Talk:Terra Nova Expedition

First Paragraph

The first sentence used to read "...with the purpose of undertaking scientific research and exploration..." and only later in the paragraph did it mention the goal to be the first to the Pole. Not sure if it was worded that way on purpose but it sounded as if the journey to the Pole was secondary to the science. Scott felt the science was important (and it played an important role in obtaining funding for the expedition) but his primary goal was to be the first to the Pole for Britain. I re-worded it in this vein. Zatoichi26 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Being first to the Pole was important but at the time of the planning of the expedition there was no great urgency, as there was no other expeditions known of. Amundsen's sudden announcement that he was going for the Pole changed everything, and turned it into a 'race'.

If the 'science' had not been important then Scott's Pole party would not have encumbered themselves with a considerable weight of rock samples for the geologists back at the RGS. These rock samples were still with them when their bodies were discovered.

If Scott had known beforehand that the expedition was going to be involved in 'a race to the Pole' against Amundsen it is likely Scott would have organised the expedition differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Notes on Expedition members

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)

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)

A note on some recent changes

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)

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)

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)

Karen May absolutely butchered Scott's written instructions for the use of the dogs. Heavily editing them to make it appear that Scott had given a direct order that should have been obeyed to the letter.

The full text of Scott's instructions adds much confusion to the issue IV.—INSTRUCTIONS FOR DOG TEAMS. October 20. DEAR MEARES,—In order that there may be no mistake concerning the important help which it is hoped the dog teams will give to the Southern Party, I have thought it best to set down my wishes as under: Assuming that you carry two bags of oilcake to Hut Point, I want you to take these with five bags of forage to Corner Camp before the end of the month. This will leave two bags of forage at Hut Point.

If the motors pass Hut Point en route for the Barrier, I should be glad to get all possible information of their progress. About a day after they have passed if you are at Hut Point I should like you to run along their tracks for half a day with this object. The motors will pick up the two bags of forage at Hut Point—they should be placed in a convenient position for this purpose.

The general scheme of your work in your first journey over the Barrier has been thoroughly discussed, and the details are contained in Table VIII of my plan of which you should have a copy. I leave you to fix the date of your departure from Hut Point, observing that I should like you to join me at One Ton Camp, or very shortly after.

We cannot afford to wait. Look for a note from me at Corner Camp. The date of your return must be arranged according to circumstances. Under favourable conditions you should be back at Hut Point by December 19 at latest.

After sufficient rest I should like you to transport to Hut Point such emergency stores as have not yet been sent from Cape Evans. At this time you should see that the Discovery Hut is provisioned to support the Southern Party and yourself in the autumn in case the ship does not arrive.

At some time during this month or early in January you should make your second journey to One Ton Camp and leave there:

             5 units X.S. ration.
             3 cases of biscuit.
             5 gallons of oil.
    As much dog food as you can conveniently carry (for third journey).

This depot should be laid not later than January 19, in case of rapid return of first unit of Southern Party.

Supposing that you have returned to Hut Point by January 13, there will be nothing for you to do on the Southern road for at least three weeks. In this case, and supposing the ice conditions to be favourable, I should like you to go to Cape Evans and await the arrival of the ship.

The ship will be short-handed and may have difficulty in landing stores. I should like you to give such assistance as you can without tiring the dogs.

About the first week of February I should like you to start your third journey to the South, the object being to hasten the return of the third Southern unit and give it a chance to catch the ship. The date of your departure must depend on news received from returning units, the extent of the depot of dog food you have been able to leave at One Ton Camp, the state of the dogs, etc.

Assuming that the ship will have to leave the Sound soon after the middle of March, it looks at present as though you should aim at meeting the returning party about March 1 in Latitude 82 or 82.30. If you are then in a position to advance a few short marches or "mark time" for five or six days on food brought, or ponies killed, you should have a good chance of affecting your object.

You will carry with you beyond One Ton Camp one X.S. ration, including biscuit and one gallon of paraffin, and of course you will not wait beyond the time when you can safely return on back depots.

You will of course understand that whilst the object of your third journey is important, that of the second is vital. 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 this service, a man party must be organised.

(Signed) R.F. SCOTT.

Karen May did not mention the last 2 paragraphs in her attempt to shift blame elsewhere. Firstly it is clear that Scott did not want the dogs to be sacrificed to feed each other. Secondly he is clear that the third journey was not as important as the second. Thirdly, he gives a great deal of licence as to when that third journey should commence. Given Meares only returned to Base on January 5th (when the man rations had already been taken to One Ton Depot) Given that Meares planned to leave on the ship and did not intend to risk missing it and being marooned in the Antarctic for another year and given that Atkinson only returned to base on January 29th. It was unsurprising that nobody set out in the first week of February.

Atkinson set out on 13th with enough supplies to last until March 19th, plenty of time to meet Scott at 82.30 and return home.

The real issue was that he firstly remained at Hut point for 6 days unwilling to travel in bad weather, depleting the available dog food. Then he prioritised the rescue of Teddy Evans before sending Cherry-Garrard South after a total delay of 11 days. By this time it would be impossible to meet Scott at 82.30. The problem for Cherry-Garrard was that if he proceeded beyond One Ton Depot he risked missing Scott's party travelling in the opposite direction and he had only just enough food for both dogs and men to dash for the mount Hooper depot and leave a week's rations there. As it was he was also unable to travel because of bad weather so even one day's delay meant he could not reach the next depot.

Looking at this sequence of events objectively and without bias, Atkinson set off in good time to meet Scott. He was unable or unwilling to travel in adverse conditions. He then prioritised rescuing a dying man over meeting the returning party, leaving Cherry-Garrard to carry out the task.

Scott left little safety margin in his plans. In all the journals I have read the various personalities remark on his meticulous planning of every detail. Yet he delayed his start because he could not afford to lose a single more pony and then got caught out by the onset of winter, resulting in frostbite rendering his party incapable of completing the return journey.

86.165.185.45 (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why did Scott follow Shackleton's route ?

I believe that Shackleton reached well above (or below) the 88th southern latitude. But Shackleton simply had to return less than 100 miles from the pole. Hence that path was known to be a very difficult one. Knowledge is indeed good to have, but in this case ought Shackleton's knowledge have been a warning - "any route but this one". I'm not aware how Amundsen chose his route, but he had a rather comfortable journey compared to Scott. What do we know today about the best route ? Boeing720 (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly it was a case of Better the Devil you know. Whilst there may have been better, easier routes, it was also possible they might waste weeks trying a different route that proved to be impassable. Once it was known Amundsen was going for the Pole time was a luxury they no longer possessed.

Indeed. It was considered thar Shackleton was fortunate in discovering the Beardmore Glacier because it presented the only visable way to ascend to the higher Polar summit. To search for another route would require more rations and therefore more men, ponies or dogs to carry those rations plus their own rations on top.

Amunden was simply more fortunate in finding a narrower obstruction, though instinctively he had chosem a closer starting point for his base. He also employed the best skier in his team to scout ahead to find the best ground (and for the dogs to have someone to chase, a detail that Scott failed to pick up on.)86.165.186.208 (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Amundsen's route was made possible because unlike the Scott party he wasn't carrying substantial amounts of scientific equipment with him.

Some details that could be clarfied on this page.

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"

"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."

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"

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." 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. 86.165.246.193 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

References

External links modified

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This is still an issue,

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 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. 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."

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)

I anyone is interested I have found a link to the entire text to Evans' book South With Scott where many later sources appear to be in contradiction to his eye witness account, http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18129/pg18129.txt 86.165.186.208 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Cherry-Garrard "had never handled a dog before"

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.

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)

Before the expedition had Cherry ever handled a dog team? DrKay (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Attemps to Relieve The Polar Party

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)

1. Several events occurred to obscure and ultimately frustrate this order. The fact that Meares had turned back from the polar march much later than originally planned meant that he did not return to Cape Evans until 5 January.

There is no verification for this nor any explanation why this was a problem or how much of a problem it was. Scott's instructions advised that the timing for the trip to 82 south would depend on news from returning parties, the state of the dogs etc. The trip to resupply One Ton Depot with dog food and extra rations were to provide the means to make the trip to 82 south. From Cherry-Garrard's account we can confirm that Meares arrived back later than expected and the dogs had "made heavy weather of the journey" taking from December 24th - January 5th to travel from Mounter Hooper depot to their base. In order to carry out Scott's instructions to the letter Meares would need to start out almost immediately to make the 14 day round trip to One Ton to leave enough food for men and dogs to reach 82 south. He would then return to base "at the end of February or early March" when the orders suggested that the trip to 82 south begin. This would leave virtually no time for the dogs to recover from the extended trip to the foot of the Beardmore Glacier or the trip to One Ton itself after which they would be expected to go back beyond to 82 south. The timing of Meares return made the resupply of One Ton with dog and man rations entirely impractical. Cherry-Garrard confirms this in his own narrative after reading a note from Meares which was left at Mount Hooper December 24th. This is also borne out by the fact that when the dogs were sent to One Ton 5 weeks later, after only doing light work at the base, that trip alone rendered them unfit for further barrier work until the next season. This was without attempting the 600 mile round trip to Mount Hooper at all. There would be no point in wearing out the dogs in a trip to resupply One Ton if it meant the dogs would then be unfit to carry out the journey to 82s. The difficulty I have is in explaining this without falling foul of the "no original research" law. or making the article ponderously long.

2. Huntford suggests he resigned at this point because he was "disgusted" with Scott's expedition.[130] Fiennes in contrast quotes from a letter by Cherry-Garrard in 1938 that Meares had been ready at Cape Evans to resupply One Ton Depot as ordered, when he had seen the ship arrive in the bay and so stayed at base – the "ship" however turned out to be a mirage, and the real ship did not arrive until the middle of February. The problem with this is Cherry-Garrard didn't return to base until January 29th, along with Atkinson by which time it was definitely too late to resupply One Ton.

3. According to [ Fiennes, Meares was preoccupied with his late father's estate, and was anxious to leave on the ship as soon as he could. 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] Again the "missing" rations and the dog food would not be required if there was not enough time and the dogs were not fit enough to make the journey to 82 south.

Atkinson's aborted journey to meet Scott

4. Belatedly, on 13 February, Atkinson set out with Dimitri Gerov and the dog teams for the scheduled meeting with Scott on the Barrier, reaching Hut Point 13 miles South before being delayed by bad weather. [137] This was actually my own edit based on Evans's account, which makes it appear that Atkinson wasted valuable time by being unwilling or unable to carry on the journey. At this time Evans was not present, he was fighting for his life out on the barrier so he could not have known the reason for this delay first hand. Cherry-Garrard offers a greater insight into the reason for Atkinson waiting at One Ton. He was trying to calculate the optimum time to strike out to One Ton or beyond with the now limited resources available to him. Had Atkinson left any sooner he would have arrived too early to meet Scott. In fact had Oates not been stricken with frostbite the likely progress of the returning men would have placed them at Mount Hooper on March 4th and One Ton on March 9th. One Day before Cherry-Garrard returned to base. Again the difficulty is reducing this long winded explanation into a short summery supported verifiable quotes.

5. Atkinson therefore chose Cherry-Garrard, who could however not navigate, had never handled a dog before[dubious – discuss] and who was moreover short-sighted. Cherry-Garrard himself made the claim that he had never even handled one dog before let alone a whole team. However this may HAve been a piece of dramatic licence. In South with Scott Evans made a casual observations that some of the team practised driving dogs and it was Atkinson and Cherry-Garrard that became the relative experts. This throws a whole different light on the choice of Cherry-Garrard as the man to go to meet Scott. Rather than appearing to be a poor choice it makes him look like the most likely. I feel that both accounts should be represented to illustrate why the issue continues to be controversial.

6. 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.[147] There is nothing in the citation that suggests that she said any such thing. In any case Scott's written instructions for the final dog journey South clearly stated. "You will of course not wait beyond the time you can safely return on back depots".

86.178.255.74 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That is why I am using the talk page to discuss this. Firstly I think it would be best to agree on what information can be verified to the acceptable criteria. Then it will be a matter of presenting it in a coherent and concise manner

1. The "Heavy Weather" idiom is a direct quote from Cherry-Garrard's published work The Worst Journey in the World." I gave a citation for that. The longer passage goes into detail about Meares return trip, how he reached Mount Hooper depot on December 24th, having run out of rations due to the longer return journey and how he had to take rations from those left for the returning man haulers. Within this passage there is also a comment from Cherry-Garrard where he (and presumably Atkinson who was with him) became concerned because it was apparent that Meares would arrive back too late and the dogs would be too unfit to resupply One Ton Depot.

I will quote here and link (again) to the entire book quote chapter and closest footnote. (The online publication doesn't give page numbers)

Meares himself had an anxious time finding his way home. The dog tracks also helped us a good deal: the dogs were sinking deeply and making """"heavy weather of it."""" (pictures) At the Barrier Depôts we found rather despondent notes from Meares about his progress.

At the Middle Barrier Depôt we found a note from him dated December 20. "Thick weather and blizzards had delayed him, and once he had got right off the tracks and had been out from his camp hunting for them. They were quite well: a little eye strain from searching for cairns. He was taking a little butter from each bag [of the three depôted weekly units], and with this would have enough to the next depôt on short rations."[255] At the Upper Glacier Depôt [Mount Hooper] the news from Meares was dated Christmas Eve, in the evening: "The dogs were going slowly but steadily in very soft stuff, especially his last two days. He was running short of food, having only biscuit crumbs, tea, some cornflour, and half a cup of pemmican. He was therefore taking fifty biscuits, and a day's provisions for two men from each of our units. He had killed one American dog some camps back: if he killed more he was going to kill Krisravitza who he said was the fattest and laziest. We shall take on thirty biscuits short."[256] Meares was to have turned homewards with the two dog-teams in lat. 81° 15´. Scott took him on to approximately 83° 35´. The dogs had the ponies on which to feed: to make up the deficiency of man-food we went one biscuit a day short when going up the Beardmore: """"but the dogs went back slower than was estimated"""" and his provisions were insufficient. """"It was evident that the dog-teams would arrive too late and be too done to take out the food which had still to be sledged to One Ton for the three parties returning from the plateau."""" It was uncertain whether a man-hauling party with such of this food as they could drag would arrive at the depôt before us.[257] We might have to travel the 130 geographical miles from One Ton to Hut Point on the little food which was already at that depôt and we were saving food by going on short rations to meet this contingency if it arose. Judge therefore our joy when we reached One Ton in the evening of January 15 to find three of the five XS rations which were necessary for the three parties.

The object of this edit is to demonstrate that there is evidence that Meares did not willfully refuse to follow Scott's original instructions but that having been taken 170 miles further than originally planned, it was impractical for him to do so. This is not original research. The evidence is in the published accounts. It is the rhetoric of contemporary authors that have clouded the issue. Now you accept that the phrase "Heavy Weather" is not nonsensical and that there is a verifiable source for the edit that you keep deleting. Can we agree on a form that you find to be "coherent"?

This is the form you continue to revert.

The dogs had made heavy weather of the return journey and Meares had been forced to kill one of the weaker animals to sustain the rest and on Christmas Eve he had to take a total of 6 days rations for himself out of the 3 XS units at Mount Hooper. When Cherry-Garrard read the note Meares left explaining this, he realised that the dogs would arrive back too late and in too poor a condition to resupply One Ton Depot.

Further to this What: "Huntford claimed" belongs in the subsection "controversy regarding the use of the dogs". Constantly having to argue against revionist rhetoric in every sub section is what makes this subject so annoyingly cumbersome. It's enough to know that Meares didn't go to One Ton Depot at this point, rather than having to listen to a lot of guff about why some 1980's author thinks he didn't.

A neutral presentation of the position might read: With the vital rations having been man-hauled to One Ton Depot, Meares declined to resupply the dog food and extraa man rations there, instead remaining at Cape Evans awaiting and assisting in the unloading of the ship. Scott was aware that Meares was likely to return home with the ship and might not be available to make the proposed journey to meet the Polar Party beyond One Ton. His written instructions made no contingency plan for this eventuality beyond the transportation of the vital XS rations, but his final verbal instructions to Atkinson were to "come as far as you can".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.255.74 (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC) 

Karen May "may" explicitly say she believed Atkinson invented the order but the very same Instructions she claimed to have "rediscovered" (I purchased a second hand copy of the book in 1994) clearly states. "You will of course not wait beyond the time that you can safely return on back depots." May's article, published in 2010 would be what we call "Fake News" today. There is no evidence besides a brief article in the Daily Telegraph that anyone took her blogging seriously. Comes under WP:TRUTH?

She quotes those parts of Scott's instructions that appear to support her point of view, while entirely ignoring the advisory aspects that demonstrate that they were not strict orders to be obeyed without question but a contingency plan to cover a number of eventualities. Huntford claimed Scott was a bungler who gave contradictory and confusing orders. May countered this by claiming that he left direct orders and that his subordinates disobeyed them. Neither opinion is supported by the historical records or the eyewitness accounts of Evans and Cherry-Garrard.

That is what I would like to illustrate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.255.74 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Evans able to cover distance, Atkinson not

"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)

Maybe it was a "Cap Cozier" type of day for Atkinson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.11.67 (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Legay/impact needs contemporary update

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)

Add section for Tera Nova in media

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) Jay Sokolow

I agree with this, I think it would be useful to link depictions of the expedition in media. For example, this film should definitely be linked in the article: Scott of the Antarctic (film). Isiostar (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Removal of info-box

Jay D. Easy, I'm afraid I disagree with you completely about the removal of the infobox, which I think was genuinely useful. I accommodated your wish to avoid the infobox making it sound as though the expedition was just a rush for the pole. I'm disappointed you reverted my reversion as this is the beginning of edit-warring, which is not how we should do things. Can we discuss this and come up with a compromise? You did the "B" of WP:BRD, I did the "R", so we should now get to the "D" bit of it... Elemimele (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure. So in your last version of the infobox before I reverted it there were still a number of issues. I'm going to name them even though there's a simple solution to our dispute (which I wrote further down).

1. This one is minor, but still: The 'Start' label having a location is odd. Not every expedition travels from point A to point B. Also if there's a start location, why is there no end location? Yes, the expedition consisted of multiple parties that generally did travel linearly, but either we add all those too—thus cluttering the infobox—or, preferably, we don't use this label at all.
2. The number of crew was certainly not 5. The actual number of people involved seems to be 65, although that's open for debate. The fact that the number chosen (5) needs to be clarified in brackets also makes it WP:UNDUE.
3. Survivors: 0. Objectively false. Everyone survived except the 5 people in the South Pole party. Again, WP:UNDUE. (Also it's probably better to the use fatalities parameter here instead of survivors)
4. The route map. Cherry-Garrard and the western geological parties would like to have a word with you about this. Hence, WP:UNDUE.

However, my main issue with your version of the infobox is its location at the top of the article. I'd have no problem with any of the above if the infobox were moved to the South polar journey section instead (apart from my preference for the fatalities parameter as opposed to survivors). Jay D. Easy (t) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and incorporated the infobox into the aforementioned section. What's your opinion? Jay D. Easy (t) 21:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Jay D. Easy, I agree that's a very reasonable solution. My impression is now that the article rightly describes the entire multi-year campaign, with its multiple geographical and scientific aims, and its plethora of people taking part in different capacities, but helpfully provides the info-box for the unfortunate bit on which public attention focuses. But by moving the info-box, you've attached it to the part of the story to which it applies, and stopped it from obscuring the bigger picture. I have to admit, it's a happy improvement, so thanks for that! Elemimele (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear! I also got to thinking about what I said earlier about the infobox in Amundsen's South Pole expedition and decided to reinstate it, albeit heavily tweaked. I have to admit that it actually makes sense for the infobox to be in the lead section there, as that expedition's sole aim—contrary to Scott's—was in fact to reach the South Pole first. Jay D. Easy (t) 22:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are the pictures only composed of people? Surely, surely there are other pictures they took of landscapes and nature?

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)