Talk:Robert Peary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Does anyone know why we have April 6 and April 16 listed? I thought there was doubt that Peary thought he had got there on April 6/April... could the 16th have been a typo? And then someone added the correct date but didn't have the confidence to remove the first one? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:08, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A good Google hunt convinces me that it was indeed a typo - no doubt about the date. Updating the article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:22, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

What is this "A 1996 analysis of a newly-discovered copy of Peary's record indicates that Peary was almost certainly 20 miles (32km) short of the Pole"?

• Who did the analyzing? How credible? I think it probably was a good analysis, so a little more information would help.

• Are those 20 miles really 32 km, or are they the 37 km which would be normal use of "miles" in this context? I'm changing the conversion--prove otherwise if that is the case. (If the analysis was done by the fools at National Geographic, good luck in figuring out a definitive answer.) Gene Nygaard 14:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it is me that added the info, then the info came from "Ninety Degrees North", the book that should be referenced in the article. jfghfghhkgjfjhfj| Pete 00:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That book is mentioned with a quote later on, but there is nothing to indicate any connection between that book and the "analysis" under discussion. Furthermore, even if you were to make that connection now in the article, we still wouldn't know:

I think that the author might have confused two separate issues. First, I believe it was Wally Herbert who argued that Peary was at least 30 miles from the Pole, although all of Peary's major critics -- Dennis Rawlins, Pierre Berton, Robert Bryce -- pour serious doubt on the possibility that Peary got any closer to the pole than about 125 miles. Second, Peary's family kept Peary's personal records private and inaccessible until the late 1980's when even Peary's supporters demanded that they be made public.

There are two major difficulties with Peary's claim. One is the impossible sledging speeds he claimed to have traveled, sometimes over 50 miles per day, a feat which no else else has ever come close to duplicating on dogsled over the Arctic sea ice. The other is Peary's failure to take longitude readings. Without knowing his longitude Peary had no means of adjusting for compass variations or the shifting sea ice. Even if Peary had somehow been able to travel the distances he claimed, he had no way of knowing where he was or which way he was going, and would never have found the Pole except by some 1,000,000:1 fluke.

• Whether that analysis was done by the author of that book, or whether he was citing someone else's analysis.
• What those damn "miles" are. Gene Nygaard 02:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert Edward Peary

It seems unlikely that the 1996 analysis was Fergus Fleming's, since his book was published in 2002. Uncited is Robert Bryce's massive 1996 work, Cook & Peary which reaches a similar conclusion, but not based on any new analysis of any newly discovered Peary records. Cook & Peary does contain new analysis of newly discovered Cook records, which demolishes Cook's claim quite completely.

Lacking any source citation for the 1996 analysis, I'm going to remove that sentence in the text, and cite both Bryce and Dennis Rawlins' book, which should be sufficient.

When Peary left NY for his exploration

The article claims that the Roosevelt set sail from NYC in July '08. A World Book Encyclopedia Online article, however, states: "Peary sailed to Cape Sheridan on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic in September 1908." Which is correct here?

New International Encyclopedia was published after 1909, but before 1920 when the explorer died. New International Encyclopedia says that (quote) On his final expedition, Peary left New York on the Roosevelt July 6, 1908. Robert A. Bartlett was master of the vessel, George A. Wardwell was chief engineer, Dr. J. W. Goodsell was the surgeon, and there were the following assistants: Ross G. Marvin, Donald B. MacMillan, George Borup, and Matthew A. Henson, a negro. Etah (Canada) was reached August 11. A week later, having taken on 22 Eskimo and 246 dogs, and with renewed supplies of coal and fresh meat, the Roosevelt started for Cape Sheridan. Here winter quarters were established September 8, at a point a little north of that selected in 1905. Sledge work over a wide area extended geographical knowledge and in February the work of establishing a chain of depots began. As a base Peary had taken the land mass thought to be nearest the Pole. Seven members of the party on the Roosevelt (as named above), 17 Eskimo, 133 dogs, and 19 sledges (some of the improved Peary type) made up the strongest and best-organized expedition that had ever set out to attain the farthest north possible. In an unusual degree the men were familiar with and and prepared for the conditions they would meet. Superslum 13:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Upon leaving the Roosevelt behind, Peary set out for Cape Columbia and from there began the march over the ice of the Arctic Ocean, March 1. Within three days the party reached the "big lead," a strip of water of fluctuating width marking the continental shelf. This did not close up so that it could be crossed until March 11. From here (84° 29' N. Lat.) that section of the party which could best be spared returned, commanded by Dr. Goodsell. In five marches 85° 23' was reached, thence and thence the second section, led by Borup returned. The leader started on with 12 men, 10 sledges, and 80 dogs. Marvin, who was drowned on the return, went back from 86° 38', and Bartlett, with the fourth, from 87° 48'. This was the farthest north attained to that time. The commander now had with him only Henson (the negro assistant), four Eskimo, and the pick of his dogs (40 in number). The 125 miles (201 km) of the final dash were covered in five days' marches of equal length, 89° 57' was reached April 6. But on this day, when actually within sight of the Pole, Peary records that he was so exhausted he could go no farther. The next day the few remaining steps were taken and observations were made - 13 single or 6½ double altitudes of the sun at two different stations.

After remaining at the Pole 30 hours, the party started back. The return proved more perilous than the advance. Soundings showed that the party had traveled over ice on an ocean more than 1500 fathoms (9000 ft.; 2743 m) deep (the wire was exhausted at this point). Moreover, the clear weather disappeared and a north-northeast gale caused serious delay and raised the peril of opening leads. To the east Perry saw masses which he named Crocker Island. Although this land was reported nonexistent by MacMillan when later he made a search for it, Stefansson's observations (reported 1915) showed land beyond and tended to substantiate Peary's claim. The return to Cape Columbia was made in 16 marches and the Roosevelt reached Indian Harbor September 5. After his return to the United States, Peary was involved in a bitter controversy with Dr. Frederick A. Cook, who claimed to have reached the Pole first by nearly a year. Superslum 14:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

125 miles in five days is only 25 miles per day, not 50. Dogs can "mush" 25 miles in one day. They have the stamina that it takes to travel 25 miles in one day.

There are sources of information elsewhere, probably at the Smithsonian. The museum holds onto items such as records of heroic deeds. They may have possession of the instrument with which he measured the sun. It seems like he was successful, and that he slept there. Superslum 15:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I read an article on this controversy, and they mentioned his 8 aputated toes meant he couldn't walk, and spent the whole trip sitting in the sled being dragged by the dogs. Can anyone confirm this? --Katy4650 (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Avery's timed run

While the precision of it suggests (as it was intended to) Peary could have achieved the Pole, what evidence is there of Peary's actual time on the final leg? Absent that, Avery's is trivial. Trekphiler 07:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Peary's own records claim that he traveled the last 133 nautical miles to the pole in five days, which was incredible enough, as it was more than double Peary's daily average, and no one has been able to come close to matching even that feat. What makes Peary's claim to have reached the Pole totally preposterous, however, is that on the homeward journey he claimed to have traveled the same 133 miles in less than three days.

Avery's expedition probably disproves Peary's claims more than it reinforces them. Using similar equipment, Avery's one-way trip to the Pole took 36 days. While Peary claimed to have made the journey to the Pole in 37 days, he also claimed to have made the return journey from the Pole to Cape Columbia in only 16 days. Also bear in mind that Avery's was a one-way journey which was supplied by air on 4 occasions. Peary had to haul all of his supplies all the way to the Pole and all the way back, and he had to start earlier in the season, when the cold weather took a much greater toll on men and dogs.

"Usually Credited"

Given the numerous recent well-founded doubts about Peary's claim, I am changing the initial sentence from "is usually credited with" reaching the pole to "claimed to have reached". It may well have been that during most of the 20th century, "usually credited" would have been correct. Today, the "claimed" verbiage seems a more correct statement. Bold text

And I changed it again to make it clear that he was not the first man to reach the pole, but rather the leader of the first expedition to have done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.0.52 (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Herbert's 1989 book, it is widely held that Peary was not the first man to reach the North Pole, nor to lead an expedition that did. Even in 1909, he was not recognized by European professional exploration groups, as the NGS, then mostly a magazine publisher, did not let anyone examine his data.Parkwells (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

peary

i thought it was stupid how he went to the northpole in the beginning. but there are some good things about the trip to the nortpole cause he went to alot of places and he got to see some new things. like greenland and other places. least he died in good arms and not gelt or sadness.im writing an report on him and its fun but some things are very cool about him.so why say bad things about him.

An man quoted in the article opines that Peary was exceptionally unpleasant. The article states that modern critics are unhappy with Peary's treatment of the Inuit, particularly Minik Wallace. Peary's quote about the north pole being "mine at last" reflects poorly on him. And the photograph (walrus moustache, military uniform) does him no favours. But there is no more detail to this; it casts an ominous shadow over the man. Was he a typical product of the age, or was he unusually nasty for a Victorian-era explorer? -Ashley Pomeroy 10:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What?

Tell me if I'm right: these sentences don't make sense. T/F

He intermittently indicated that Greenland's northern tip (still called Peary Land, though other explorers had reached it earlier) was not attached to Greenland, but the supposedly separating "Peary Channel" was actually a fjord. (Thus, the United States's claim to Peary Land was relinquished in 1917 in the Virgin Islands treaty.) (citation, grammar, meaning)

Essentially I'm reading, "Because of his intermittent indications about geographic matters, the US claim was relinquished in the Virgin Islands treaty."

Admunsen and Scott

I would like to add that there were deadly consequences to Peary's controversial North Pole claim. It is this: upon hearing about Peary's claim, Raoul Admunsen switched poles because he did not want to go to an achieved goal,i e the Peary claim, and that left the South Pole as virgin territory. It became a race between Admunsen with dogs and Scott with ponies. The dogs won because they could start out much earlier than ponies. Also, Admunsen began much closer to the pole at Whale Island. What it must have been like for Scott,when upon reaching the South Pole, he found the Norwegian Flag and a note from Raoul Admunsen requesting Scott post a letter from him to the Norwegian King! All this can be found in Robert Falcon Scott Journals, Scott's Last Expedition Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't actually specify any deadly consequences... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.188.169 (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott's party all perished. Missaeagle (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Early Years Addendum

maybe Peary's experience as a surveyor ought to be noted:

"....Peary was a Navy man from the time he entered the U.S. Navy Civil Engineer Corps in 1881 until his retirement in 1911 with a rank of Rear Admiral. His first taste of exploration was as chief assistant on an expedition to Nicaragua to survey a route for the planned alternative to the Panama Canal....." [1]

Ironic to move from subtropical to Polar, but apparently it was on the canal surveys that he met Henson. Bartlett was the Master Mariner but Peary was the Engineer and Surveyor.

Pete318 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Contoversy Section

The "Controversy" section is very opinionated and lacks any cited sources. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, this whole article seems to me to be animated by an anti-Peary POV. I don't know enough about the facts to have a firm opinion about whether or how close he got to the Pole, but there are definitely people arguing on both sides. This article presents one side and debunks the other. Troglo (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Peary's Daughter Marie

I notice that Peary's daughter (by Josephine), Marie Ahnighito Peary, is not listed in the "Children" section (although the article does supply a snapshot of her). 114.73.83.142 (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Added her - looked like someone thought she was one of his Inuit children, as the photo was placed in that section (now "Treatment of Inuit"); it's been moved to be at "Marriage and family"Parkwells (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd phrase

The odd phrase appears, "making the return journey impossibly dangerous". I am not sure what this means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It might mean "making Peary's return journey impossibly fast". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

From a text about Dennis Rawlins (DR) at http://www.dioi.org/cot.htm

Dennis Rawlins showed that F.Cook's alleged 1908 sextant observations, if treated seriously, put him on another planet: found that Cook's unshared 1908 sextant data were corrected for 9' refraction, a value copied from Peary — a backfired theft, since 9' refraction was correct for Peary's alleged 7° solar altitudes but not for Cook's 12° solar altitudes, where 5' would be right. This is why Cook's data [Cook 1911 p.302] “which he thought placed him (with amazing precision) within about one mile of the Pole for well over 24 hours straight, instead demand that he must have hovered for that period, four miles sunward of the Pole, while the Earth spun just beneath his feet. The indication that Cook was riding a flying saucer is not to be taken lightly — e.g., his only doublelimb solar altitudes ([1908] 4/8 and 4/14) [Cook 1911 pp.258&274] make the Sun's apparent diameter 1°/4 (not 1°/2, as it appears from the Earth), thus placing him about two Astronomical Units from the Sun, presumably on the planet Vesta.” (Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 26 [1972] p.135 [Norwegian Geographical Society; Oslo University].)

From the 1909 Peary Expedition's Bottom-less Pit of Anomalies: Nonetheless, Peary (after losing 500 more fathoms on the way) ended up at his “Pole” camp with merely 1500 fathoms of line, and so got nothing more than a no-bottom sounding. (Thus, as in the realm of magnetism, his “Ninety-Degree-North” 1909 alleged N.Pole expedition produced zero precise new scientific data from anywhere north of 86°N latitude.) This bottom-line or no-bottom-line of his 1909 expedition's scientific sterility was summed up at idem endnote o [p.51]

As we have seen [above], over a half-dozen different tests [of the 1909 claim] might have been possible: shared [sextant] observations, witness to [own sextant] data, compass variation, ocean depth, current, photo shadows, internally consistent [sextant] observations at the Pole, or consistent data and journal [April 1-9]. Somehow, not one of these tests can be applied to the 1909 trip. The kindest possible conclusion (not my own, I might add) is: Peary's claim is completely unsubstantiated and thus should be completely dropped (à la Copenhagen [regarding Cook]), for, even if he did achieve the Pole, he might as well not have; and accepting [such a scientifically profitless and unverifiable claim] might later encourage those less upright than the Admiral to take advantage of the precedent set by official allowance of the lights-out conditions under which the feat was allegedly performed.

Dennis Rawlins Peary at the North Pole: Fact or Fiction [1973] p.154 noted:

If one can navigate a trip from celestial data, one can fake celestial data from an imagined trip; the math is the same type. (The standard navigational method of Peary's day [the St.Hilaire method] actually required faking celestial data en-route to solving for position.)

It is easier to fake celestial data than to use it in genuine navigation. [Except very near the poles, where the math in either direction is such trivially simple arithmetic that there's little to choose: “to say that [faking] near-polar [sextant] observations … is trickier than using genuine data is tantamount to saying that addition is more difficult than subtraction.”] (Polar Notes 10 [1970] p.35. See also DIO 10 [2000] p.32 n.62.)

The easiest places on Earth for which to fake data are the poles.

Dennis Rawlins showed how the fancy-looking (& expensive) pages&pages of spherical trig determinations of Peary's alleged location near the Pole (given in full at Wm.Hobbs Peary 1936 pp.466-475), designed to impress Congress (& secretly funded by Peary: Rawlins Peary … Fiction [1973] p.238) could be accomplished in just a few lines of gradeschool arithmetic. The results agreed to about 1 meter! — a tiny fraction of a great-circle arcsec. (See this simple arithmetic actually performed at Polar Notes 10 [1970] p.35.)

Revealed that Matthew Henson's account (Boston American 1910/7/17) of Peary's 1909/4/6-7 activities near his “North Pole” camp confirm most explorers' and navigators' longheld suspicions that it was far from the Pole: Peary made no sextant observations during the last five marches, largely led by non-navigator Henson. (Whom Peary was privately denouncing as a slacker [DIO 1.1 [1991] p.25 & n.16] and whose recognition has always been violently mis-estimated in one direction or another.) Henson's 1910 account included his reports that Peary's 4/6-7 sextant shots triggered “disappointment” and that he suddenly went effectively silent towards Henson (who had faithfully served him for 22 years) right from this allegedly glorious moment — the very same moment when Peary (whose story was obviously still in-flux) also got silent to his diary for days of blank pages. (See DIO 10 [2000] §O15 and nn.141&142. See also the long-suppressed 1910/4/1 note to Peary from his beautiful secret ghostwriteress: Rawlins Peary Fiction [1973] Appendix p.284 [& p.61]. And see Henshaw Ward's invaluable account of the Bowdoin navigator secretly living at Peary's home during the 1909 Autumn weeks when he was preparing to meet his NGS judges: ibid pp.285f.) Peary henceforth avoided conversation with Henson. For the rest of their lives. (U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 1970 June p.40; Polar Notes 10 [1970] pp.42-43; Rawlins Peary Fiction [1973]; DIO 1.1 [1991] pp.23f [see below]; DIO 7.1 [1997] pp.23-24 & DIO 10 [2000] p.5 n.)

First to bring modern magnetic science successfully to bear upon the checking of historical polar reports. (This was the empirical criterion that initially caused DR to doubt the Peary 1909 claim. See also Cagni and Cook.)

Along the very 413 nautical mile route (from 83°07'N to 90°N, along 70°W) which Peary said he'd beeline-traveled straight to the North Pole (allegedly steering within 1° of right-on), we now know that the compass variation in 1909 changed (increasingly leftward) by more than 10°, but Peary in 1909 admitted to Congress that he took no compass-variation data (the only one of his 8 expeditions to omit such), even though he said (R.Peary The North Pole 1910 pp.211, 276, 294) that his steering was accomplished by compass. (U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 1970 June. Thorough citations supplied at: Polar Notes 10 [1970] pp.36, 49, 52; Rawlins Peary Fiction [1973] pp.91, 137, 132, 226-228, 234; DIO 1.1 [1991] p.24; DIO 7.1 [1997] p.24 n.22.)

Explorers Frederick Cook (1908) & Rob't Peary (1909) claimed that at their allegedly-conquered North Geographical Pole, the compass pointed at or near the North Magnetic Pole. (From such pseudoscience followed Cook's fantastic “magnetic meridian”.) Dennis Rawlins determined that in 1908-1909 the compass at the NGP actually pointed roughly 30° to the right of the NMP. (Polar Notes 10 [1970] pp.36, 52; Rawlins Peary Fiction [1973] pp.91, 226.)

Professional explorers' politely muted but eventually wide doubts of Peary's claim presumably arose directly out of his long-putoff 1911 congressional testimony, when he was finally (after the huge profits his N.Pole hoax had brought in from lectures, magazine series, & book were safely in the bank) forced to admit that he had in 1909 taken no compass data. One need not speculate regarding what an independent scientific body would have made of that item, given the reaction of the chief navigation expert (longtime Copenhagen Navigationsdirektor, Commodore J. A. D. Jensen) of the Danish commission that in 1909 rejected Cook's 1908 N.Pole hoax: “There is nothing in Dr.Cook's [1908] records to show that he made azimuth observations. In the arctic regions, where variations of the compass are most important [being large and varying from place to place] — the compass is of little use unless its variations are controlled [checked by fresh determinations] at short intervals. When one realizes that Dr.Cook [nonetheless] set his course to the pole by the compass, the most fantastic suppositions as to his wanderings are possible.” (Polar Notes 10 [1970] p.52; Rawlins Peary Fiction [1973] p.132.) [In 1909 September, Denmark trustingly elevated Cook, but it destroyed him in December. By an odd coincidence, Denmark's top composer Carl Nielsen and Cook were born on consecutive days: 1865/6/9&10. More precise and odder coincidences are cited at DIO 8 [1998] pp.48-50. Also: DR's father Lou was born on the very day Harry Thaw (Harvard class of 1892) murdered top US architect Stanford White (and got-off on “temporary-insanity”, proving that temporarily-insane juries are not a novel blight), which was exactly the 30th anniversary of Custer's end. DR's critics may find significance in the fact that his father'ss birth occurred in calendaric connexion with a day of killings by Crazy Horse and Crazy Harry.]

First to note that Peary's sole alleged 1909/4/5 zeroing-in observation for navigating to “the Pole” was not among the data submitted by him to the International Geographical Congress in 1913, a submission accompanied by the statement that all his 1909 data were included. (For the credibility of his navigational story, the purported 4/5 sextant work was the most crucial of all his 1909 alleged data.) Though mentioned in Peary's 1909 diary, the 4/5 record has never been found; and at his 1911 congressional hearings, Peary denied its very existence. (Rawlins Peary Fiction [1973] pp.143-144, 150, 231-232.)

First to reveal huge 1910 secret split in the Royal Geographical Society board, on giving Peary its gold medal. Only 8 of 35 members voted “For” — and at a nonquorum meeting, at that. (Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 26 [1972] n.25; Rawlins Peary Fiction [1973] p.237. Wisely & revealingly, RGS declined to publish its own [curiously spiritualist: ibid p.61] surveying instructor's credulous report.)

After his expedition's lightly-loaded lead-sledge (Peary North Pole 1910 pp.204-205, Rawlins Peary Fiction 1973 p.111) had made only 13 nautical miles/day on the previous 5 marches, Peary with all 5 sledges fully-loaded (Peary 1910 p.360, Rawlins 1973 p.134) allegedly made astonishing 1909/4/1-9 speeds over ocean ice full of high “pressure-ridges” and detours around open water “leads” (Peary 1910 pp.194-196, Rawlins 1973 pp.112-113) from April Fool Camp (4/1, where he left the last other navigator in the party, Bob Bartlett [who headed south from there]), over 25 miles/day to his “North Pole” camp (4/6-7, where sextant data were of course unshared); and back southward at over 50 miles/day to Bartlett Camp (4/9). Unlike many analysts, DR carefully took the least fragile line of attack upon these ridiculous claimed speeds by comparing them primarily not to mortal explorers (& dogs!) but to Peary's own record. (Note analogy to Cook-vs-Cook: DIO 9.3 [1999] p.122.) Theorizing that [i] the rest of the trip was real, and [ii] Peary did not conspire with anyone, DR emphasized that all Peary's suspect speeds are north of April Fool Camp (which was at least 135 nautical miles from the N.Pole), where he had finally relieved himself entirely of what was always his heaviest inertial burden (whose superdrag-heft had similarly slowed progress in 1906), namely: competent navigational companions who could check where the party really was. The key new point (for which alibis vary, except in their incredibility): Peary's speed not only doubles as he passes north of this camp, his speed halves as he again passes the same camp going south. (Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 26 [1972] p.136.)

Added to Henry Helgesen's exposure of Peary's Cookian (ibid n.11: sextant data) finagling of his estimates of the miraculously speedy last 5 marches to “the Pole”. (Thorough details at ibid n.26 or Rawlins Peary Fiction [1973] pp.144-145.) Peary's & Cook's data-juggling had two glaring common features: [a] Three stages. (See also Byrd's 1926 double tripleness.) [b] Seriously disparate input figures led to identical computational bottom-lines before&after — THE classic symptom of backward calculation, which R.Byrd has also been directly apprehended at. As has W.Molett (modern defender of Peary & Byrd): DIO 10 [2000] p.55.

Peary denied he rode the sledges much, but all five of his final 1909 companions agree that he did. (Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 26 [1972] n.26.) Thus, Rawlin's Peary Fiction [1973] p.145 summed up Peary's 1909 navigational story: he “sped over the ice for 27 marches without knowing which way was north, pacing the distance of the last 130 miles from a sitting position. [Detouring over drifting & obstructively pressure-ridged icecakes all the while.] On [1909] 4/6-7, opining he was at his goal, he chanced solar observations that showed him to be only a mile and half short and four miles to the left, the straightest, best-gauged dead reckoning feat of all time — a veritable 413-mile Pole-in-one!”

These texts are published by DIO, http://www.dioi.org/

Attesting to the high scientific quality of DIO, read this web page: http://www.dioi.org/quotes.html (What eminent scholars are saying about DIO:...) Roger491127 (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of Inuit

As there were more issues than descendants, I changed the header. Also, since this article is about Peary, I deleted much of the long discussion about mistreatment of Minik Wallace, as there is a separate article about him and those issues. Peary did not have custody of the Inuit after arrival in NY, so I don't think he can be accused of what the museum staff did.Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Much of this section, "Treatment of Inuit," lacks sources, and "citation needed" has been put in by other editors. For example, the phrases "this was common among European explorers" and "these facts were widely acknowledged," appear without attribution. I will trim it using WP:Bold and see if anyone objects. Asburyparker (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Controversy

While there appear to be knowledgeable editors about the points made by various researchers, this section reads much like OR currently, as assertions are not well cited. There are more notes above than in the main content of the article. A couple of sources from the 2000s are referred to generally, but most of the points following are not sourced. Henson's own website (maintained by whom?) cannot be counted an RS for this argument, nor can Tom Avery's website, which is an overall quote and does not address some of the technical arguments. I've noted where assertions need specific cites.Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I performed some article expansion in December 2012 with the intention of continuing, but some shiny thing distracted me and I never got to the controversy section. I found the Mills book to be a very thorough source; it describes the historiography of the controversy. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)