Talk:Roald Amundsen/Archive 1

I am not sure how to handle this talk archive. In particular, there does Not to seem to be any dates on the postings. So some questions may have been asked years ago, and the answers may now be readily available online.

My response here is meant to be addressed to the following:

" Amundsen's Family??

I've been searching and i can't seem to find out much on Amundsen's family. Did he have a wife, children, brothers or sisters?? Does anyone know of a site I could visit that may have this info? Thanks

--Amundsen never married.

--=] I am a decentant of Amundsen's cousin who homesteaded in Rosburg, WA, USA. My mother has done some research on the family, including Roald, and we know the following: According to the 1875 Nowgegian Census, he had three brothers named Jens Ole (pronounced o-le) Antonius Amundsen(b. 1866), Gustav Sahlqvist Amundsen (b. June 7, 1868), and Leon Henry Benham Amunsen (b. Sept 1870). He had no sisters. Roald Amundsen never did marry. However, there is a rumor in the family that Roald brought two Eskimo girls back from Alaska to Norway to be educated, of which he paid for. He never publicly said they were his daughters, but the family has often wondered. I wish I had dates or something to give credit to this "story." "

My answer is that some of this should by now be easy to find online. If not on Wikipedia, sometimes in Google Books.

The previous writer is correct about Roald Amundsen's three brothers: Jens Ole Antonius Amundsen, nicknamed Tonni. Died young. Gustav Sahlqvist Amundsen. He managed Amundsen's finances when Roald Amundsen was in Tromsø 1900-1901 looking to buy a vessel to sail through the entire Northwest Passage. Amundsen had to ask him to send him the bulk of his inheritance for the purpose. Leon Henry Benham Amundsen, or just Leon Amundsen. He was Roald Amundsen's business manager when Amundsen was (secretly) planning a dash for the South Pole, "The Big Nail".

I met Gustav Sahlqvist Amundsen when he was about 80 and I was in a stroller, he lived near my family.

Their mother was named Johanna (or Hanna) Henrikke Gustava Sahlqvist. My name is Johan Henrik Sahlqvist. Roald Amundsen was something like my grandfather's or great grandfather's first or second cousin. I don't care much what the exact connection is. If someone is interested in exact family trees, many web sites may now be helpful. If not, feel free to email me at sahlqvist@gmail.com, I may be able to figure it out.

I grew up with leatherbound volumes of all of Amundsen's and Nansen's writings, in Norwegian, and have since then read many other things. As another contributor points out, Roland Huntford is really good, and may answer most questions about family relationships.

As for the two Inuit girls he brought back to Norway, that is not just a rumour, and they were not his children, but I think orphans. Just from memory, I think Roland Huntford addresses it adequately, though I don't know when Amundsen sent them back to Canada .

Date of death

I put a question mark over the date of his death, as Amundsen's body has never been found and some or all members of the fateful flight must have initally survived. We therefore don't, and will probably never know if Amundsen initally survived. My sources come from 'Ninety Degrees North: The Quest for the North Pole' by Fergus Fleming. Copyright: 2001, Fergus Fleming. Publishers: Granta

Amundsen's Family??

I've been searching and i can't seem to find out much on Amundsen's family. Did he have a wife, children, brothers or sisters?? Does anyone know of a site I could visit that may have this info? Thanks

--Amundsen never married.

--=] I am a decentant of Amundsen's cousin who homesteaded in Rosburg, WA, USA. My mother has done some research on the family, including Roald, and we know the following:
According to the 1875 Nowgegian Census, he had three brothers named Jens Ole (pronounced o-le) Antonius Amundsen(b. 1866), Gustav Sahlqvist Amundsen (b. June 7, 1868), and Leon Henry Benham Amunsen (b. Sept 1870). He had no sisters.
Roald Amundsen never did marry. However, there is a rumor in the family that Roald brought two Eskimo girls back from Alaska to Norway to be educated, of which he paid for. He never publicly said they were his daughters, but the family has often wondered. I wish I had dates or something to give credit to this "story."

--All of this is thoroughly described by Roland Huntford in "The Last Place On Earth".

8 lbs != 400g

8 pounds avoirdupois equals 3.628 kg not 400g . One of these figures must be wrong (probably both). --jmd 10:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC) in his book "My Life as an Exploxer" he mentions having a brother who managed or mismanaged his finances. he also mentions his father died when he was 14 years old.

Candian Icebreaker named Amundsen?

Isn't there a Canadian ship named afther him too? Orcaborealis 10:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Here is a link with picture of the Canadian icebreaker Amundsen: Amundsen. Orcaborealis 16:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Paragraph on whether is wrong. Also, discussion of reasons for success over Scott seem POV

It is wrong on two major points. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that Amundsen had any better luck with the weather than Scott on concurrent dates. Scott had bad luck with the weather in March, when Amundsen's expedition was already out to sea. Apart from his rush to get to the Pole first and announce it to the world, Amundsen knew that after a 1500 mile journey he did not wish to be on the Barrier in March, when the weather was unpredictable. Second, -20°C to -40°C, the sort of temperatures that Scott encountered in March, is not particularly cold by Polar standards. Certainly not cold enough to slow down a good dogteam and driver. Amundsen's expedition often travelled 20 or more miles per day in similar temperatures.

I agree that the discussion of the weather appears to suggest that Scott had worse weather, which was a major cause of failure. Was the weather really worse? Also, the "ruthless" slaughter of the dogs seems a bit much. I believe that the Scott expedition fed off of horse meat, was this ruthless? Much of Amundsen's success rests with his planning and forethought. He often allowed considerable margin when planning supplies. In fact, on the return from the Pole, food was in such abundance, that Roland Huntford states in "The Last Place on Earth", that Amundsen eventually was even feeding his dogs chocolate. Any section discussing the relative merits of the two leaders and the expeditions must address the shortcomings of each. Amundsen made mistakes, and Scott has been almost worshipped for nearly a century as a martyred hero. Jimaginator 01:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The "cruelty to animals" thing is basically a fabrication by the British media. Scott slaughtered and ate his ponies, by design. Amundsen slaughtered and ate his dogs, by design. What exactly is the moral difference? If anything, the evidence suggests that Scott's ponies suffered more than Amundsen's dogs.

I'm not familiar with evidence that Scott ate his ponies or that they suffered more than Anundsen's dogs. Could you provide a reference? Thanks. JHCC (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Scott eating his ponies can be found on the BBC website here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/discovery/exploration/south_approaches_03.shtml

I agree that the commentary comparing the two expeditions would be POV on another topic, but in the case of Antarctica much of the interest comes from comparing the adversities faced, technologies used, personalities of the men employed, etc. When talking about the early Antarctica adventures, such a discussion is not just appropriate for a wiki article but actually constitutes much of the literature on the subject/s. For instance, the debate above about Scott eating his ponies... that's huge topic comparing the gentleman-explorer approach Scott took vs. the extremely (even harshly) pragmatic approach of Amundsen. I think it's an appropriate and even necessary discussion as long as it remains grounded in known facts, their journals, reasonable analysis, etc. And regarding that... Scott ate his ponies only after trying to nurse them back to health (officers' horses were considered soldiers in their own rights in the British army), forcing his crew to carry them for miles, then ordering them shot (and presumably eaten) only when the ponies' recovery became absolutely hopeless. In contrast, Amundsen always planned to eat his dogs for the maximum efficiency of the voyage. Also, comparing the weather conditions is almost meaningless because both parties had times of extreme hard weather... that's the nature of the continent. I wish I had references on hand here, I'll try to dig them out. Also, Amundsen's dogs are double-listed first as Greenland huskies then as Samoyedes. I haven't read anything solid, but I think he used Samoyedes because that breed belongs to the Inuits whom Amundsen lived among and learned so much from earlier in his life. Sorry to blather on... I'm planning to go to Antarctica and have been reading up on it (perhaps a little too much, heh).

The comparison section is inadequately referenced, and mainly appears to be an argument along the lines 'Amundsen was lucky - Scott was "extremely unlucky"'. The text seems to be more about vindicating Scott than to provide an informed discussion on the different strategies of the two expedition leaders - which is strange, considering that this article is about Amundsen and not Scott. For comparison, read the corresponding section in the article about Scott, which seems to be much more balanced an on topic.

Much of the comparison paragraph seems POV, or at the very least OR. I actually believe that much of what's written can probably be found on verifiable sources, so I'm hesitant to delete. But nonetheless what amounts to an extensive defence of Scott's methods under bad luck seems off-place in Amundsen's biography. Amundsen is definitely not defined through being luckier than Scott. Kelvinc (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dogs vs Ponies

on pg 57 of "The South Pole, Admunsen states "The greatest difference between Scott's and my equipment lay undoubtably in our choice of draught animals" a bit further on he continues If peary could make a record trip on the Arctic ice with dougs, one ought surely, with equally good tackle, be able to beat Peary's record on the splendidly even surface of the Barrier". Indeed the dogs went to the Pole and back and Scott had to kill his ponies before the Beardmore Glacier and proceed with a few dogs and man hauling. On pg 59 Admunsen quips "It must be rather hard to have to abandon one's motive power (ponies) voluntarily when only a quarter of the distance has been covered. I for my part prefer to use it all the way." I think the life went out of Scott when Admunsen requested Scott forward a letter to King Haakon.Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC) --WEATHER COMPARISONS IN AMUNDSEN'S WORDS-- "Indeed, we know now that while we were living on the Barrier in the most splendid weather - calms or light breezes - Scott at his station some four hundred miles to the west of us was troubled by frequent storms, which greatly hindered his work." pg 347 "The South Pole" author Roald Amundsen Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

More measurement oddities

I've removed the following:

"Detailed analysis of the data recorded in the expedition's diaries determined that members of the Amundsen expedition actually got to within 200 metres (220 yd) of the precise mathematical point of the South Pole. In contrast, when Scott reached the Pole, analysis of his data showed that his expedition was no closer than 4500 miles from the mathematical point."

First of all, 4500 miles from the pole is not even on the Antarctic continent, so Scott would have had to have been trying to reach the Pole by traveling north. I assume the editor who added this meant meters. However, this website states that Scott's party, having found Amundsen's camp, "marched seven miles south-south-east to a spot which put them within half a mile of the Pole, altitude 9,500 feet." Half a mile is 2640 feet, approximately 805 meters — nowhere near 4500 meters, let alone 4500 miles. Unless we have a source for this "detailed analysis", it should probably stay off the page. JHCC (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Huntford goes into quite a bit of detail in The Last Place on Earth on this subject, and Cherry-Garrard's The Worst Journey in the World cites the diaries of Scott, Wilson, and Bowers for an account of Scott's arrival at the Pole which jibes with Huntford's account. Amundsen spent three full days at the Pole - he was very aware of the controversey that surrounded Cook and Peary's claims to have reached the North Pole. The removed statement, "Detailed analysis of the data recorded in the expedition's diaries determined that members of the Amundsen expedition actually got to within 200 metres (220 yd) of the precise mathematical point of the South Pole" is practically a direct quote from Huntford's meticulously researched work and therefore is almost certainly accurate enough to cite in the article. On the other hand, Scott's frenetic and half-frozen 24 hours at the Pole could not hope to produce the multiple sightings over 24 hours that Amundsen needed to verify the Pole's location. They found Amundsen's "Polheim" camp and the letter to Scott, and supplies, in the tent. They then marched in a direction SSE until they found a black flag left by Amundsen, and which they believed marked the location of the Pole. In fact, they discovered one of three flags (each about a mile away from the mathematical point, so the likely error in the original text was probably 4500 feet, not meters) placed by the Norwegians to triangulate the position of the pole. Amundsen actually left a note explaining this with each of the flags, but the note was misunderstood by Scott's party and they headed north, believing that they had reached the spot. In fact, their march from Polheim to the flag actually (again, according to Huntford and the experts he consulted - see his Sources) was lateral to the Pole, and indeed they ended up further from it, not closer to it. Some form of the above information ought to be included in the article; I will leave this comment for awhile for discussion first. Cheers, Kgdickey 00:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this information should go into the article, absolutely. The actual dealings at the Pole get confusing, and a clear summary would undoubtedly help the reader. W.Hart 6.25.07

How to pronounce his name?

It would be nice for some of these unusual names to have a phonetic spelling or something to help pronounce it.

I've added an IPA pronounciation of his first and last name to the article. I omitted the middle two, as I think they are of less importance. But also because I'm not exactly sure on how to pronounce "Engelbregt" ;-) (Silent G, yes?) That, and I don't have a degree in phonetics, so anyone with more linguistic knowledge is more than welcome to review my suggestion. Here's an attempt on the full name, if anyone's interested: IPA: [ˈɾuːɑl ˈeŋəlbɾəʈʰ 'gɾɑvnɪŋ ˈɑmʉnsən] Nilzor (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The link to Bear Island leads to a disambiguation page with entries which don't look very applicable.

Weather on Ross Ice shelf

The text now includes this sentence "On their return to the Ross Ice Shelf, Scott's group experienced prolonged blizzards and low temperatures which have only been matched in one year since continuous records began to be kept in 1956" but the web page it refers to says: "The data recorded by Scott and his men from late February to March 19, 1912, display daily temperature minima that were on average 10 to 20°F below those obtained in the same region and season since routine modern observations began in 1985. Only 1 year in the available 15 years of measurements from the location where Scott and his men perished displays persistent cold temperatures at this time of year close to those reported in 1912"

Does anybody know more about this 1956 number or should we change it?213.213.145.213 05:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I put the number in because I got confused between the weather station installations and the IGY in 1956/7, sorry. I have corrected the date. Dabbler 12:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Weather For Amundsen

I have read that Amundsen had good weather for his journey which helped as the he was at the pole and back by the time Scott started to experience bad weather on his return. Also didn't Amundsen start alot closer to the actual pole than Scott. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.71.241 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Clothing used by Both Teams

I've removed:

As a result, the use of fur clothing which was suitable for dog sledding would have been dangerous for Scott's team as they would have become saturated with sweat.

This would not appear to be significant. Amundsen's group did not wear their fur clothing when it was too warm or when they were working hard. Likewise, Scott's people undoubtedly wore less when too warm and would have known the dangers of collecting sweat.

It might be useful to add a little more detail on equipment.

CashelStreet 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But Amundsen's team had fur clothing and Scott's didn't, therefore Amundsen had the option of removing the fur when needed but Scott did not have the option of putting it on when needed. Enough was said by both Scott and Amundsen to indicate that the temperatures often required fur. There is no doubt that Scott's return from the Pole severe temperatures and weather would have necessitated warmer clothing. It could also be argued that Scott's food shortages were in part the result of inadequate clothing resulting in increased food requirements.Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Building of hut

The article now states that the crew of Fram built a hut, while Amundsen and his crew where on the depot trip. This is inaccurate as the hut was built in Norway and re-erected when they got to Antarticta. See Framheim.

You could have edited the article yourself.

Reinhardheydt 13:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Axel Heiberg Glacier Route

"If this previously undiscovered route had not existed, then Amundsen would have failed to reach the pole."

This is not a useful statement.

On the contrary, the article claims that Amundsen was the ultimate planner and organizer and so was able to reach the pole and survive. Yet he took a major gamble on finding a closer alternative route to the Beardmore glacier up to the polar plateau. No one knew for sure there was any such route. 74.103.34.126 11:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He did take a chance that he could find a practical route south from Bay of Whales. If _a_ route had not existed, Amundsen would not have gotten to the Pole. Indeed, if the route from Bay of Whales to the Pole had been much more difficult or complicated, he might not have gotten to the Pole, or gotten there later, this goes without saying. Yet this provides little insight into what actually happened. It might also be said that if Shackleton had not discovered and taken the Beardmore route, Scott might have traveled further south on the Ross Ice Shelf and ascended to the Polar Plateau via a different route, which might have been a benefit to him.

Amundsen does appear to have been a very good planner and organizer, even though he forgot to take snow shovels south. He certainly appears to have been knowledgeable about clothing and travel in Polar Regions. He paid great attention to equipment. He understood the use of dogs and skis. CashelStreet 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead Dog wrongly named

The section on the South Pole journey claims that 'Etah' was the name of "the lead female dog". This is wrong. References to that name can indeed be found on the Internet, mainly on websites about Samoyed dogs, but it does not appear in any of the primary sources. There are no references whatsoever to such a dog name in Amundsen's own account ('The South Pole'), nor in any other Norwegian sources. Amundsen's team took 18 dogs on the final leg across the high plateau to the South Pole, of which 17 reached the Pole and 11 made it back to Framheim. Of those 18, Amundsen identifies 11 in his own account: 'Uroa', 'Mylius', 'Ring', 'Obersten', 'Majoren', 'Lasse', 'Per', 'Svartflekken', 'Nigger', 'Suggen' and 'Frithjof'. Earlier in the book, he refers to 'Lasse' and 'Fix' as his personal favourites. It is also unlikely that the dog was a samoyed, as Amundsen got all his dogs from Greenland.

Mikewarren 01:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC): Roland Huntsford claims that Helmer Hanssen killed his "best dog Helge" at the south pole after insisting on letting it run beside the sledges for the last few days (it was too tired) so that it would get to the pole. (He was the best dog-driver according to this book and led the entire way). This book agrees with the 17 figure, saying that 16 were left after the aforementioned killing (page 489).

He also thought about using cats instead of dogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.52.72 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Did he have any children? I'm in the US and I know someone with the last name Amundson who claims to be a decendent of his. I really never believed my friend, but can anyone help me out?

Amundsen did not have any children, so your friend can not be a decendent of him. Amundsen is a quite common name in Norway. Regards Reinhardheydt 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

amundsen photographs

I am currently reading Roland Huntford's biography/comparison of scott/amundsen. He says that Amundsen's camera turned out to be broken, and so the few "snapshots" taken by another member are the only surviving pictures...

(This in reference to "(Amundsen did no surveying on his route south and is known to have taken only two photographs)"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.29.163 (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mikewarren 01:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC): this is on page 488

Split to Amundsen's South Pole expedition

I took the liberty to make the South Pole section into new article, it was too long compared to the rest. Please help to improve it, it lacks references and has also some NPOV issues. Myself I am not in possession of English materials on this matter. Oth (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not First to the North Pole

Amundsen was not the first person to the north pole. It was disputably Robert Perry. for more see Polar Exploration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pel99 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not contributed to Wiki on this subject before, but having read a couple of books on it, the evidence supporting Peary's claim is very poor, close to non-existent, and in circumstances (F Cook) when such evidence was essential to support a claim...in fact the Polar Exploration page seems accurate on the subject......io-io (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that Amundsen was headed to the North Pole when he heard that Perry had done it. He immediately turn the Fram south to the Bay of Whales and the South Pole. One wonders if Scott would have been successful if he had not been met with a request to post a letter by Amundsen. In his book, The South Pole, Amundsen stated that if Shackleton had started at the Bay of Whales he would have succeeded in capturing the South Pole Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

I have a radiogram from August 16 1925 and I am trying to determine what expedition it was part of and who the sender was. The radio gram reads as follows:

LCMSE NW1210 RADIO 1925 AUG 16 2 29

SS IRMA LFG SPITZBERGEN RADIO 13 16 930AM

ROUNDWORLD

NEWYORK

8 DEGREES 58 MINUTES TO THE NORTHPOLE REACHED TELL MEMBERS

RAYMOND —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.232.138 (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Wisting

There were TWO people who were first to reach the North and South Poles:

As airship Norge approached the Pole Amundsen clasped the hand of Oscar Wisting. At the South Pole they, and all the party, had planted the Norwegian flagpole together, now they were the first humans to reach both Poles.

¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.5.130 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC about the Search for the Wreckage of Amundsen's Plane

2009-08-23: [[1]]; has a photograph of a (the?) Latham 47. —141.150.24.107 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

am new to this

ive only created an account but wish to point out ot someone that Rolad Amundsen didnt discover the nirth pole or make an exhibition to the North pole. his plan was to head off to the NOrth pole but someone (cant remember who) beat him to it so he went to expolre the South Pole instead doing a paper on Antarctica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax2010 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

North Pole

The article says Amundsen was the first to both the North and South Poles while he was only first to the South not the North Pole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagger06 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

First new threads go at the bottom of the page not the top. Second the sentence is correct if you reread it and use the word "and" properly. It is describing the fact that he was the first person to have been to "both" poles. It would be wrong if it said that he was the first to each. MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

From: http://www.historynet.com/aviation-history-november-96-from-thditor.htm

"A long-lost Byrd diary recently was found in a mislabeled box of memorabilia books for young children stashed away in the Byrd archives of you. According to a historical analyst who studied the document, Byrd turned back 40 miles before reaching the pole because of fears that an ailing engine might bring the flight to a premature conclusion. This would mean that Roald Amundsen, the Norwegian explorer who flew over the North Pole three days after Byrd's attempt, would replace Byrd in the history books. Although Amundsen's dirigible covered the ground much more slowly than Byrd's plane, his meticulous documentation has never been questioned."

Roald Amundsen and his friend Oscar Wisting were actually the first persons to reach both the South and the North pole, because all who said they had reached the north pole before them have been discredited and did not actually reach the north pole. Roger491127 (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

South pole arrival party

Regarding the passage that reads: "On December 14, 1911, the team of six, with 16 dogs, arrived at the Pole (90°00'S)." The numbers here are questionable. The team size was actually five, not six, consisting of "Olav Bjaaland, Helmer Hanssen, Sverre Hassel, Oscar Wisting, and Amundsen himself..." as enumerated (correctly) earlier in the article. According to Huntford's translation of Amundsen's expedition journal (Race for the Pole, Roland Huntford) for 15 December (it was actually 14 December, but Amundsen had overlooked the fact that Fram had crossed the International Date line until too late to fix all the journal entries), they arrived with three sledges and 17 dogs. The journal reads, "HH put one down just after arrival. 'Helge' was worn out." Finally, by Amundsen's own admission in the same journal entry, the party did not arrive at 90 degrees South on 14 December. In the journal entry for the following day, he records that the latest readings showed they were at 89˚56'S, and that the pole itself was about 5.5 nautical miles from their arrival camp. Amundsen records that they set off for the actual pole on the day following (journal entry 17 Dec).

The world has accepted 14 Dec as the date, rather than 16 Dec, and I don't think a correction is needed or possible. But I do believe it is not quite correct to say that the precise point they reached on 14 Dec was 90°00'S.

This is my first contribution, so I dare not modify the article, because I don't know how careful we want to be. I would appreciate any advice or guidance on that point.

RickBrenner (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)RickBrenner

The proceedings at the Pole are well covered in the article on Polheim. It seems accurate to say that Amundsen's party reached the South Pole, in the general sense, on December 14, adding that the team spent another three days on site to pinpoint the exact location of the Pole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stastein (talk • contribs) 11:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Amundsen at the wheel, photo

The date "1920" (which I got from the photo page) and "leaving home" do not really correlate, so I added "c." to the date. He left home in 1918, and may have been in Seattle around 1920. May this be where this American photo was taken, rather than his "home", Norway? JMK (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that photo is c. 1926 in Nome AK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnoffsker (talk • contribs) 06:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Library of Congress page says "c1920" which doesn't mean "circa 1920", but instead "copyrighted 1920". Considering there is a copyright record ("J243368") on file, I would consider that date to be accurate. howcheng {chat} 18:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

i have noticed several spelling mistakes, like for example: when it says that: "Antarctic attempts in favour of Eskimo-style skins." which misspells favor. but i cannot change it since the article is locked

Etf1234 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a spelling error. See WP:ENGVAR. howcheng {chat} 18:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Roald Amundsen2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Roald Amundsen2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 9, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Roald Amundsen at the wheel of Maud in 1920, during his unsuccessful attempt to cross the Northeast Passage and reach the North Pole. Although Amundsen did indeed successfully journey eastward along the coast of Siberia to Nome, Alaska, his plan of freezing the ship in the polar ice pack and letting it drift northward did not work as the currents were uncooperative. Amundsen finally did fly over the North Pole in 1926 in the airship Norge, making him the first person to attain both North and South Poles.Photo: Lomen Brothers; Restoration: Lise Broer

Amundsen's Primacy

This article would help (albeit belatedly) right some of the wrongs done Amundsen — during his controversial lifetime of fighting polar ice and polar politics — if its first sentence stated the blunt truth: Amundsen, whom most USfolk have never even heard of, achieved more major polar firsts than all other explorers combined, including almost certainly being first to each pole of the Earth. His seven geographical priorities are enumerated at p.3 of DIO volume 10 (2000), a book co-published with the University of Cambridge.

First to winter in the Antarctic.

First through the Northwest Passage.

First at the South Pole.

First circumnavigation of the Arctic Ocean.

First at the North Pole in the opinion of most explorers (and first to both poles in any case).

First at the Ice Pole (point on Arctic Ocean farthest from land-masses).

First across the Arctic Ocean.

Post by D.Rawlins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.198.223 (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

During his passage through the Northwest Passage, he was also visited the Magnetic Pole.

File:Pole-observation.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pole-observation.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance and death

In the second paragraph, reference 15, linking to the Search for Amundsen website, is a dead link. There is an archived version of the page specifically referencing the ContextTV documentary.

I'd be happy to edit this myself, but I'm not yet a confirmed user. Declangi (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now added an archived version. Declangi (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential Improvements to the Amundsen Bio

Why is this biography protected, only a week away from the S.Pole centenary? (The Cook, Peary, & Byrd bios are not protected.) Many will be accessing it shortly (and most won't delve into Talk); they ought to have the readiest possible access (right in the opening sentences) to a succinct but complete summary of Amundsen's astonishingly numerous immortal achievements, any one of which would head the preface of any other explorer's Wikipedia biography.

Specific problems:

The first footnote on Amundsen's 1926 success just references an article on his 1925 failure.

The preface's list of contemporary polar explorers is in wrong chronological order and is entirely Antarctic, though 4 of the 5 polar expeditions Amundsen led were Arctic.

To say that Amundsen was 1st to "(undisputedly) reach the North and the South Poles" is to miss that rare opportunity for saying more with less: drop mention of the S.Pole (already covered earlier in the same sentence) and say instead "has the 1st proven claim to have reached the North Pole", thereby completely conveying the original version's message, additionally pointing out what is now beyond question, namely, that Amundsen has the 1st undisputed (that is, 1st scientifically valid) claim to the N.Pole. Is there any reason why that centuries-sought honor should not be cited right in the preface to the WP bio of the achiever?

Or, starting at "He led", the rest of the preface might go something like the proposal that follows:

His 1910-1912 expedition was 1st to the South Pole, & his 1926 expedition was 1st to [prove it had reached] the North Pole. Additionally, he was 1st through the Northwest Passage, 1st relocator of the moving North Magnetic Pole, 1st around the Arctic Ocean (NW&NE Passages), & 1st across it. Despite his notorious secrecy & finances, he led more geographical expeditions, by more means (ship, dogsled, airplane, dirigible), and of uniformly unquestioned veracity, than any other polar explorer. He died leading a mission to rescue a competitor. [The above would perhaps render superfluous a conclusion to the preface, but why not sum it up this way?] He was the tallest of the giants of the heroic age of polar exploration.

Post by D.Rawlins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.198.223 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Northeast Passage

I have done extensive copyediting to the Northeast Passage section, as it appeared to have been written by a non-native speaker of English, or perhaps it was a Google translate copy-and-paste. However, because some parts of it were incomprehensible, I had to take a few liberties with the text in order to make sense out of it. Here are the main areas that are kind of questionable:

Original	Rewritten	Comments
The voyage was to the north-easterly direction over the Kara Sea, off Cape Chelyuskin put Maud stuck in the ice. The ship remained frozen for nearly a year, even though the ship came into operation in ice. In September 1919 the ship came loose from the ice, but froze again after eleven days longer between east and Vrangeløya New Siberian Islands, in just 70 ° north.	The voyage was to the northeasterly direction over the Kara Sea. Amundsen planned to freeze the Maud into the polar ice cap and drift towards the North Pole (as Nansen had done with the Fram), and he did so off Cape Chelyuskin. Unfortunately, the ice became so thick that the ship was unable to break free, even though the ship was designed specifically for such a journey. In September 1919, the ship came loose from the ice, but froze again after a mere eleven days in the vicinity of the New Siberian Islands.	I could not figure out where "east and Vrangeløya New Siberian Islands" was, as the New Siberian Islands article doesn't list any island called "Vrangeløya".
Hanssen and Wisting, along with two others, embarked on an expedition by dog sled to Nome in Alaska despite the fact that it was one thousand kilometers there. Because of the bad ice in the Bering Strait, it could not be crossed. They were, however, able to send a telegram from Anadyr.	Hanssen and Wisting, along with two others, embarked on an expedition by dog sled to Nome, Alaska, despite it being over one thousand kilometers away. But the ice was not frozen solid in the Bering Strait and it could not be crossed. They were, at the very least, able to send a telegram from Anadyr.	Who did they send a telegram to, and what were the contents??
There were several of the crew ashore, including Hanssen, who after Amundsen's opinion of it broke the contract and consequently he was not raising money.	There were several of the crew ashore there, including Hanssen, who had not returned to the ship. Amundsen considered him to be in breach of contract, and as such, dismissed him from the crew.	To me, this was the most difficult piece to figure out, and I have no idea if what I wrote is accurate, but at least it sounds plausible.
Amundsen returned to Maud, which now lay in Nome, in June 1922. He moved the focus from naval expeditions to aerial expeditions, and therefore took her to fly on board the ship.	He moved the focus from naval expeditions to aerial expeditions, and therefore arranged to get a plane.	"Took her to fly on board the ship" ... took who? And the ship certainly wasn't going to act as an aircraft carrier, right? So the plane couldn't possibly be on board.

Anyway, this whole section needs more references. howcheng {chat} 18:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wrangel Island is well known, so the upper right corner of the table above suffers from a spelling error, or a spelling used 100 years ago. But the existence of the Wrangel Island is no problem if you spell it correctly. "Vrangeløya" is the old Norwegian spelling, (Vrangel = Wrangel, øya = island). You can see in File:Siberia WR.png that Wrangel Island is located around 1000 km east of the New Siberian Islands. Roger491127 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have updated the text. —howcheng {chat} 15:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(new section)

Duplicate deleted. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in submitting a revision in the biography in the first paragraph. It is stated that Mr. Amundsen is the (highlighted) undisputed primary explorer to reach both the north and south extreme location. I have been educated both here in the United States and in the United Kingdom, that that would be correct for the southern extreme though not the northern. Roald Amundsen was not as I have been instructed, the first human explorer to place a geological marker on the location named the North Pole.

I am using a Kindle computer which does not have the tilers script on the keyboard. (tilde tilde tilde tilde) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacPerry28 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about some silly rule set by the FAA? Maybe this agency of the United States Department of Transportation has decided that to claim that you have been at a certain geographical location you have to put a "geological marker" on the ground (ice, water) at that location? Who cares what rules this agency of the United States Department of Transportation has set up? Didn't Jurij Gagarin circle the earth in a spaceship because he ended his journey with a parachute the last 7000 meters? Didn't Amundsen reach the North Pole because he didn't drop something from the Zeppeliner airship 40 meter above the North Pole? (Maybe he did, I don't know, but who cares?) Most people in the world don't care what silly rules this agency of the United States Department of Transportation has decided. We know that Jurij Gagarin was the first man to circle the earth in a spaceship, and we know that Amundsen and Wisting were in the group of the first men who reached the South Pole and in the group of the first men who reached the North Pole. And, by the way, there is not much reason to put a "geological marker" on the ice at the North Pole, as the ice is constantly moving towards Greenland, so such a marker would disappear from the North Pole very quickly. Roger491127 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I found a text in Swedish that says: " De norska, amerikanska och italienska flaggorna släpps ner från 200 meters höjd." Translation: The Norwegian, American and Italian flags were dropped from a height of 200 meters. So the North pole was marked with "geological markers" on the ice at the North Pole. http://www.esping.net/svalbard/contents/farder%20till%20svalbard%20och%20nordpolen.htm

The text also says: "Den 9 maj, två dagar före Norges avfärd, genomför kommendörkapten Richard Byrd tillsammans med sin pilot Floyd Bennet en flygning, i ett tremotorigt Fokkerflygplan, från Kungsfjorden till nordpolen och tillbaka på 15 timmar och 30 minuter. Amundsen trodde dock inte på, med tanke på planets prestanda, att de lyckats nå polen på den korta tiden." Translation: May 9, two days before Norge's departure, Commander Captain Richard Byrd with his pilot Floyd Bennet made a flight, in a 3-motor Focker airplane, from Kungsfjorden (the King's Fjord) to the North Pole and back in 15 hours 30 minutes. But Amundsen did not believe, considering the properties of the airplane, that they could have reached the North Pole in that short time. Roger491127 (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

SpitZbergen

Section "Reaching the North Pole", sentence "They left Spitzbergen on 11 May 1926, and they .." It should read "Spitsbergen". A few lines before it is written correctly. --46.115.40.181 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Edit request on 24 November 2012

Please indicate at the end of the last paragraph about the Northwest Passage exploration: "The crew returned to Oslo (from the that exploration) on November 1906, after almost 3,5 years aboard. It took until 1972 to get the Gjøa back to Norway. After a 45-day trip from San Francisco on a bulk carrier, the Gjøa was placed on her present resting place outside the Fram Museum in Oslo."

Source: "Roald Amundsen and the Exploration of the Northwest Passage" edited by the Fram Museum, Oslo-Norway, 2008, ISBN 978-82-8235-001-3, pages 63 and 65

Sdulinsky (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 19:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section, mars crater named after Gjøa

For Legacy section: A crater on Mars is named after one of Amundsen's ships, the Gjøa 128.84.127.155 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Marshall Deutz, 10/23/13

Roald Amundsen biography

I just want to add my recent critically acclaimed biography of Amundsen to the Bibliography section. I might make some other suggestions later. Here it is below:

The Last Viking: The Life of Roald Amundsen, by Stephen R. Bown. Da Capo Press, New York, 2012.

24.64.77.171 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Probably should not be done per WP:COI and WP:SELFPROMOTION. If the book garners comments from other critics and historians then we might be able to add it at a later date. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: What they said. (BTW - You don't need to be an admin to service semi-protected edit requests.) Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC) It seems absurd to list other out of date biographies on Amundsen yet refuse to list the most recent critically acclaimed biography. The Last Viking has been published by three publishers throughout the English speaking world and is widely discussed and reviewed in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, London Sunday Times, Globe and Mail, Literary Review of Canada, Arctic Magazine and dozens of other publications. It was chosen a Best Book of 2012 by the Globe, Kirkus Reviews, San Francisco Book Review and Winnipeg Free Press. The book is based on over three hundred never before used interviews and profiles from newspapers in the US, primarily the New York Times and proves that Amundsen was an American celebrity and hero for the last decade before his death; that he lived in New York and Alaska when not on an expedition; that far from fading from public life as British authors claim, he enjoyed his greatest acclaim during this period. Just look it up on Amazon if you don't believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.77.171 (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"Discovery"

"He led the Antarctic expedition (1910-12) to discover the South Pole in December 1911."

The concept of "discovering" the South Pole is a strange one. Everybody already knew it was there, and really there was no "discovery" of anything. Suggest this is changed to refer to the first expedition to reach the South Pole, or something like that. 86.129.17.155 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Scott

Should Scott be mentioned in lead paragraph. Not in the same league historically as Amundsen and and Shacketon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.97.120 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Scott was an arrogant ignorant idiot, who if he had arrived back in the UK, should have faced a Courts Martial for the incompetence he demonstrated. He indirectly killed 2 men, forced 2 others to stay and die with him. He "knew" better than anyone who did know, he kept his plans to himself, made ill-preparation Pee Poor Planning makes for Pee poor Performance. He decided to take men based upon his idea of strength - big men like PO Evans tire quicker than small men. He only had rations for four men and yet his polar party consisted of 5 men. He considered it cruel to use dogs to pull the sledges, and bragged about achieving a couple of miles, complained about the weather - cold is cold, yet Amundsen also travelled in colder conditions, because he had trained for the journey, was used to the cold, used dogs and ski's he also had more rations than he needed out on the ice and the depots were better marked - Scott used 1 flag on each depot. Scott was not even in the same league as Sir Ernest Shackleton - who was probably the best explorer that Britain has had in more recent times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.62.75 (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Amundsen's vs. Scott's achievement of reaching the South Pole

Scott's achievement to reach the pole has to be considered way more valuable than Amundsen's. While Amundsen was transported by dogs like on a magic carpet the whole way, Scott and his men managed a considerable amount of the distance self-propelled and only by their own force, without any artificial help. This is a much, much bigger accomplishment. Whereas Amundsen basically reached the Pole on a lift made of dogs, Scott adhered to the principles of true adventuring, like a mountain climber.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

For Legacy section: A crater on Mars is named after one of Amundsen's ships, the Gjøa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.127.155 (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Scott was an idiot. He was facing a trial when he returned he had killed 2 men and two more died because of his stupidty. He was suffering form scurvy had insufficient food - on his own admission he decided at the last minute to take 4 men to the pole, but had rations only for 4 people including himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.62.75 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014

Please remove the ]] from "They made their way off the continent and to Hobart, Australia]]" in the section South Pole Expedition (1910–12). 121.98.124.75 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2014

There is no such place as "Svaldrup", which is an apparent conjoining of "Svalbard" and "Sverdrup". Please change "Svaldrup" to "Svalbard". 137.229.40.111 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I have removed "Svaldrup", but AFAIK Spitsbergen has not been renamed "Svalbard", it is just the main island in the Svalbard archipelago. - Arjayay (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roald Amundsen/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs sources plange 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

North-west Passage

The first transit of the North-West Passage was West to East, was in the 1850s, and was captained by Sir Robert McClure (see Wikipedia article, and numerous other web articles). 121.73.236.171 (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)14/12/13 Some references: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McClure, faculty.washington.edu/karpoff/Research/McClure, www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/353976/Sir-Robert-John-Le-Mesurier-McClure, www.biographi.ca/en/bio/mcclure_robert_john_le_mesurier_10E.html, www.rmg.co.uk/explore/sea-and-ships/in-depth/north-west-passage/exploration-adventure-and-tragedy/robert-mcclure-expedition-1850-54 ... 121.73.236.171 (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)16/12/13 McClure was the first to transit the passage; Amundsen was the first to navigate it. McClure travelled partly by ship and partly by sledge. Stastein (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The article uses the word "traverse" which is incorrect under either understanding of what the two men did. McClure sailed to the point where he, his ship and his crew were iced in, survived to be picked up and later sailed the second ship further to complete the transit of the Passage. Even if the term "navigate" is not applied to what McClure did - although the British Government thought that was fair since they gave him a grant and his knighthood on the basis that he had discovered the navigable route - the term "first to traverse" could not apply to Amundsen's achievement. The most that is perhaps appropriate, though not so much of an achievement, is "first to sail in a single uninterrupted voyage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.236.171 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request for South Pole section

Could an editor please improve this chronologically inverted passage:

• Finding it difficult to raise funds, when he heard in 1909 that the Americans Frederick Cook and Robert Peary had claimed to reach the North Pole as a result of two different expeditions, he decided to reroute to Antarctica.[9] He was not clear about his intentions, and the Englishman Robert F. Scott and the Norwegian supporters felt misled.[9] Scott was planning his own expedition to the South Pole that year. Using the ship Fram ("Forward"), earlier used by Fridtjof Nansen, Amundsen left Oslo for the south on 3 June 1910.[9][10] At Madeira, Amundsen alerted his men that they would be heading to Antarctica, and sent a telegram to Scott, notifying him simply: "BEG TO INFORM YOU FRAM PROCEEDING ANTARCTIC--AMUNDSEN."[9]

as follows:

• When Amundsen heard in 1909 that two different expeditions, led by the Americans Frederick Cook and Robert Peary, had claimed to reach the North Pole, he decided to reroute to Antarctica, but kept this plan a secret for fear of losing financial support and the use of Fridtjof Nansen's ship Fram.[9] Also, the Englishman Robert F. Scott was planning his own expedition to the South Pole that year. Amundsen's expedition left Oslo in Fram ("Forward") on 3 June 1910.[9][10] At Madeira, Amundsen alerted his men that they would be heading to Antarctica. Amundsen's brother Leon, the only other person entrusted with the secret, later sent a pre-arranged telegram to Scott, notifying him simply: "BEG TO INFORM YOU FRAM PROCEEDING ANTARCTIC--AMUNDSEN."[9] Scott and the Norwegian supporters felt misled.[9]

On a general note, why protect the article? The English is poor and it can do with a general stylistic overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.222.98 (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Only two photos taken?

There is a paranthetical statement that Amundsen is only known to have taken two photographs on his South Pole expedition. The book Antarctica, Firsthand Accounts of Exploration and Endurance has journal entries from his expedition that clearly cites several stops during which photos were taken. He even goes as far as to say that the cameraman was so adept and the explorers so accustomed to the routine that when two explorers partially fell into a crevasse, they had the wherewithal to hold their precarious positions long enough for the photo to be taken. That sounds to me like more than two photos were taken. Onzie9 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Apart from anything else there are a lot more than two authentic, surviving photographs of the expedition. Even if the claim is that A personally only took two photographs it is contradicted by his journal: Huntford Race for the South Pole 2011 135 We got a good photo; 129: Have taken a complete fix and some photographs from our camp; 169: Took a photo - No. 10 film no.3 - of the sledges as they came up and stopped. Have deleted. Northutsire (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Also overstated about surveying. Identifying, describing, establishing the location of and naming whole new mountain ranges looks quite like surveying to me. The point which is trying to establish itself is that A didn't do the geology, biology and so on Scott did - fair enough, but it needs making a great deal better. Northutsire (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016

Add this portrait of Roald Amundsen in the picture section.

Noxstar8 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Done nyuszika7h (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved to the portrait section per the request of the editor. The current pic in the infobox is much more representative of RA's career. MarnetteD|Talk 15:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Further reading

The link to Huntford's book on Scott and Amundsen leads to an article on the Drama series The Last Place on Earth. It would seem that someone doesn't want the book to be discovered or discussed.81.154.77.13 (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"The winner is ... in the class of the also-rans"

Our lead currently says: "Amundsen was a key expedition leader during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration, in the class of Douglas Mawson, Robert Falcon Scott, and Ernest Shackleton." This is basically saying "The winner is ... in the class of the also-rans". I guess we could put similar statements in the leads of articles about Columbus, Hillery and Tenzing, Yuri Gagarin, the Wright Brothers, and any similar "winners", but we don't. I suspect it may have something to do with Wikipedia's anglocentric systemic bias, in which millions of British schoolkids are taught to revere Scott's "heroic failure" while the winner goes almost unmentioned. (In contrast, I grew up in neutral Belgium so Amundsen's name was well-known to me before I was 10 years old, like that of the other 'winners', while Scott was a barely mentioned footnote, Shackleton got no mention at all, and I think today is possibly the first time I've heard of Mawson - though I may also have heard of him before and promptly forgotten about him, just as I expect to quickly forget him again, presumably due to me not being Australian). However, I'm not sure how to go about re-phrasing it (and I suspect I may be the wrong person to try), so I'm mentioning it here in the hope that some other editor might know how best to re-phrase it.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The analogy doesn't really apply to Columbus since he was an also-ran himself, some 500 years late and imposing a horrific murderous tyranny to boot.

Gagarin might well be mentioned with other early cosmonauts like Tereshkova or Glenn, in a way that is analogous to the Heroic Age of Antarctic Expedition - which is interesting because it has so many giants contending together. I think mentioning them together is not inappropriate; the rest of the lead leaves us in no doubt as to Amundsen's achievements. Perhaps most of the figures of the Heroic Age appear to be British not because of anglocentricity but because in the run up to WW1 the UK was the dominant superpower with a bad case of manifest destiny and as such had the resources and desire to send expeditions. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I basically disagree.
• Even where I broadly agree with you (that Columbus helped kickstart one of the longest and worst quasi-genocides in history, which I think is actually partly what makes him a 'winner', since being a 'winner' is often ghastly and mass-murderous, as with Julius Caesar, Alexander the so-called Great, Genghis Khan, etc), I don't really accept your conclusion.
• I think your argument is technically correct that Columbus is (still a 'winner' in my view, but also, in a slightly different context) an 'also-ran' 500 years behind Leif Erikson (and, incidentally, over 10,000 years behind the first Americans - but of course every 'winner' is also an 'also-ran' in some different context).
• But the lead on Christopher Columbus mentions Leif Ericson got there first but does not say Columbus is 'one of the great explorers of America, in the class of Leif Ericson', still less 'one of the great 15th to 16th century explorers of America, in the class of Cabot, Balboa, and Vespucci' (which is a better analogy to what we are saying, since Amundsen is being compared to his contemporaries in the exploration of a specific area).
• As for space travelers (Glenn is not normally called a 'cosmonaut', which for some unclear reason tends to be used only for Soviet and Russian space travelers), you are technically correct that the Gagarin lead could have said (along with an infinite number of other things that it could have said) that 'he is one of the great early space travelers, in the class of Valentina Tereshkova and John Glenn'. It could have, but the whole point is that it doesn't (and the Glenn and Tereshkova leads don't mention Gagarin, let alone claiming they are 'in the class of Gagarin, Gherman Titov, and ...').
• And much the same is true of the other 'winners' that I've listed (at least for the ones where I've actually checked the leads).
• However we could have a very long and fruitless argument about all this, for which I have neither the time nor the inclination.
• So I will simply say that whether somebody is or is not 'in the class of' some other list of people is a subjective opinion (and in this case clearly also a debatable one, since we are debating it), and so I will place a Citation Needed beside 'in the class of', which hopefully will eventually result in a more satisfactory fix. (If a suitable supporting citation is not found within a reasonable period, the offending words can then eventually be removed as illegal Original Research - or anybody can fix the problem by changing the text in such a way that it no longer expresses a debatable opinion and thus no longer needs a CN - though even then the new statement may still not be appropriate for the lead, but that would obviously depend on what the new statement actually said, which I obviously can't know at this time). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Done.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Rewrote the introduction to read:

Roald Engelbregt Gravning Amundsen ... was a Norwegian explorer of polar regions. As the leader of the Antarctic expedition of 1910–12, which was the first to reach the [[South Pole], on 14 December 1911, he was a key expedition leader during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration. In 1926, he was the first expedition leader for the air expedition to the North Pole, making him the first person, without dispute, to reach both poles.[2][3] He is also known as having the first expedition to traverse the Northwest Passage (1903–06) in the Arctic.

I think that should that should solve the issue. —howcheng {chat} 01:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Howcheng. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Roald Amundsen. 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/20130416070253/http://www.frammuseum.no/News/ROALD-AMUNDSEN-DESCENDANTS-IN-GJOA-HAVEN-.aspx to http://www.frammuseum.no/news/ROALD-AMUNDSEN-DESCENDANTS-IN-GJOA-HAVEN-.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100502080758/http://fram.museum.no/ to http://www.fram.museum.no/

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) 09:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)