Talk:Jessica Watson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Deletion

I removed some text as it was mostly about her blogging and how many blog messages she received etc. Anyone disagree? Discuss! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Thanks. (SEC (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Also some info was removed because her blog was cited as a source, which was not legal to do. But her blog is her own words, it is not someones else's blog, and the news articles use her blog as source. Is a blog a legal source if it is first hand info? --BIL (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is your question answered in WP:SELFPUB? I think most of the objection is to the meta-information that was about her blog, not about the journey. (SEC (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

I would also argue that the deleted text did not adhere to WP:NPOV. (SEC (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

NPOV

Would it be acceptable to include what the project manager just recently wrote:

“This storm has showed Jessica to have all the seamanship skills to get through most things that the sea can throw at her and EPL”.

It would maybe violate WP:NPOV, but on the other hand this text was in the article for two months without objections:

"Her departure has been criticised by sailing enthusiasts. Barry Tyler of Pacific Motor Yacht magazine writes, "like the majority of the seafaring world [I] consider it irresponsible, cavalier and indeed ignorant to attempt such a feat, at such a tender age and with so little trans-ocean experience." "

--BIL (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, your quote would not adhere to WP:SELFPUB point 1 "...is not unduly self-serving". It is not expressing an opinion that is the issue, I think a quote such as that would be fine if you could find a third-party observer in a reliable source making such a statement. I think that criteria is met in the negative quote you cite. (SEC (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

A policy for articles about living people is in Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. Saying that "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." So far there has been a lot a critisism in the article, some removed some remaining, but no praise, although a lot can be found on the net. --BIL (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there has been a lot of public criticism, and the article has tended to reflect this, with comparatively little public praise. I recall that the ABC published some positive comments by her sailing teacher, which may be worth including, but the quote above is more of a problem, as it was published on her home page and is written by one of her team. - Bilby (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bilby: I like the direction your changes are taking to help balance the article. Maybe the phrase “Her journey has been heavily criticised” could be a more neutral phrase? Or does it just reflect reality? What do others think? (SEC (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

I was a tad concerned with the wording as well, but it seems to be accurate enough: The Times described it as "fierce" criticism, and certainly there was a lot of criticism after her collision. But I'm not wedded to the wording, should alternatives be preferred. - Bilby (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Other record-breaking attempts

I did a quick copy of this section from Zac Sunderland to Jessica and Abby's entries. It needs work; Jesse Martin and others need to be added. I'll fix it up later or someone else feel free in the meantime. I feel this section should be duplicated across all the entries. Any other opinions or suggestions on this? (SEC (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

Agree; it's worthwhile having here. –Moondyne 14:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it up a bit and moved it to Template:Youngest circumnavigator so we can keep it all in one place. I added it to the Wikipedia entry of each person mentioned. (SEC (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

Unassisted?

How can it be considered to be unassisted? She calls her mum on the satellite phone daily, if not hourly. She has a team at home providing information and planning services. How on earth is this "unassisted"? Andreclos (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it (and someone would need to find the actual definition from whichever body controls such things) "unassisted" means that no physical aid is rendered. In Jessica's case, she's the only one on the boat, so whenever something has to be taken care of, she's the one who has to do it, on her own. All the advice and forecasts and printouts are all great support, but they're not going to do anything tangible. That is how I would define this as an unassisted voyage. Johnmc (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think "tangible" assistance is that which contributes significantly to ensuring survival. The extent to which information on weather (to take just one example) requires a global network to collect and analyze, and provides a huge benefit to the so-called "unassisted" sailor. Another example, repairing equipment: with easy access to massive data stores and a team of people to analyze the problems and advise on solutions, it is often trivial compared to times past to repair broken equipment. Voyages that were huge feats a few decades ago are now vastly less dangerous due to the massive degree of electronic assistance. My point is that we maintain the fiction that it is unassisted, choosing to measure physical assistance only, ignoring the massive electronic assistance that makes it absurd to compare voyages of today with those of the past. Yet the voyages of today set new "records". Just a hint of complete absurdity that should be reflected somewhere in the description of these voyages. The "unassisted" should be qualified to make it meaningful. Andreclos (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "unassisted" is used here as commonly understood. It isn't any different than any other sport or other aspect of life, where someone doing something "unassisted" in reality is usually doing it with a lot of structure, outside feedback, information, and support. The commonly understand definition of "unassisted" is without physical assistance (think of an unassisted airplane flight, unassisted parachute jump, or unassisted mountain climb. They'd all get pretty much the same support Jessica Watson is getting: weather, control tower information, etc. Only if someone were to be there to physically provide help at the time of the event would it be considered "assisted". (SEC (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Additionally, should there be a dialog on and definition of "assisted" I can't see that this article is the place. Perhaps in Nautical_terms, Solo_sailing or create an "assisted sailing" article.(SEC (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Exactly, something the word "unassisted" can be linked to, although from the look of it the consensus is to keep our heads in the sand. Andreclos (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I created what I think is a fairly balanced definition and description of Unassisted sailing, including the fact that sailors who undertake long unassisted voyages commonly receive a lot of respect because of the danger. I also linked "unassisted" to it from this article. Let's see how long it lasts! Andreclos (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

I think she is notable enough to allow this article to exist. If she interrupts her journey early, the article can be deleted, but give her some time. --BIL (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is currently receiving wide-spread media coverage both here in Australia and overseas. It's definitely notable. Just needs more detail and references in the article. 60.242.31.57 (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say keep it for now, but keep WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTNEWS in mind. If she indeed sets the world record then she is definitely notable, but a news burst on an attempt alone is definitely not equal to permanent notability. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to be too crass, but if she doesn't set the record, she might end up be notable for dying while attempting to set the record and then sparking national debate about how she was allowed to make the trip. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree she is not notable since her voyage is not being recognised as a world record. All she did was hop on a boat and set sail for a long time. Anybody could of done that, including other young people, if they only choose to do something so risky. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Could OF done that? Have you tried? We'll be waiting.

I'm assuming that there would be a point where publicity alone would create enough critical mass for something to achieve notability, even if no records were set? Considering that the Jessica Watson story has been bobbing along since September 2009, I would suggest that notability was achieved some time ago. Johnmc (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Map and Photo

I've added a map of the path taken. Perhaps this is a bit premature and the last bit speculative, but I think that with the voyage being 99% complete, its a worthwhile addition. I'm sure that someone will upload a photo in the next week or so, at which time the map can be moved down the page a bit. –Moondyne 02:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a worthwile and timely addition; nice job! I've searched for a public domain photo, but haven't located one yet. We can hope some Wikipedian will be at the welcome-home celebration and can get a decent photo for the article. (SEC (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

I've submitted a request to the media contact for a photo. We'll see! (SEC (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Use of Mercator

The use of Mercator is highly misleading. Since the path traveled fits completely within one half of the earth, an orthographic projection would be best. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jw-yr-voyage.png Watertower (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN

I have nominated this at WP:ITN/C#Jessica Watson - probably needs input from people who know better about the record technicalities than me. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! –Moondyne 13:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.120.18.131, 21 May 2010

Hi!

Can you please ammend the publisher of Jessica Watson's book to Hachette Australia, rather than Hachette Publishing as this is the correct company name. please see the hachette website http://www.hachette.com.au/

Thanks

117.120.18.131 (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I've added a photo of the yacht, which has spent the last week docked outside the Australian National Maritime Museum. I've got a few other photos from various angles (including some quasi-aerial shots taken from the top of the museum's lighthouse), so if there's a particular 'view' you're looking for, drop me a line on my user talk page, and I'll see if I have a corresponding snap. -- saberwyn 03:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Gender bias

How come there is so much critisism, also in this article, about the fact that a 16 year old girl sails around the world alone? It must be because she is a girl. In 2009 two boys of a few months higher age sailed around the world alone (Michael Perham and Zac Sunderland) without much critisism in media, and none on wikipedia. Actually there has been critisism against Jessica and Laura Dekker in the article about Michael Perham. Shouldn't there be Gender equality? --BIL (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern. Wikipedia only reports what others have written, it does not criticise or congratulate. If reliable sources have published criticisms which are pertinent to the article then it is reasonable to record them with cites, with regard to not giving undue weight. That is no way gender bias, and I do not see any on this article. I also don't see anything on Perham's article criticising Watson. 10:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)–Moondyne

Excellent point. In fact I think women make better sailors than men but that's just personal opinion. In this article I definitely consider that gender should be mentioned but not be a basis for bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krenon (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral only in the sense of reporting the facts. But if the facts say that gender was a factor in criticism, we can and should report that. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth remembering neither Michael Perham and Zac Sunderland were sailing without stops (MP even had assistance) which could easily be one of the causes of any alleged difference in criticism. They were also from different countries and most of the JW criticism seems to be coming from Australian sources so it may reflect a difference in the way youth are considered in these countries. And are there difference in experience? Remember also Jessica Watson had an accident before her journey. In any case gender bias in publicity is a double edge sword. If it exists, the bias in criticism would likely increase publicity and therefore fame surrounding the accomplishment of JW and the sales of her book so it's not all bad for her. On a personal note, I have to admit I don't think I heard of Michael Perham and Zac Sunderland until JW. However I think the first time I heard of JW was after her collision and I live in NZ so generally things involving Australians receive much more coverage. (There could also be plenty of reasons unrelated to the level of coverage why I noticed JW but not MP and ZS.) I think I read of Abby Sunderland around the time JW completed her journey but never heard anything much again until she got in trouble.

Australian hype

Jessica has New Zealand connections - her parents are New Zealanders and she hold a New Zealand passport. These connections are not even mentioned in this article. In the reverse situation, such as with Russell Crowe, Australians are very quick to mention his Australian passport, even though he was born in New Zealand and as far as I know has no Australian relatives. Wallie (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Find well sourced material to explain it, then add it to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a good source: http://jessicawatson.com.au/_blog/Official_Jessica_Watson_Blog/post/Good_Sailing/ --BIL (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added the NZ stuff as part of a new biographical section, the article was kind of lacking in any info other than her voyage, it needs rounding out a bit I think. (In case of cite confusion, the Solo Girl ref is for all that section except where other more specific refs are given.) Samatarou (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can this article be edited? The edit links are not there? Jeremlurker (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Disregard. I refreshed and it came back Jeremlurker (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Discontinuance of age records

I found some statements by the World Sailing Speed Record Council and Guinness World Records in a recent Time article on why they've discontinued the "youngest" category and thought it might usefully be incorporated in the article somewhere, perhaps in the "Youth solo sailing circumnavigations" section. Any thoughts?

• Should There Be Age Limits on Thrill Seeking?

Lacewing (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it improves this article. This is a biography. The age records debate is for another place. –Moondyne 01:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)