Talk:Ellen MacArthur

Technology
Surely this is more a triumph of technology, rather than feats of one person? We should therefore be celebrating the technolgical and navigational advances which were the prime means of attaining this record? Controversial I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.32.84 (talk • contribs)


 * Feel free to go and write some articles on the technology, then. Joyous | Talk 15:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The technology certainly helps (until it starts to go wrong), but the novelty of it wears off after 71 days at sea :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.84.253.241 (talk • contribs)

I'm getting really sick of hearing all this "triumph of technology" stuff. It's total garbage. The next person who tells me that "it's all easy now because it's all GPS" is going to be made to scrub out my holding tank. I'm sure a lot of people — and I'm thinking of people who've never sailed on the ocean — imagine that trimming sail in a gale is as simple as pressing a button on the GPS, but let me tell you that button ain't there. It's true that there are some boats with electric winches where sailing is done by button-pushing — I've sailed on an Amel Super Maramu which was like that — but those are illegal in racing and record setting, for the same reason that using the engine is illegal. These are sailing events, and for competitive purposes the boat has to be propelled and controlled by wind and muscle power only. (Exceptions are made for electronic auto-pilots — simply more accurate and safer than the traditional wind-powered equivalent.)

In any case, how do you imagine that "technology" helps with wrestling a huge, wet genoa weighing hundreds of pounds up through a tiny hatch onto a wet, heaving and wave-swept foredeck? I can tell you from experience that handling a 32-foot heavy-displacement yacht with 650 ft² of sail (main and genoa) in a gale is a serious physical challenge, even with crew. Doing the same single-handed on a 75-foot trimaran weighing a couple of tons less but with 2,900 ft² of sail is something I can't imagine and never want to experience!

What I think few people appreciate is just how incredibly hard racers have to work. To win, you have to keep the boat moving at top speed, and that means trimming sail for every change in the wind. Adjusting the sheets, putting in or shaking out a reef, or changing headsails goes on continually. (I wait hours after a wind change, on the off-chance that it won't hold, because (a) my heavy boat can take it, (b) I don't give a damn about speed, and (c) I can't be bothered!).

The reason that Ellen is the fastest sailor in the world is that she is prepared to push herself harder than any other person sailing on the ocean, in the world, bar none. At the slightest shift she's up there doing whatever it takes to keep the boat going at top speed, cranking a mainsail weighing as much as a small car up and down the mast God knows how many times a day. She wins because she commits more physical effort to the job than anyone else, beyond the point where most people would break down and give up. And that is a "feat of one person", pure and simple.

Technology obviously helps, but not with sailing the boat. Technology designed a fast boat in the first place, but that only made Ellen's job much, much harder — when Robin Knox-Johnston did his trip, he was on a small, heavy boat with a tiny sail plan (coincidentally almost identical to my own boat), a fraction of the effort to sail compared to Kingfisher or B&Q. Technology made B&Q into a huge boat that 10 people would have trouble managing. Technology helps with navigation, and with communication — both important — but not with sailing the boat, except for the cool 2-hand winches which allow Ellen to translate sweat into sailing speed faster than anyone else has ever done. — Johan the Ghost seance 13:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well stated. I would also add that 'technology' is also a major contributor to the fact that B&Q remains in one piece while achieving ever increasing speeds day in day out, week in week out.  Fast speeds in the southern ocean tested Ellen's physical and mental capacity to the limit in order to keep the boat trimmed and sailing to maximum efficiency without exceeding the design limits and breaking.  The faster the boat the more challenges on skill and endurance when sailing in extreme conditions (ie can I go faster without the mast falling down, how/when and for how long can I sleep etc).  So - technology aids navigation, communication, weather forecasting and boat strength but the achievement of the skipper in breaking the record cannot be overstated.  Boatman 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'm certainly not denying the huge amount of technology that makes a modern Open 60, say, an incredibly fast boat.  The point is that all the sailors in these races and record attempts have boats are like that.  Technology will only get you to the starting line, and on a level footing with all the other sailors.  Winning is down to the skipper. — Johan the Ghost seance 21:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Johan. I think you're right that these people (not to mention their less evolved counterparts who have been vandalizing the page) have never been ocean sailing, or perhaps they've never even raced. Certainly the only records they've broken are in speaking about things they know nothing about. I'd say they should try it themselves, but I doubt they have either the guts or the sailing skill to elicit the necessary funds. Either way, there's a big difference between hopping in your Sunfish in a light breeze on the lake and facing the Southern Ocean by yourself. One of the main human feats of ocean racing and circumnavigation attempts is being able to tame these out-of-control beasts; in other words, the technology makes things both better and worse. (Hmm, perhaps they're merely sexists who think a woman couldn't do this without a man or sufficient technology. Would not surprise me.) Antije (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the amount of text in 'Criticism' paragraph valid/balanced?
In terms of words the Criticism section is by far the dominant part of this article. Questions for discussion:-


 * Is she such a controversial character that so much text is needed?
 * In the media praise far outweighed criticism. What was the ratio? 2:1, 5:1, 10:1?? A proper balance needs to be established in the article.
 * The round the world speed record does not have any restrictions placed on yacht design (except for engine use not allowed). Why does this negate the achievements of any previous record holder who used the best technology of the time to race around the world non-stop?.
 * The technology, speeds achieved etc introduce a whole new set of skills and challenges. eg Sleep deprivation, mental concentration, increased physical stamina etc etc.  This does not negate the achievements of previous record holders who were all 'pushing the boundaries'.  Some experts say that is does because it was achieved by a woman.
 * The motivation of record breakers can always be represented in a negative way to us mere mortals. eg Self centred, selfish, competitive, money motivated, crushes the competition, etc etc but if they did not have some of these attributes they would not be world record breakers. If you follow her story, media interviews, documentaries etc etc have we seen any inference of money motivation?  Typically world record holders earn good money, the higher the profile typically the more they earn.  Every expert has an opinion so to balance the article, for every negative comment there needs to be one or two or three etc times as many supporting quotes from respected sources.

In summary valid negative criticim is not a problem but is she such a controversial character that requires such a large content in the article?. Do you agree that negative criticism in the article must be balanced with respect to the dominant praise from media, experts, fellow competitors etc on her achievements?? Boatman 07:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that most of this new copy is totally irrelevent to Wikipedia, and I suspect comes from someone who holds a grudge. I suggest that it be deleted. Do others agree? Philsy 16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to reply to this properly later, but I do think that (in general terms) the level of praise she has received is easily equalled (or even surpassed) by both the objective criticism re changes in technology and the subjective criticism/satire re her temperement and motivations. Check almost any news article about her over the past couple of years, and you'll see that it refers to both. I appreciate that fans of hers may wish to keep the Wikipedia article clear of these matters, but I think the way forward for them would be build up on the positive side, rather than try to eliminate or water-down the negative side - which I think I've drafted quite reasonably and sourced with, among others, articles from both the BBC and The Guardian - both very respected sources. I certainly don't hold a "grudge" against her.

Labcoat 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ref your reply above, ".....that (in general terms) the level of praise she has received is easily equalled (or even surpassed)......" A google search (after eliminating articles from sponsors, associated charities etc etc) comes nowhere close to justifying this statement.
 * We are not asking for a "watering down the negative side", the same thing can be said far more concisely.
 * Why the comparison with Robin Knox-Johnston's record which has been significantly beaten several times since? Look at any world record that uses equipment/technology and compare that with the record 30 years previously. The article only compares MacArthur's record with the previous record that she beat by just over 1-day.
 * Currently the article is unbalanced. So what I suggest, with your agreement, is that you review all the comments above, review the section and either edit or confirm that you believe that no changes are necessary.  Thanks Boatman 18:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Boatman, cheers for the reply. I'll take another look very soon and get back to you. Please leave 'as is', for the time being, though.

Labcoat 07:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Boatman, I've re-read both your feedback and also the content of the Criticism section. Thanks again. I've deleted the bit about Leslie Grantham, because it doesn't really add anything valuable. However, with the rest, I think the real problem here is a lack of substantive content in the article generally re her positive achievements, rather than any serious problem with the content of the Criticism section per se. As things currently stand, I do agree that the overall article is now disproportionately weighted on the negative side. But the way forward would be for someone to add content that reflects her positive achievements more fully - for example, her charity work. I think the comments re self-promotion are justified, given the extreme wealth her racing career has earned her, together with the Damehood - which, at such a young age and in such an exclusive environment, did attract controversy over whether it was truly merited. Additionally, her temperament has been repeatedly lampooned by the UK tabloids and 'lads mags' - which, irrespective of one's opinions of them, do (for better or worse) represent a substantial percentage of the British public. You'll probably be aware that Wikipedia has in recent months and years come under attack for it's reliability as a source of information. One of the main charges being that many articles, particularly those concerning celebrities, are often closely 'guarded' by fans/supporters of the person/people concerned, who actively strike out or dilute anything which may construed as negative. I fear that this article may cited as an example of that if we do not permit sufficient space for fair criticism. Labcoat 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time in considering the content and for a clear reasoned response. Boatman 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi.. I have a bit of a problem with the criticism section too. While it is perfectly fair to mention that Robin Knox-Johnston had a harder time than Macarthur because of the technological disparity, why is this a "criticism" of MacArthur? and if it isn't, why is it a section labelled 'Criticism'? Secondly, what exactly does it mean to say she "motivated by self-promotion".. in particular, what is alleged to be wrong with putting the logo of her sponsors on her yacht (aren't they paying for it after all)? And even if it were wrong, how would it constitute "self-promotion"? Thirdly, I am not sure that being accused of having whiny temperament is a notable criticism.. after all, she is not notable because of her personality and so I feel criticism of her personality is intrinsically non-notable as criticism. As a media phenomemon, bitching and satire about her whininess might be notable but perhaps it should be presented as a media phenomenon rather than as criticism. The only notable criticism I can see is that, having been perhaps disproportionately honoured and celebrated, she has not made an active effort to cut herself down to size or to acknowledge her colleagues and predecessors. I'm not sure this deserves a whole section called "criticism". Zargulon 17:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In the criticism section, I feel it is unnecessary to include Knox-Johnston's quote as an example of criticism, it is merely an observation (however negative) on technological progress. I have retained the citation, but removed the text. Secondly, the whole second part of the "Criticism" section is merely conjecture and personality-based. The accusations of marketing (her boat being called B&Q) should therefore be applied to any sportsperson racing under a sponsor's banner, which brings in all manner of F1 teams, a few football (soccer) teams such as Bayer Leverkusen, etc. etc.. If whinging and whining at 100mph winds, rough sea swells, homesickness and psychological stress is a bad thing, then maybe the criticism section should be levelled at the entire human race. As such, I can see no merits in the second part of Criticism and I have lopped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.187.123 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see User:Labcoat has been reinserting the excessively critical passages which were removed earlier in accordance with what I read above in this discussion as the general consensus that they were overblown and not fair. Maybe be I am mistaken but that is how I read the discussion. User:Labcoat is also accusing people of vandalism which strikes me as contrary to AGF. Do we want the current excessive (IMO) criticism section or do we want it reverted back to the more restrained version? Dabbler 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this behaviour is destructive and unacceptable. I do not understand what this guy's (girl's?) problem is, it might help if he contributed on the talk page rather than flinging accusations of vandalism. Zargulon 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's me again, the one who "lopped" it. I don't see how the reverted version is anything vastly different to what's on there now, albeit in a much more concise form, removing unnecessary citable quotes and removing a lot of POV conjecture. I will once again remove the POV non-encyclopaedic language. It is not vandalism, it is streamlining. 80.4.187.123 —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I'm not sure whether it's fair to assume that a shared opinion between two (or three, if you include the anonymous 'lopper') contributors forms any kind of "consensus". I also think that the near-wholesale, repeated (and anonymous) deletion of well-sourced article sections that have remained entirely unchallenged for almost five months could legitimately be considered a form of vandalism. The "consensus" you have claim disregards the preceding "consensus" on this page that justified the passages - in which, as you'll see, I participated and provided a reasoned justification for their inclusion. You'll see that I had already acknowledged that the criticism section was probably disproportionate in terms of size - but that the problem was more as a consequence of too little in terms of the 'positive' aspects of her career, rather than a fault with the "negative" comments in themselves.

Please be aware that I have no personal dislike of MacArthur. I do worry however that the article (as it now stands) provides an account that misses much of the controversy that she has been subject to.

Accordingly, at present I feel that the section has been edited unfairly. We are clearly in disagreement and need to try and work through this together.

(Also, Zargulon, please refrain from using language such as "I do not understand what this guy's (girl's?) problem is" and "...flinging accusations" on these pages. The tone and nature of such comments are contrary to the basic rules governing discussions on these pages.)

Labcoat 06:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the only rule-breaker, Labcoat. I do not think you had any basis for using the word "vandalism", particularly when the deletions were given *prior* support by the most recent opinions on the talk page. Sourced that material may be, but my above questions remain unanswered.. the 'criticism' about relating to her voyage being easier than previous is not actually criticism of either her or the voyage, is it? Merely a criticism of the interpretation they have received (allegedly.. do I detect a straw man?) in some quarters. As for her temperament even if it should be included it obviously doesn't deserve a "criticism" section, which looks kinda foolish. Just stick all this somewhere more stylish in one of the already existing sections and I wouldnt have any objection to it being reinstated. Zargulon 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Zargulon, for the sake of the article, let's put the issue of who's 'rule-breaking' and who isn't to one side. I agree that the deleted content sat awkwardly under the banner 'criticism'. If the passages were re-inserted under a new section entitled 'Perspectives', would that be acceptable to you and others?

Labcoat 10:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now the article reads like a hatchet job with all the criticism of Macarthur because she used more up to date technology than Know-Johnston did thirty years ago when Suhaili was already old. That is not a criticism it is a description of changing technology and may have a place in Long distance sailing races but not as a Criticism of Macarthur. So that section should be moved to another article of deleted. Secondly, if she does get tired, emotional and even whinges after being sleep deprived for months thatis hardly a criticism unless she is the only yachtsperson ever to do so. You could see if it fits in under Sleep deprivation perhaps? Thirdly, I doubt she threw a tantrum until Blair made her a Dame, it wasn't here decision so she should not be criticised for it. Any comments about her personality are essentially POV even if sourced by POV writers in in POV papers. If she has been charged with a crime because of her personality or has been part of some public scandal as a result of it perhaps it would have a place. Because some journalistic hack or another competitor doesn't like her getting attention does not make it notable. Dabbler 11:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think, with respect, that you may be missing the point slightly with this. MacArthur's whinging, self-promotion etc were included since they have become (fairly or otherwise) closely linked to her achievements in the eyes of both the public and those from within the sport. These points are therefore notable. Whether they should be termed 'criticism' or something else is a separate matter.

As a (fairly random) illustrative example of this point, see the article on Tony Slattery, which refers to how "Early in the 1990s he became over-exposed as a celebrity, to the extent that he was a target of satire."

Labcoat 11:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, it isn't a separate matter. And you are also missing the point that even if a small amount of criticism should be in the article, it does not make sense here to have a separate section devoted to it. Zargulon 14:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just saw your intermediate comment. I really favour integrating the material into existing sections rather than having a separate section devoted to it. A discussion of how great (or not) her achievement and a discussion of her temperament don't sit well in the same paragraph (whether it's called criticisms or perspectives). Rather the discussion of whether her achievement was exaggerated by the press should join the section on the round-the-world yacht race, and the discussion of her temperament, well it's quite difficult to find anywhere stylistically reasonable to put that.. it's pretty disconnected from anything else on the page. By the way I still don't understand what is meant by 'self-promotion'.. seeking sponsorship isn't self-promotion, it's self-finance via the promotion of others. Zargulon 14:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lopper here again - i do have a Wiki username but I cannot remember my password -- Firstly I'm glad we've seen off a stupid vandal today.. IMHO Ellen IS pretty but that's POV.

Labcoat: One would normally include Character aspects if they were a major part of their public image.. for example Lee Evans manic energy, Gordon Brown's solemnity or Julian Clary's campness. However Ellen's persona is far far outweighed by her actual achievements. Forget what boat she used - the year she broke the record was 2004, not 1974. Her personality traits were only highlighted in a SATIRICAL comedy show, a few right-wing rent-a-mouths.. plus the previous version of Criticism used quotes in a prejudiced way - i.e. expounding an interpretation and then using a particular quote in such a way as to re-inforce a view. In a GCSE English Literature essay this would be ideal. In an ideal encyclopaedia entry we deal with facts and accepted norms, not conjecture and opinion.

Above all this, I do not think a heavily weighted Criticism section is beneficial to the article. People looking up Ellen MacArthur will be looking for her records, her essential information and her activities. They will not be looking for a character reference, and no sane / eduacated / informed person will for one second think that the round the world speed record is in any way less of an achievement than her predecessors. Fact is she did sail non-stop around the world faster than anyone else using the allowable technology she had available. If she was going for an unassisted record that would be something else, but she wasn't. And I hardly think linking in the Daily Mail, a newspaper with a reputation for being sniffy about individual achievement, helps.

OK it's now half midnight and I'm highly caffeinated...back to work! 80.4.187.123 —Preceding comment was added at 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK it's now half midnight and I'm highly caffeinated...back to work! 80.4.187.123 —Preceding comment was added at 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I fear that we might be going around in circles with this. 'Lopper', I'm not sure if I accept the argument that the inclusion of non-positive comments regarding MacArthur's career somehow denigrates her positive achievements. Also, you made a passing joke regarding some POV vandalism. Yes, it was a joke but I also wonder whether it hints at what might be influencing the reasons for wish to strike out the critical remarks? If you're an admirer of MacArthur's, perhaps you're unduly sensitive to non-positive aspects of her life? Personally, I really have no opinion either way.

You've dismissed the critical comments as being the product of right-wing / Daily Mail-style bigotry, which is an interpretation I find very odd, since the perceptions regarding her temperament are widespread throughout all sections of British society. This is evidenced by the fact that the deleted passages were sourced from a BBC1 (i.e national and very mainstream) show and national newspapers of practically opposite political leanings.

Her whining etc is a notable character trait because most people would describe her as such. And I'm afraid, whether we like it or not, her achievements absolutely are less of an achievement compared to her predecessors. To claim otherwise is like saying the modern tennis racquet performs basically the same as the wooden ones used 40 years ago.


 * I live in the UK and until I read this article I only knew of MacArthur as a prominent sailor.. I didn't give her personality a second thought. To be honest, I still don't. I also think the fact that she is a woman adds to her achievement.. just as for a lot of commentators and satirists it is apparently an excuse to look for kinds of low-level faults that I imagine they would not if she were a male sailor. Zargulon 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Zargulon, the comment re 'self-promotion' concerns an arguably cynical belief that her primary motivation in the sport is to acquire fame and build on her vast wealth as opposed to any genuine love of the sport or personal ambition to break records.


 * Ok. I think this needs to be expressed more precisely. Zargulon 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, as per your suggestion, I would like to move the deleted passages to another section of the article. Labcoat 07:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 07:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please give it a try. If it reads sensibly I will support you. Zargulon 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article as it currently stands provides a very well balanced article for the reader. ie Life, achievements, criticism etc.  The motives for people breaking records in any sport or activity are complex and at best imprecise.  If `her motivation is 'to acquire fame and build upon her vast wealth' some will commend this as a wonderfull magnificent objective and others will condemn it as the pits - who is right?  Also what does 'vast wealth' actually mean? Knox Johnston was not trying to break a record he was trying to be the first in an era when no-one knew if it was even possible for a small boat to structually survive a non-stop voyage around the world, no-one knew if the solitude could be endured, no-one knew if it was possible for one person to sail, navigate, sleep etc and complete the voyage intact. MacArthur was out simply to break a record using the best technology, best sports medicine, nutrition, weather advice etc etc that was available.  The record she was aiming to beat was even broken while she was preparing.  She was and is a full time professional sailor ie if no sponsorship then the morgage does not get paid.  If we come back and review this in 20 years time us 'old salts' will say 'well it was so much harder in MacArthur's day because she only had carbon fibre technology available, weather forcasting was only reliable to 30 days out, she only had dual quad pentiums for computer power, even downloading a weather chart took 30 secs from the satellite and she even had to do it 10 times a day - an absolute age' etc etc   The article as it currently stands provides a very well balanced article for the reader.  ie Life, achievements, criticism etc. Remember Wikipedia must be an encyclopedia of facts not opinions  Boatman 13:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Zargulon and Boatman, I agree entirely with almost everything you've said. Almost.  My issue, and it has been my issue from the outset, is that MacArthur's detractors and those that satirise her do enjoy popular support from a broad spectrum of the British public.  I actually agree that such critcisms are in themselves probably unjust - but it is not our role to construct an account that 'does justice' (as we see it) to the individual concerned in the sense that we plaster over the 'unfair' popular perceptions and portrayals of that person.  From the start, I have accepted that the (now deleted) critical aspects of the article were disproportionately large in the context of the article overall.  The correct way, I feel, to have dealt with that would've been to build up on the positive side.  Can we agree on some kind of half-way compromise?

Labcoat (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * certainly. Zargulon (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "MacArthur's detractors and those that satirise her do enjoy popular support from a broad spectrum of the British public." - Er...just who exactly? I was at her homecoming at Falmouth - which is the most southwesterly one can go. The place was packed with people from all over the place. Is there an "Anti-Ellen" group that we're not aware of?

The only way to settle this would be to put a separate "Admiration" section in to counter the criticism section. We would then be getting into all manner of character references and opinionated conjecture; stuff I believe does not lie in a Wiki article. LOPPER 212.32.86.43 (talk)


 * 100% agree with LOPPER above. Ref Labcoat's question re compromise - The article currently says: "Critics of MacArthur's voyage emphasise the vast, near incomparable differences in the technological capabilities of present-day sailing vessels against those used by previous record holders.  In addition to this some commentators have found her personality challenging and overly negative. Her temperament is something that forms the central basis for her caricature on the BBC satirical comedy show Dead Ringers."  All true, very clearly stated with references provided for further external references.   This is not a half way compromise from anyone it is a very unambiguous statement of fact.  As soon as we get into the realms of assumptions around motivation, assumptrions regarding the state of her bank balance, assumptions about what % of UK dislike versus % who like her then this is outside the realms of an encyclopdia.  (Incidentally I live and work in France and I am amazed how many non-sailing people people have heard of 'ellen macarteur'.  So I think that I will add that observation to the article and I will also add that that France have adopted her as one of their own due to her sailing achievements in Castorama and due to her charitable work in France - Oops, best not as I have just remembered that Wikepedia is an Encyclopedia!!) The critism as currently stated is as concise and factual as can be and no compromise needed.  Boatman (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't help feeling that I'm simply being shouted down. Can we at least agree that the existing Criticism section remain unaltered without any further swipes, then?  Labcoat (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Labcoat, I support your excellent recommendation.  Thanks, Boatman (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not acceptable to me. I'd be happy for some of the deleted critical points to be reinstated to the sections of the article where they have individual relevance, but I feel a "criticism" section is an abomination in this article. Zargulon (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think to get a 'Controversies' or 'Criticisms' section you've got to pretty much do something wrong, or appear to have done wrong. Such as a drink driving conviction or a strong suspicion of wrong-doing in the popular conscience. Gomez2002 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The criticisms regarding technological advances might well be valid. In other areas though, the use of the 'Viz Profanasaurus' as a reference is utterly ridiculous, it has no place here.  Satirical characterizations on TV shows don't really belong here either, are all satirical characters listed for other famous people?  I very much doubt it, why is this individuals satirical character so notable?

General Observations
As a non-sailor, perhaps I am not welcome to offer observations, in which case delete me. However, in looking over this colloquy I find myself wondering about several questions: 1) Are the correspondents underemployed, making available time to engage in this seemingly endless discussion? and 2) What is it about this woman (about which I know almost nothing, which is why I came to Wikipedia in the first place), which engenders such irrepressible emotion? OK, so now I know she has an abrasive manner (which apparently serves to disqualify her to some degree for recognition), and has performed remarkable feats (to which, to a disputed and unresolvable degree technology has contributed).Does anyone think this obsessive chat will resolve any of this? Give it a rest, please.Mallow1 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a general Wikipedia policy and methodology. Someone tries to extend an article in a direction that others don't want to go. Rather than each party obsessively rewriting and reverting the article ad nauseam, which would make it change every few minutes, they try and resolve the issue by coming to a consensus here in the Talk pages on what should be in the article and what shouldn't. If after a time a general agreement is reached, the article is rewritten and then any subsequent changes to that aspect can be regarded as closer to vandalism than an attempt to improve. Dabbler (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We are at very least relating to each other constructively - our aim may be futile, but roads are for journeys as well as destinations. At any rate, you seem have the time on your hands to mock us for it.. doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Zargulon (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Bye.Mallow1 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bye! Good luck. Zargulon (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvellous debate, and I hope it can be resolved in an amicable and beneficial manner (i.e the facts are presented , and people and allowed to make up their own mind ). I am a fan of Ms MacArthur and her achievements. So i maybe slightly biased. However where Labcoat suggested there was a wide spread acceptance, within the media of her "whining" persona. It seemed more the classic cases of, certainly the British media employing their , build you up knock you down syndrome. Also there was a very small band of male Sailors (from various periodicals and on-line forums ) who seemed to show distaine and contempt for her achievements, simply for her gender.

I believe the criticism part should remain, however reflect in its wording a more opinion based rather then factual outlook. I remember seeing both the Dead Ringers sketches, and reading the reactions in magazines (like Zoo and Loaded) while both mentioned this each were also complementary within either the same articles or other editions.

Noble Title
MacArthur is a Dame, was the title bestowed or inheritated? The article doesn't clarify this enough. Zidel333 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It was bestowed, just how is the statement

"On her return to England on February 8, 2005, it was announced that she was to be made a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of that achievement" not clear enough? M100 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the line in Trivia claiming she is the youngest person to recieve a knighthood, since it is unsourced, and even a cursory glance at the lists of historical knights in British Chivalric Orders here on wikipedia show plenty of people knighted at an age lower than 29. She may be the youngest commoner to recieve a knighthood, or the youngest person since some particular date, but I do not have a source to verify that, so I thought it better to remove the line altogether. 82.28.182.227 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Early Life and Nancy Blackett trust
The article contains this sentence. "She acquired her early interest in sailing, firstly by her desire to emulate her idol at the time, Sophie Burke and, secondly by reading Arthur Ransome's Swallows and Amazons books and is the Patron of the Nancy Blackett Trust[2] which owns and operates Ransome's yacht, Nancy Blackett." Does anyone agree that the part about her being patron of the Nancy Blackett Trust should be removed from "Early Life"? It hardly seems the right place for it, though I do think it's worth including in the article. I thought about moving it to the "Charitable activity" section but since the Nancy Blackett Trust is a limited company (I've confirmed that with Companies House) and I'm not sure of it's charitable status I'm not sure if that's the right place. I believe it makes sense to put it in Charitable activity, but thought I'd get other input first. Jack of Many (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Is there any need for this section. Why does it matter that other people think she's negative. Perhaps we should move the point about the technological advances to the actual section on here Round the World voyage.

The stuff about the parodies and satirisation could remain and the section renamed "Satire".

What do people think? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ellen MacArthur. 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/20081006073002/http://www.ipa.nw.ru/PAGE/DEPFUND/LSBSS/ALF/21.htm to http://www.ipa.nw.ru/PAGE/DEPFUND/LSBSS/ALF/21.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I think Ellen MacArthur Foundation should be merged with this page. There isn't enough RS about the EMF to justify a standalone article and this page isn't too lenghthy or unweildy to accomodate it.Daily Spider Glee (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand the points about length, though the characteristics of both a substantial person and an organisation are that they will grow and develop more material. This aside, the point about separation is vital. It is extremely useful to view the nature of a Foundation as being there for the long term, beyond the life of the founder. It is also useful to reflect the nature of relationship between an individual (albeit a founder) and an independent charitable foundation as being separate under charity law. For these reasons I argue that the pages remain distinct.Watkyn Jones (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Watkyn Jones You haven't indicated any relevant policies. This merger propsal has existed long enough for a non-SPA to make a reasonable counter argument. I'm going ahead with the merger WP:BEBOLD style.ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)