Talk:The Worst Journey in the World

POV

While I agree Scott had many faults, I think the negative comments of Scott here violates a neutral point-of-view.

Any discussion of Scott's alleged mistakes, to be NPOV, should be "gentle and empathetic" - in fact it should live up to the standard raised by Cherry-Garrard himself in his Worst Journey. That is what this article tries to do; in fact the article uses those very words. There have been far too many criticisms of Scott that have been justified by knowledge of the Antarctic that was developed afterwards. Any discussion that touches on Captain Scott should try to understand and appreciate his state of mind, his knowledge he had while alive, and the constraints he had to work under. Everyone is welcome to discuss these constraints and make this as good an article as possible. Bigturtle 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references, etc

I have tagged the article for lack of references. The two given are, respectively, a Nat Geographic mag advert for the book, and an on-line review of the TV docudrama, and there are no citations in the text, which has numerous unsourced statements and some plain inaccuracies. For example, the Winter Journey was not "across the Ross Ice Shelf", the Beardmore Glacier is not an ice tongue, Scott's southern journey did not start out man-hauling but with dogs, horses and motors in accordance with a complex transport strategy which may have been flawed but was carefully planned. Likewise, the return of support parties was fully planned by Scott, not something he was "forced to do" on the march. Frankly, why does this book need an article of its own anyway, rather than a section in the Cherry-Garrard biography article? Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Refernce for "unnecessary suffering"?

The article claims that "aeroplanes [etc] would revolutionise future work in the Antarctic and make much of the suffering endured by Scott and his men unnecessary."

This statement appears illogical (if you want to be first at the Pole, then later technological advances are of no help), and the claim is not referenced. Likewise, if you want to measure climate data for 1910-1913, then the development of adequate planes decades later is of no help.

If no reference is provided over the next few weeks, this paragraph should go. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.44 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Worst Journey in the World. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20111017091927/http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0404/adventure_books.html to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0404/adventure_books.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)