Talk:Robert Falcon Scott

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

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

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

Historical units

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

will be replaced by:

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

with a footnote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consulting Unites of measurement [[2]] I read

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

will be replaced by:

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

with a footnote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY

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

distance in geographical miles (conversion to km)

These changes are in line with wiki policies including:

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

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

3. Additional reasons are evidenced above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath (talk • contribs)

You don't get to "insist" on anything, I'm afraid. (I don't either - no-one does, and it's the best way to annoy every other editor you're trying to work with). We currently have something that does along the guidelines as you have posted on this page "Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long." We are in line with our own guidelines and no-one is confused by the two measurements. To clarify matters even further, I am in agreement with Ahiijny that we need to clarify the type of mileage we are using (linking at first mention) and also having a footnote to explain that Scott used nautical miles in diaries, as other explorers also did, but stating that the article is using statute miles.

Again, please sign your posts. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

FROM NOW ON famed Scott's last entry in his journal

"Wednesday, March 21. Got within 11 miles of depot Monday night …"

rendered by SchroCat will read

"Wednesday, March 21. Got within 12.6 miles (20.4 km)°° of depot Monday night …"

°°In accordance with wiki policies.

Kids, remember, the last Scott's camp was 12.6 miles from salvation depot.

Mary Christmas - not according to wiki policies, but with common sense. New-polymath (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't quote the diary, so please don't try and make it look like I've changed a quote to comething ridiculous. The measurements are consistent throughout and in line with our guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Kids, remember, the last Scott's camp was 12.6 miles from salvation depot." Snark and sarcasm are not the best way to get other people to work with you. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you have changed this quote. I'm saying that it is changed. It was changed by "our guidelines" and for now "The measurements are consistent throughout" New-polymath (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You are giving that impression. Given some of your other discussion techniques here (deleting posts, sarcasm, an inability to take on board the guidelines, WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU and WP:IDONTLIKEIT), I'm not surprised. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I should not bother you. After all, it is entirely insignificant if it was 12.6 or 11 miles. The arguments for 12.6 are along with wiki policies and it should be sufficient, and we should understand that. Mentioned authors and +10 books with geographical miles are a particular publisher's policies that may differ from the one at the wiki. There is no point to follow these publishers' and authors' policies. I will suggest to publishers to change the upcoming publication of Scott's journals as to change his geographical miles into miles, for a better understanding of his journal by the readers. Not to say to unify the entire subject (Polar Exploration) with wiki standards and policies, which reflect modern trends and customs.

New-polymath (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

FFS... It does not matter what approach publishers take with regard to their own style manuals. I hope that fucking gets through to you, because so far all I'm getting from you is an WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU approach to this, and a refusal to be in any way flexible in your approach and an acknowledgement that WP does things in a different way than the way you would prefer to do it. As soon as you stop being disruptive and demanding that everything is done your way, the better it will be for everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A Request for Dispute Resolution was opened for this issue at the WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard if anyone would like to contribute. Or, if ya'll want to take a breath, walk away for a few, then come back a little calmer then contribute that would be great as well. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm ready, however, is that a part of wiki policies that SchroCat is saying to me FFS... or "I hope that fucking gets through to you". We would need form SchroCat more than "take a breath".

New-polymath (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC) New-polymath (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC) New-polymath (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to focus more on your own attitude and the fact you are driving long-term experienced editors to the point of despair over your intransigence and uyour inability to listen to anything but your own opinion and an inability to write English very well. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat "long-term experienced editor" talk: "FFS", "I hope that fucking gets through to you" and "inability to write English" SchroCat final arguments at the wiki. According to wiki policies, I presume?

New-polymath (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to suggest you both stop this now. SchroCat was not professional in his comment. New-polymath was not professional in his refusal to accept policy. Remember- we all want to make this the best article it can be, and continuing to pick at each other is not going to do that. So if you have more to add to the discussion- please do so, preferably at the dispute resolution page. But lets quit this please. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Nightenbelle, without enumerating policies which I do not accept your moderation is useless. Your response (mediation) is not referenced, and this is not to wiki policies that you need references. I do accept all policies as described above.

ALL POLICIES ARE ACCEPTED. New-polymath (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Historical units part 2

Ahhhhh I wake up and the discussion has already gotten this long... Uhh first of all, please allow me to attempt to provide a list of facts that we can agree on, and then we can hopefully continue from there (please correct me anywhere I'm mistaken). Summarizing the above section, I believe these are the assertions that have been made so far (with some inferences/interpretation on my part): Ahiijny (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Facts:

1. As a British expedition in the early 1910s, the Terra Nova expedition primarily used nautical miles/geographical miles and °F as units.
2. The difference between nautical miles (~1.852 km) and geographical miles (~1.855 km) in this context is negligible (geographical mile is equivalent to approximately ~1.00178 nautical miles).
3. In Scott's diary, he often uses "mile" unqualified to mean either a nautical mile or a geographical mile (but sometimes he's explicit in saying "nautical" or "geographical").
4. Sometimes Scott also uses "mile" to mean "statute mile" (i.e. 1.609 km), but this occurs less frequently.
5. In the parallel Norwegian expedition happening at the same time, Amundsen's expedition consistently used nautical miles and °C as units throughout.
6. Scott died 11 nautical miles (13mi; 20 km) away from his next supply depot. From his diary: "Wednesday, March 21. Got within 11 miles of depot Monday night …"

User:SchroCat's assertions:

1. Having three measurements (e.g. something like 11 nautical miles (13 mi; 20km)) is undesirable because it is clumsy, clunky, and stops the flow of reading.
2. Most readers will not know what a nautical mile is.
3. It is unhelpful to readers if we use an obscure measurement that most people will not understand.
   1. Edit: SchroCat cites the WP:JARGON guideline as support.
4. Burying the explanation in a footnote is unhelpful for mobile readers because the navigation is a pain, and so it will be missed by many readers.
5. The goal of Wikipedia is to try and make things as clear and easy to read as possible for as wide an audience as possible.

User:New-polymath's assertions:

1. The fact that Scott died 11 miles away from his next depot (11 miles in particular) is a particularly vivid statement often circulated in popular press and well-known to people familiar with this topic, and so omitting nautical miles in favour of other units would be undesirable in this particular case.
2. The article for Amundsen's South Pole expedition consistently uses nautical miles (with a conversion to kilometres in parentheses), and so it would be desirable to use a similar practice here.
3. It is established methodology in historical analysis to use the original (historical) measures of the past time, and then provide modern equivalence.
4. Existing books and literature on this subject overwhelmingly use nautical/geographical miles instead of statute miles or kilometres when discussing this topic. So, if we are to deviate from the experts on this subject, there should be a compelling reason.
   1. Edit: SchroCat points out that there are at least a few books which do use statute miles.

At this point in time, I would like to also cite some relevant sections from MOS:UNITS:

1. Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, provide a conversion in parentheses: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,508 kilometres (1,558 mi) long. But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so.
2. Where an imperial unit is not part of the US customary system, or vice versa – and in particular, where those systems give a single term different definitions – a double conversion may be appropriate: Rosie weighed 80 kilograms (180 lb; 12 st 8 lb) (markup: {{convert|80|kg|lb stlb}})
3. Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value, so the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not (236,121 mi). Small numbers, especially if approximate, may need to be converted to a range where rounding would cause a significant distortion, so about one mile (1–2 km), not about one mile (2 km). Be careful especially when your source has already converted from the units you're now converting back to. This may be evidenced by multiples of common conversion factors in the data, such as 160 km (from 100 miles). See false precision.
4. In a direct quotation, always retain the source units. Any conversions can be supplied either in the quote itself (in square brackets, following the original measurement) or in a footnote.
5. Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the {{convert}} template's order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary: {{convert|200|mi|km|order=flip}} → The two cities are 320 kilometres (200 mi) apart.
6. Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except: [...] When units are part of the subject of a topic – nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law (5 nautical miles) [...] it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It might be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs.
7. Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name (Energies rose from 2.3 megaelectronvolts (MeV) to 6 MeV).
8. In nautical and aeronautical contexts use statute mile rather than mile to avoid confusion with nautical mile.

Please correct me if I have mischaracterized any of your arguments. If these points are accurate, let's please try to argue along these points, and everyone lay off on the personal jabbing and wiki-policing. We're all trying to make the article better, we're just not all exactly on the same page on how to do so. SchroCat, please don't WP:BITE the newcomer. New-polymath, I understand your frustration, please try to avoid the snark, as it's not going to help persuade people to see your side. Thanks ^_^ Ahiijny (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahiijny, thanks for your input. I fully confirm and accept your assertions concerning my comments. Moreover, these assertions are in line with wiki policies as you kindly listed above. New-polymath (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me add that my proposition as described in my comments (above) is EXACTLY as described in point 6 of the above wiki policies. New-polymath (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No it's not. This isn't an article on nautical law: it's an article on 'land-based explorations. - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Given you've already said you'd prefer nautical miles, it's not overly neutral, particularly given some of the claims of what NP has claimed (he refers, for example, to the Amundsen article on Wikiwand, not here), but that's a little beside the point.
• The above is an approximate summary of my position, although it misses some of the points. There are other factors to take into account, not least WP:JARGON. Any other form of 'land-based exploration would use miles and km, not use the archaic measurements at the time.

It should also be noted that, despite the implication above by two editors, there is not universal use of the nautical mile in the sources. Larson uses the statute mile, for example. I'll also point out that there is a claim that Solomon wrote in nautical miles. Untrue: she makes it clear she writes in statute miles. I'm not sure how many of the other claims are also untrue. - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: "not overly neutral". Apologies. I tried my best :/

Re: Wikiwand: Eh, close enough. As NP seems to be new here, I just assumed NP was confusing the two sites. Generally I try to go by DWIM.

Re: Larson and Solomon: Thanks for pointing that out. I was unaware. Ahiijny (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

It may have something to do with the fact that I was struck by lightning in September, but for the second time in as many months I find myself writing SchroCat is 100% right here -- and I say this as someone who really, really knows our guidelines on this.

• Above there's a quote from WP:MOSNUM#Specific_units: In nautical and aeronautical contexts use statute mile rather than mile to avoid confusion with nautical mile. I fear that this could be read, out of context, as implying statute miles are the recommended (primary) unit for nautical/aeronautical articles, but that's not what it means; it's simply a statement of how to avoid confusion in presentation, given that the choice of units has already been made. I've revised it to read: In nautical and aeronautical contexts where there is risk of confusion with nautical miles, consider writing out references to statute miles as e.g. 5 statute miles rather than simply 5 miles..
• WP:UNITS: In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except ... the primary units for distance/​length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon. This is unquestionably a UK-strong-ties article, so distances are in miles/feet and temperatures in C. (I didn't realize it until now, but the guideline doesn't explicitly call these miles out as statute miles, though that's certainly what's meant, and I've clarified that in the guideline.)
• New-polymath is mis-applying SC's point 6 above -- this is not a case of When units are part of the subject of a topic.
• Since (from the above) the primary length unit in our presentation (i.e. the one presented first in the text, any conversions following in parentheses) is statute miles, and this is not in general the source unit (which seems to typically be nautical miles), false precision is a danger; I haven't reviewed the article for such issues, but in any event it's not a consideration for unit choice, but rather something to be attended to in implementing that choice.
• Why Amundsen's South Pole expedition uses nmi as primary (and converts only to km -- no statute miles at all) I don't know; my guess is it shouldn't. But if it should, and the reason for that applies here, someone needs to dig that reason up.
• Somewhere the article needs to acknowledge that by miles it means statute miles (and something about nautical miles and, I suppose, these arcane geographical miles too). That might be some kind of hatnote (though I can't recall ever seeing that) or a footnote attached to the first use of mile/miles in the text.
• Thus our basic model is e.g. 100 miles (161 km). Perhaps we should extend that to 100 miles (161 km; 87 nmi) but personally I'd want to see arguments for why this would serve our readers. Readers who know what a nmi is also know what a statute mile is, and are used to making a rough mental conversion from the latter to the former, so there's little point in supplying both; but there are plenty of readers who know what a "mile" (i.e. statute mile) is, but have no idea what a nmi is, so if you're supplying just one it needs to be statute mi. (Readers who know neither know km, and we're definitely giving that conversion.)
• If we need to quote or acknowledge this famous passage about "11 miles" (nautical miles) then at that point the nautical/statute issue can be glossed or explained; but the 11-mile tail doesn't wag the article dog.

And New-polymath, if you're such a polymath surely you can learn to indent like everyone else. Please do that, because it's getting really annoying; see WP:Indentation. EEng 01:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. BTW, "One Ton Camp" -- is that a short ton, long ton, or shipping ton, harbor ton, wet ton ... what?

@EEng: I would guess the long ton of 2240 pounds (see the "bugbear" excerpt from Race for the South Pole, Huntford 2010 I quoted above). Ahiijny (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. So in the article we'll refer to it as One Ton (2,240 Pounds) Camp. EEng 08:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"One Ton Camp" is a proper name though, so I think a footnote aside would be better in this situation. Ahiijny (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not always perfect at reading between the lines, but I think EEng may have been being humorous here and not making a suggestion for a future edit. I could be wrong though. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It could have been just a joke, but y'know, just to be safe. Ahiijny (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait, were you actually struck by lightning? Were you hurt? o.o

Ah, it's good that this discussion prompted some clarifications in wording to the existing guidelines. I suppose in the present reading of the guidelines, this article would be classified as a non-scientific article with strong ties to the United Kingdom, and thus statue miles for distance are prescribed as the primary units. There's a small clause in the guidelines that implies there are situations in which nautical miles may be suitable as the primary unit (the specific example named is articles about the history of nautical law), but it seems that this article doesn't meet those requirements, because most of the travel was land-based.

As for why Amundsen's South Pole expedition uses nmi as the primary? I couldn't find anything on the talk page, so I think what happened is that most of the cited sources use nautical miles (among the references, I see many citations to Amundsen's original account of his expedition, which would use nautical miles), and so I guess the original writers of the article just ended up using the units out of convenience.

But just to reiterate my main concern: There is the possibility for confusion, because for this particular context, when discussing this particular topic, many other (but not all) source materials use nautical miles. And so I think this confusion ought to be cleared up as early on in the article as possible. Any time I see "mile" in this article, I want to be 100% sure: Is this a statute mile, or is this a nautical mile? And secondly: I want to be sure that the editor who inserted that number was also 100% sure of whether it was a statute mile or a nautical mile. Because that confusion has happened before (see earlier on this talk page). As long as the changes to the article satisfy this, I'm fine with it.

There are some particularly memorable numbers in nautical miles in this context that I think are valuable preserving though, considering how frequently I've seen them being brought up. e.g. Scott's death 11 (nautical) miles away from salvation; Shackleton's farthest south at 97 (nautical) miles away from the pole; Amundsen's 15 (nautical) miles per day. Per the direct quotation clause in the guidelines, I suppose it's possible to preserve these numbers. But I can't help but wonder if there's a nicer way to preserve them.

Though I should also quote: On the MOS:UNITS guideline infobox: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. So, the guideline is not ironclad if a compelling case can be made for an exception. So I suppose there is still the opportunity for the WP:IAR argument to be made here (to be used sparingly, though).

But User:New-polymath, I would also consider also WP:CONLIMITED: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. My interpretation of this policy is: If you still don't agree with the application of this guideline, then perhaps the best avenue to pursue now would be to start a wider discussion on the MOS:UNITS guidelines, specifically on whether an exception should apply in the context of historical polar exploration. I believe the correct venue for discussing changes to existing guidelines and policies (correct me if I'm mistaken?) is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Ahiijny (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If consensus is reached here that common sense dictates that this article warrants one of those occasional exceptions, no big discussion elsewhere is needed because MOS by its own provisions contemplates such exceptions. I just don't see any convincing argument for it, not even close. EEng 08:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, One Ton Camp is One Ton Camp (Depôt). Name and not a Ton, if you are not a stone. New-polymath (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

27 screens of Wikipedia discussion about the exact usage of units of miles that Scott was away from his base camp? Does this not seem a little bit off? Is it of much importance whether it was 10, 20 or 30 units of whatever kind of measurement?

This does more look like some sock puppets of a certain user who is trying to distract from some more important questions. 109.250.10.41 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Civility

I wish to contribute to this discussion, however, some civil rules should be observed by participants. SchroCat comments "FFS" or "I hope that fucking gets through to you" directed to me are unacceptable. What are wiki policies in such a case?  New-polymath (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The guidelines are that I should not be uncivil to you. I have not insulted you or called you any names, however. What I have done to to express my frustration that you have not listened to the information given to you, or taken on board that we do not follow the formatting of third parties and that we have our own Manual of Style. Feel free to try and argue against the MoS if you wish, but don't try to sideline the conversation by claiming my frustration with your intransigence is making it impossible to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic diversion. Ahiijny (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Here below is created by SchroCat section called "An entertaining diversion" that is unacceptable[[5]] New-polymath (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC) And again, you really do need to try and read what someone has said. I have not attacked you or insulted you or called you any names. Please try to read and understand what people say to you - I don't type just for the fun of it. Now, do you have anything useful to say in regard to the MoS discussion or not? - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC) 'created by SchroCat section called "An entertaining diversion"': Sure about that? Any time you want to drop this line and join in the main discussion above, then that's all good. Until then, I'll leave you to have this discussion with yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC) - Of course, he did not rape her. She was smiling and she had a short skirt. Besides, she did not say no! New-polymath (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC) You are equating my actions here with rape? I hope you realise just exactly what that says about your approach here - because it says nothing about mine. I'll leave it here, because I'm close to being very uncivil to you, and there isn't an admin on WP that would block me for even the worst insults, given your provocation with that comment. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC) SC, I really suggest we stop responding to anything else along these lines. Either he makes a case above for changing the units, or he doesn't. We have better things to do. EEng 10:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC) I was going to before the equating of my comments (or your title change) as being akin to me being a rapist. I certainly have no wish for any further discussion with this individual, but if he is going to be constructive in the main discussion he could redeem him/herself. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Oh, come on, I've called you worse things than that I'm sure, so just forget it. Whether this discussion goes forward usefully is up to him. EEng 10:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC) New-polymath, I called the section "An entertaining diversion" because your whining is (a) entertaining (somewhat, though it's wearing thin) and (b) a diversion from questions of improving the article. You show promise as a new editor who can make valuable contributions, but you've really got off on the wrong foot by not listening and not listening and not listening, then acting offended when people lose their temper at you. Now do you have anything to say about my (and another editor's) recent comments about the units question? If not, I think the rest of us will withdraw and consider the discussion closed. You're the one who raised the question and if you're not going to pursue it the rest of us won't spend any more time on it. EEng 10:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. And read the link I posted earlier about how to indent. If you can't make minimal effort to do what everyone else does, you can't function here.

@EEng: Was that snark reaaaaaaally necessary? @New-polymath: This is a talk page for discussion about the article, not the conduct of other users. Please try to stick within the top 3 levels of the hierarchy of disagreement on this page. And try to hold back off on the snarky quips, as I don't think they're helping. Do please try to use WP:INDENT! It's really helpful for any newcomers to this page because it makes it easier to read the earlier discussions.

There are other venues to pursue for complaints about user conduct, but I think WP:BOOMERANG is likely to happen in this particular situation, so I wouldn't recommend it. From my (limited) experience here on Wikipedia, what I've seen is that some users just have a naturally more abrasive manner of writing than others. Personally, I just try to look past the borderline uncivil comments and focus on the content discussion, because anything otherwise would just eat up way too much of my free time and just not get really much done. If there truly is a conduct issue, the user's actions will speak for themselves. But it definitely won't help your case if you're saying unnecessary comments like that (please, this is a Christian Minecraft server).

Every time someone makes a comment on this thread, there's a delay before the other person sees the comment and is able to respond to it. So nitpicking and latching onto small details instead of focusing on the big picture can eat up a lot of time and space. To draw a Go analogy, when participating in these kinds of discussions, I tend to ask myself: To achieve my desired goal, is making this particular comment the fastest move? Ahiijny (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How did he/does one pronounce his name? The Falcon part, to be specific. [fɔː…], [fæl…], or something else? 2A02:8108:1140:945:68F2:AAA0:F1E5:6386 (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

For the word falcon in general, you can look at either falcon or on Wiktionary. Kiwipete (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering the same. I saw a couple of YouTube videos that had it as [fæl…]. But unless there is evidence of his personal pronunciation or of those who knew him, I think we have to look at the pronunciation guide in the dictionaries of the day. The relevant volume of the Oxford English Dictionary was published in 1900. The pronunciation guide does not use IPA but its transcription seems to equate to ˈfɔːlkən, ˈfɔːk(ə)n (the pronunciations given in the 2nd edition of the OED, 1989) in that order (both editions put the version with /l/ first). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1911) gives "fawkn", "fawlkn" (it doesn't use IPA either), so the same two pronunciations but with the version *without* /l/ coming first. And (though the British dictionaries are more directly relevant) Webster's International Dictionary (1898) gives its own non-IPA transcription with an "a" with a subscript of two dots, which corresponds to ˈfɔːk(ə)n (Webster doesn't show a version with /l/). Everyman's Pronouncing Dictionary (1917) gives ˈfɔːlkən as its main variant, with ˈfɔlkən and ˈfɔːkən as alternatives. (Note: ɔ without the length mark corresponds to the British phoneme that is nowadays normally written /ɒ/, although actually [ɔ] is probably is its usual realisation; for that matter, the long /ɔː/ is realised as approximately [o:] in modern Standard Southern British.) What all of these have in common is that none of them have /æ/. 89.160.9.7 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The BBC Pronouncing Dictionary of British Names 2nd ed, 1983, gives ˈfɔkən, fáwkon ; ˈfɔlkən, fáwlkŏn. DuncanHill (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems like another place-filler to distract from other questions - Falcon is pronounced pretty similar in every language?. 109.250.10.41 (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed the question mark - yet it has prevailed and stands here in Wikipedia. 109.250.10.41 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Spin

This article does not present an impartial summary of Mr. Scott’s polar experiences in my opinion. It takes a heroic view of Scott and ignores a lot of evidence that shows he was in fact, inept, such as the multiple verbal orders that Scott gave en route to the Pole that were contrary to the written order he left behind. Roland Huntford’s book was very even-handed and he dismantles the notion that Scott was a hero in any sense of the word. He and his companions died needlessly because of Scott’s own lack of planning and preparation, and his own hubris. 73.228.192.105 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

See the Modern reactions section. EEng 05:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

See Bibliography & Sienicki's book. New-polymath (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)