Talk:Jessica Watson/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

What is a global circumnavigation?

I would like to direct Miss Watson's supporters to the article on circumnavigation on this very website. The previous contributor suggested that it is sufficient "to cross all longitudes and the equator and return to a place visited before the circumnavigation".

It is not.

I could, for example, leave the East coast of Hawaii, circle Antarctica in a clockwise direction, sail back up to the West coast of Hawaii, go around the top, then back to where I started. I will have met the above criteria, but clearly not sailed around the world. Miss Watson did more than this, but not nearly enough.

It is actually quite difficult to define what exactly constitutes a global circumnavigation. There are a number of criteria. One is that you must travel 21,600 nautical miles. If you haven't sailed that far, then you haven't sailed around the world. Miss Watson did not sail that far. Not even close. End of story.--29 January 2015‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pke81885 (talk • contribs)

A minimum requirement is to cross all longitudes and return to a place visited before cross all longitudes. Normally the requirement to cross the equator is added to avoid including crossing all longitudes at polar latitudes. Actually Jessica Watson did sail at least 21,600 nautical miles, measured as sum of daily distances. But in record attempts usually a theoretical line is used. User:Pke81885 claimed it to be unfair to other sailors to include her. But the WSSRC claimed that their rules were not needed, since this was no official record attempt. It is media (and User:Pke81885) who has criticised the route, (based on a sail magazine article, since most journalists don't know the WSSRC rules) afterwards. But no one did criticised it before the adventure, even if media published the planned route. That was unfair to Jessica, to dismiss her on grounds that were accepted before.--BIL (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the phrasing as it currently stands reflects the reliable sources used in the article. The controversy about the definition of circumnavigation is also explained early in the lead, so both sides of the debate are covered. That strikes the right balance imo. As an additional observation, I would suggest that per our core policy on civility editors should not be described as Miss Watson's cheer squad since such description constitutes an ad hominem comment. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
--17 February 2015
There is no controversy about the definition of circumnavigation! Miss Watson’s route clearly does not meet it, no matter how much some of her followers may wish to deny this.
I shall amend my above route to do a bunch of pointless zig-zags so the sailed distance adds up to 21,600 nmi. Have I sailed around the world now?
That aside, there is a particular claim coming from Miss Watson's supporters that is particularly worthy or ridicule. This is the logic that says "since Miss Watson was not attempting a record, the rules that define circumnavigation do not apply, therefore she sailed around the world."
Huh?!
Then why get in a boat at all? Why not just crush a beer can on your forehead and say "I was not attempting a solo circumnavigation record ... therefore I sailed around the world"? Damnit, this morning I rode a unicycle past the cheese shop. I may be well beyond my teens, but since I was not attempting a WSSRC record it won't matter. Hooray for me! I am the youngest person to sail solo, non-stop and unassisted around the world on a unicycle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pke81885 (talk • contribs)
Calling opposing editors "supporters" of Watson is still in breach of the policies on civility and assuming good faith. I hope this is the last comment about compliance with key policies that I have to make. As far as the rest of the sarcasm, I can only remark that we go by reliable sources and not by personal analysis which is original reseatch and is not allowed. If the reliable sources call it circumnavigation, then the article has to reflect that. Finally, please sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Comments should not be altered when they have been replied to. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdem is not sarcasm. There is no sarcasm other than "Hooray for Me". I trust this does not breach editorial policy? Please retract the allegation.Pke81885 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Heavy-handed, second-person, ad-hominem comments like Why not just crush a beer can on your forehead... etc. don't remotely qualify as an intellectual exercise such as reductio ad absurdum and they in fact constitute personal attacks. I suggest you stop your continuing violations of our civility and no personal attacks policy. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
--17 February 2015
I encourage Dr.K. to read this website's article on Reductio ad Absurdum and kindly advise how comparing my reference to crushing a beer can on your forehead does not constitute reductio ad absurdem. I would also like to know how it is heavy handed, how it constitutes a personal attack, how it violates anyone's civility, exactly which wikipedia policy it breaches and how it can in any way be described as ad hominem.
It is indeed difficult to come up with an analogy that matches the absurdity of some of the reasoning cited to support the above claims. To repeat it: Miss Watson did not claim a WSSRC record, therefore the WSSRC rules don't apply, therefore she sailed around the world. Where is the comparison to any standard that comprises a circumnavigation? Where exactly do you draw the line between the voyage of Miss Watson and crushing a beer can on your forehead? To put it another way: exactly how much less could she have done and still claim to have sailed around the world?
If another user wants to proceed with criticising my tone or my method of argument then I can't and won't stop you. But please do the courtesy of addressing the questions I have raised.Pke81885 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I will. You're arguing repeatedly for a position which has no support in reliable sources. Got any reliable sources which claim she didn't circumnavigate? All I see above is a whole bunch of original research. We have many sources which say she did. Therefore, that's what the article will say until sufficient sources of appropriate quantity and quality contradict them. Continuing to argue to a futile point is frowned upon. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've have a closer look at the sources used to support the circumnavigation claims. There is little more than newspaper articles describing the voyage as around the world, and nothing providing an authoritative description of sailing around the world and explaining how Miss Watson's voyage meets those criteria. The circumnavigation case therefore relies on a line of reasoning known in the legal world as "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". If there are better sources than the ones I am about to list please point me to them, but here are the three main sources used to support the circumnavigation case:
[1] Daniel Munoz. This is a contemporaneous Reuter's article on the arrival which is careful to point out that there are doubts about the route. [2] Australia Times. Again, only a news article, but what on earth is the Australia Times? Is a reliable source to be defined as nothing other than a source that Andrew Fraser agrees with? [11] WSSRC: This link is dead and only partially quotes the source by conveniently omitting "The shortest orthodromic track of the vessel must be at least 21,600 nautical miles in length calculated based on a 'perfect sphere'." To be blunt, the quote provided in this footnote is deceptive.
I urge those in favour of the circumnavigation case to read ALL of the footnotes supplied in the article. There are several explanations of what constitutes a circumnavigation by sailing bodies and experienced sailors. There is no credible definition of a circumnavigation which would accommodate Miss Watson's voyage. I also request the circumnavigation casers to check footnote 43 which compares the Jesse Martin route to Miss Watson's route, and think of the dangers Mr Martin faced in sailing as far North as Spain to meet the circumnavigation criteria. Miss Watson didn't need to go that far: she only had to meet the lesser criterion of 21,600 nmi, but she didn't even do that. Frankly, I'm surprised Jesse Martin hasn't sued Jessica Watson, or at least her publicity team. He must be some kind of saint.Pke81885 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Contemporaneous or not, the source says "she sailed non-stop, solo and unassisted around the world at the age of 16". Google "Jessica watson around the world" and you'll find several non-contemporanoeus and reliable sources using the similar phraseology. Dr.K.'s comment "I think the phrasing as it currently stands reflects the reliable sources used in the article. The controversy about the definition of circumnavigation is also explained early in the lead, so both sides of the debate are covered" is spot on. Pke, you're flogging a dead horse mate—there is no consensus to change, nor have you presented any evidence to convince me otherwise. Moondyne (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Show me the reliable sources. I.e. something authoritative. If we are going to rely on news articles, I will show you ten for every one you can dig up. But news articles are not reliable, and certainly not authoritative. As for "The controversy about the definition of circumnavigation is also explained early in the lead, so both sides of the debate are covered." This is a tactic used by global warming and evolution deniers. There is no controversy. There cannot be a controversy about a fact. Andrew Fraser conceded she did not sail 21,600 nmi. As long as this fantastical version of the events is allowed oxygen on Wikipedia this horse is certainly not dead. And I am not your mate.
As I research this issue I am forming the opinion that the article ought to be deleted. If there is a a story here it is in the clever publicity machine that has kept the mythology alive, and how it led to a Young Australian of the Year award for ... well, for What exactly? Sailing a long way for no purpose? Beats me.
A word from Jesse Martin would end this. He is forbearance personified.Pke81885 (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:NPV states "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I think we are meeting this criteria. SEC (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Going around in circles repeating the same arguments and adding new insulting comparisons to global warming and evolution denial does nothing to advance your position or resurrect the deceased equine. It seems you are in search of the WP:TRUTH but this is not acceptable on Wikipedia, as the operating policies here are the ones about reliable sources and no original research. You also have no consensus for your proposed changes, so these will not be enacted. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
We have already repeated that the WSSRC have themselves claimed that their rules are not needed for anything else than their official records. Jessica contacted them before and asked how to interpret the complicated rules. And she published the planned route before departure which the sailing press and Pke81885 did not object to until after the finish line. The WSSRC is not a governing body for leisure sailing which Jessica's journey was. And furthermore, why should Jesse Martin sue Jessica Watson? And why not sail a long way for no purpose. It's for the adventure. Ask any adventurer. For example George Mallory ("why did he want to climb the Mount Everest? Because it's there").--BIL (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep quoting our policies. You may or may not have noticed that they do not favour your position. I have pointed out that the quoted sources are unauthoritative, unreliable and in one case, deceptive. If there are better souces, can I please see them? I will use them.
Are the Round the Worlders claiming a consensus for the Round the World case? They might want to read the footnote sources before answering that. It would be a strange type of consensus indeed, since most people seem to hold the opposite opinion. The Round the Worlders are at risk of causing Jessica Watson to become a figure of public ridicule. That would be unfair.
BIL is not answering my questions but I will do the courtesy of answer BIL's. "Why would Jesse Martin sue Jessica Watson?" Because her publicists are insisting that Jessica Watson sailed around the world when she was younger that Jesse Martin was when he (actually) did so. This infers that she is the record holder, and Jesse Martin is not. This has the potential to detract from his status as the world's youngest solo circumnavigator.
Also, if BIL et al. are so convinced their position is correct they had better go and edit the Wikipedia article on circumnavigation.Pke81885 (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I have been very kind to Miss Watson in the most recent edit. Having reviewed her website and blog, Miss Watson appears to be utterly confused as to whether she attempted to sail around the world or not. In some places the site carefully describes the voyage as a southern hemisphere circumnavigation, but then almost immediately claims the voyage was "around the world". I think the article needs to address this confusion, but I just can't get my head around it. At this stage I'll assume Miss Watson and her management have drawn a distinction between the terms "global circumnavigation" and "around the world". That distinction may or may not be valid. I suspect not. In any case, I think confusion is probably the most likely explanation for the contradictions on her website.Pke81885 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It is better described in her book. Jessica Watson and her mentor Don McIntyre were not sure about the exact definition. It is written in a very tricky way (the length shall be theoretically calculated not along the actual route, which was long enough in Watsons case). So they contacted WSSRC and the anser was that the rules applied to record attempts, but not to this project as it was not a record attempt in their definition. They tried to satisfy everyone before the journey, the WSSRC by asking them, and the press and anonymous web contributors by publishing the planned route and assume they would accept or reject it. No one criticised the route (they focused on the age and gender), and Mr McIntyre wanted her to stay for some weeks in the tropics in order to gain more experience with handling the boat alone before reaching the stormy latitudes. Several Australian circumnavigators have followed a similar ruote which has been accepted. Jesse Martin the formal record holder followed a presribed route by going directly from Sydney in direction Cape Horn, and almost reaching Europe before rounding South Africa. But what happened: The press made no criticism on the route before, but claimed afterwards that it did not follow WSSRC principle. The WSSRC did not comment, it was not their business. People like User:Pke81885 have also not pointed out any problem when the plan was published, but have afterwards claimed that the WSSRC rules must be followed, even if WSSRC has not claimed that.--BIL (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It is as poorly described in the book as it is here. Miss Watson seems to have gone to some minimal effort to collate various definitions of global circumnavigation, then carefully constructed a route that met none of them. It is repeatedly claimed, here and in other fora, that other sailors have followed similar routes and had their route's "accepted". There is no evidence of this. No sailor has ever sailed such a short path and been acknowledge by any authoritative body as a global circumnavigator.
In any case, what part of 21,600 nmi is so hard to understand? It's a universal component of the definition of global circumnavigation, and the principal difference between circumnavigating Antarctica and sailing around the world. The truly suspicious part in this is the way Miss Watson's supporters, as well as Miss Watson herself, have omitted this clause when quoting the WSSRC's definition. In my opinion, this is deliberately deceptive conduct.
And I will ask this question once again, as I've never had an answer, and it's the key point in this debate: how much less could Miss Watson have done and still claimed to have sailed around the world?Pke81885 (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jessica Watson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jessica Watson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

First tasked?

When she first tasked around the world she almost drowned.

Can someone explain and provide a citation for this? Cheers.

I second the concern. It seems to me this should be explained and hopefully referenced. If not feasible my sense is it should be removed. Cheers, --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jessica_Watson/Archive_4&oldid=1027368739"