting, but that is what neutrality means: presenting the information with minimal rhetoric and letting readers form their own opinion. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

BRD part II

I have removed another Commissioner Gordon edit as soon as I saw it and checked it. Here it is (the first sentence) with the second sentence what was already in the article and immediately followed the addition:

According to the Antarctic explorer Carsten Borchgrevink, Scott "had done splendid work in the antarctic" and "was the first in the field with a finely organised expedition and the first who did systematic work on the great south polar continent".[20] Although experience of Antarctic or Arctic waters was almost entirely lacking within the 50-strong party, there was very little special training in equipment or techniques before the ship set sail.[21]

My objection is that it is misleading in the extreme to quote Borchgrevnik's statement after Scott's death in 1913 by putting it into the article as part of the description of Scott's first Antarctic expedition (Discovery, 1901). The quote does not make sense without context (see provide context to the reader). As it stood in one sentence, Scott's work and organization in the field were praised and in the next the members of the Discovery expedition are described as almost entirely lacking in polar experience and having little training either. It made no logical sense in the position where it was inserted, and was misleading. On the nitpick side, per WP:ITALIC and WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations are not normally italicized, and the date accessed should presumably be in July 2013 (I know this was largely copied from the Borchgrevnik article and the access date from that was copied here). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your claim that the quote "is misleading in the extreme to quote Borchgrevnik's statement after Scott's death in 1913 by putting it into the article as part of the description of Scott's first Antarctic expedition (Discovery, 1901)" is easily disprovable. You overlooked that the quote is actually referring to the Discovery Expedition, because it can't refer to the Terra Nova one, as the Nimrod Expedition by Ernest Shackleton was probably more sophisticated than the Discovery one, due to the learned experience of the Discovery and the fact that every expedition learns from the other... And if you think it belongs to the Terra Nova Expedition, you could have at least placed it there instead of completely deleting it. But as I said, it refers to the Discovery Expedition, otherwise it would imply that the Nimrod one wasn't finely organised and systematic, which probably wasn't the case--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the original New York Times article and it seems to me that the quotes in question are from "Danish explorer Capt. Einar Mikkelsen", not Carsten Borchgrevink. See here. Could someone else please check this? If so, the Borchgrevink article will need to be fixed too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems like you're right, it is misleading as the latter part of the quote is printed on the upper right, while the initial part is on the lower left side. So the quote is in all probability indeed by Danish explorer Capt.Einar Mikkelsen.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

BRD part III

Commissioner Gordon has just removed a link to Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott three times. This is in a hatnote using the {{main}} template at the top of the "Modern reaction" section. CG's edit summaries say that this article should not link to one whose neutrality is disputed. First off, there is nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking justifying this (or anywhere else in the MOS that I can find). Second, the "Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott" article had the {{POV}} tag added here with the edit summary "Some of the claims made in the lead are too general, clearly POV and require citations" which does not follow WP:LEAD. I removed the POV tag on the Controversies article and removed to "proveit" (citation needed) tags, as the material was clearly cited in the body of the article. There is still one where tag in the lead, but I think the general tone of Scott being portrayed as a bungler fits well enough with the claim of ridicule to remove the POV tag.

As I said, the article you are linking has been questioned by numerous users and the onesidedness of it's arguments is blatantly obvious, citing hardly a hand full of authors (Oh, Huntford, what a surprise= and leaving the requests by other fellow Wikipedians to back with more credible citations left unanswered for more than four months and counting. Consequently, the link you tried to implement is thoroughly contradicting encylopedic principles so there is no other choice but revert in order to uphold the principles of neutrality and impartiality.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article I think it has too many images in the Glorification section, so I am going to remove the Portsmouth statue photo I added (which is not otherwise mentioned in the article) and leave the Hut Point cross photo (as that is the oldest memorial and is mentioned in the article). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

First ascertainment of truth is that the term "Glorification" itself is a tendentious and partial phrase. Its word stem originates from "apotheosis", meaning "to glamourize" and "to aggrandize". But I am not very surprised to be denied a much more neutral and unprejudiced term like "Contemporary Reaction" being used rather a phrase rooting for Shackleton i.e. against Scott, to be honest.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Another ascertainment is that you added a new topic, but did not put in the correct place, namely underneath the last topic, but in front of the false pretenses you invented in the topic right below! You should keep in mind it is not desirable for Wikipedia as a whole to have members distort and falsify both the discussion context and the image of a great man.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Commissioner Gordon, please stop

Please use this talk page to discuss the article's content. Personal quarrels, if they must be had, can be conducted on relevant user talk pages. Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Commissioner Gordon, please stop your personal attacks on me - see Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. You just added back a picture to this article diff with the edit summary "Revert vandalistic erasure and defraud of an original image (Ruhrfisch)". First off, I did not make the edit removing the picture in the first place diff. Second, removing a picture after discussing it on the talk page first is not vandalism, nor is it fraud (or whatever "defraud", which is a verb, means when used as a noun). Accusing me of vandalism and fraud (for an edit I did not make) is a clear personal attack. If you keep this up, you may well be blocked on both the English and German Wikipedias. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

PS When your edit summary for this edit diff is "Revert Ruhrfisch's misplacement of IP's comment - underneath a different conversation - to its original position" you might want to check things first. The IP user (who I assumed was you) originally added the comment with 8 or so colons to indent their comment diff. I meant to copy the colons, paste them and add one colon at the start of my reply, but instead cut and pasted them, removing the colons (my mistake) diff. I then added the colons back diff, and then you restored my mistake. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For the moment I'll leave it at that:

You cut out the "undo" option (right at the bottom, the last edit on 18th of march, 2012) and the picture was deleted with this edit. Since I pointed it out you obviously "changed" the version history and blamed Brian Boulton for doing it - instead of taking responsibility for yourself

http://www.upload-pictures.de/bild.php/37124,verstossruhrfisch8KRMW.jpg

In comparison, the version history after another "intervention" by the user "Ruhrfisch" , to cover his tracks:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Robert_Falcon_Scott&offset=20120423141643&action=history

...........--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The above edits are offensive rubbish. There is no question of Ruhrfisch trying to "blame" me for his edits, or evading responsiblity for his own work. He is one of Wikipedia's most trusted editors, with a long history of fair-minded reviews and careful stewardship of articles. He also is a model of polite courtesy in his dealings with other editors, something you would do well to observe and imitate. You should withdraw your remarks immediately and apologise unreservedly to him for your personal attacks, and to me for your infernal nerve in using my name in this way. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done nothing else but discovering abnormalities in the version history that needed to be adressed while I have given evidence of it. This is no personal attack whatsoever, especially as the edit I mean originally also contained a removal of a Scott-statue's image, but this information has somehow vanished, too, and this is obviously suspicious. Referring to this as "offensive rubbish" is a starkly manner that really lacks respect. Apologizing for what? Discovering an irregularity in an edit and wanting the community to check whether there's something going on against the rules? Especially because the given explanation has turned out to be unfounded? You can't close your eyes to wrongdoings, try to sweep them under the carpet just because of cordial buddy-buddy mechanisms. This is obviously wrong. "A model of polite courtesy", ROFL, how can you judge someone when you're on the same side, namely being a heavy supporter of Ernest Shackleton? The whole Shackleton article is a big whitewash while this one is defying the odds, in my opinion. Someone who can't deal with others refuting his arguments runs to a chummy responsible, pretenses false allegations and sicks a block on someone to get rid of an unwanted contributor - how fair-minded is that? Running out of arguments and not be able to help oneself without disrespectful comments and deliberate provocations happens to polite? Making allegations that lack any foundation to muzzle your enemy - these are all features I definitely don't feel the slightest need to "imitate". The same applies to persuading someone to talk German with you and then claim there were personal attacks in that German talk (which was completely invented knowing that the Admins can't read it) is shockingly fake and rude.I absolutely feel no need to apologize to people who are acting in this deceitful kind of way and these are patterns of behaviour I definitely don't feel the slightest need to "imitate", whatsoever.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian, thanks for your kind words about me. CG is currently blocked, so he cannot edit here. I have pointed out how WP:UNDO explains what he saw at his talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction, I was blocked because you made allegations you were not even remotely able to substantiate in the subsequent discussion. "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." applies here. If I sticked to that rule, I would need to start an investigation on this faked block and its violation resulting in a sanction against you, but this just would be another skirmish that would distract from the original need - to free this article of biased and one-sided passages. A prime example is the Discovery section that actually consists of pointing out unpreparedness and to say in a roundabout way that Scott would be the only one to blame for that, no mention that he wasn't even involved in all aspects of the preparation and that contemporaries like Hugh Robert Mill, librarian of the Royal Geographical Society said Scott"if anyone, could bring order out of the chaos which had overtaken the plans and preparations".. Concealing positive statements like this and only pointing out things diminuishing Scott's achievements is not only embezzling to the reader but greatly contradicts the requirements of neutrality in an encyclopaedic context. The same goes for the embarassingly biased and ashamedly one-sided Controversies article (that deliberately tells not even half of the whole story and intentionally conceals all arguments from the other side of the spectrum...). This article hadn't been linked for ages or even at all, and out of some emotional situation, he recently just added it to the Main Scott article, despite its violations of neutrality and biasedness. The most logic thing to not let this article's neutrality be further undermined was to simply remove that link. Ruhrfisch fought tooth and nails to prevent me from doing this (which once again shows that he's not interested in adding any positive aspects concerning the person Robert Falcon Scott whatsoever and tries with a vengeance to prevent anyone from doing so, by the way). It is no accident that from my edits, which included mentioning aspects of misfortune like the extraordinarily base character of some of the ponies, comments about the man-hauling or statements from contemorary explorers, all of these have been removed by this single user! And then he even has the nerve to accuse me of "disruptive editing"... ROFL, once again. And while I'm blocked he again reverts another 3 edits of mine without any justification whatsoever or opening a discussion or anything? I don't see how this is to be called either "fair-minded", "polite", correct, neutral or whatsoever. These are acts of impudence, aim at concealing facts and greatly undermine this article's neutrality and encyclopedic value.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And Ruhrfisch, no, what you explained to me, "that the undo button had completely disappeared because of a conflict with another edit" is not true, as I have been told by Wikipedia that Undo buttons do not disappear at all, regardless whether there's a conflict or not; you just can't click it but it stays...--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Point of view terms used in the Scott article

In the modern reaction it is said:

"Scott's reputation survived the period after World War II, beyond the 50th anniversary of his death."

This is rather obvious Point-of-view-terminology. Saying something has survived only until a certain point in time basically means it's dead. Captain Scott's reputation is far from dead, so this is not a true representation of reality.

A correct encyclopedic term would be:

"Scott's high reputation remained uncontested until the period after World War II, beyond the 50th anniversary of his death."

Another problem is that it is spoken of a timeframe beyond World War II, but the first book that is mentioned offering criticism in the next sentence is from 1966. Here we have a difference of more than 20 years that are claimed to belong to the time that Scott's high reputation had been contested, while in reality they belong to the uncontested period. Consequently, this is another passage that needs further rectifying clarfification.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - this editor has been indefinitely blocked, so replying is probably a moot point. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)