Talk:Jessica Watson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Circumnavigation scrutiny

I added this section based on the article published in sail-world.com. That site is commercial but I see no reason to consider it unreliable or to describe it as a "private homepage" (whatever that is). The journalist Nancy Knudsen is a respected yachting writer from Queensland. My reading of the rules and my measurements suggest the interpretation is correct and if anything the analysis is slightly generous to Jessica (I got 19,016 nm rhumb line). I have no desire to discredit the achivement but in the meantime, we can only report what's written. –Moondyne 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's surprising this is yet to be mentioned by other media though. I don't quite understand the calculations, but wouldn't using the lat/long of points of land be inherently inaccurate? She didn't actually stop at any of the Capes listed --Insider201283 (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting and well worth adding. However, as the WSSRC won't recognise the record anyway, it may be a moot point. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think most people will see it as an irrelevant technicality created by an organisation most people outside the sailing world have never heard of. When she makes it to Sydney she will be regarded by most as having sailed around the world, recognised record or not. I doubt the media will want to make themselves unpopular by trying to undermine a popular heroine. She'll make her millions. Andreclos (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, this is the same organisation which defines "assisted" and "unassisted" in relation to these things ;-). The sail-world.com article is an interpretation of the WSSRC's rules. The ball still remains in the WSSRC's court as to the eligibility of Jessica's voyage. It's still interesting that no media outlets have taken the story up yet. And as for media not wishing to make themselves unpopular? It hasn't stopped them before. Johnmc (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

same organisation which defines "assisted" and "unassisted" in relation to these things - that's the point, nobody is much interested in the WSSC definition OR the reality of "unassisted", only the word and that it is non-stop by a 16 year old girl. The ABC news tonight says she is "on track to become the youngest person to sail solo around the world". That's all that people give a damn about, not the technicalities. Andreclos (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess, yes, technically it is still in WSSRC's court. However, they have stated that they do not recognise youngest circumnavigation records any more. Thus, whether or not she complete the trip according to a strict interpretation of their rules, she won't be recognised anyway, so I can't see them ruling on the eligibity. Other bodies (presumably non-sailing ones) may recognise her attempt, but I would surmise that they won't be overly concerned about the issue of the measurement. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/04/2889531.htm - the claim is the 22,000 point has been passed SatuSuro 10:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Though irrelevant in many respects, Watson, her team, news reporters, and we here in Wikipedia have repeatedly measured this journey against the WSSRC rules. This may be an unsettling section for supporters (myself included), but our duty here is to be objective. This is part of the story. (SEC (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

This has hit the media now [1] I've replaced the source in this article for this better, secondary one. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this story will get much traction because she does not qualify for the record anyway because of age - how can you fail to qualify for a record you don't qualify for anyway? Andreclos (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see it has made the front page of the leading Australian dailies though, which shows how much of a judge I am! Though I do predict she will still be greeted as a hero and make her millions, because to the wider audience the fact that she failed to meet the technical requirements of a record she can't qualify for anyway won't make much difference. It's only the beancounters that care. Andreclos (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I heard this being discussed on talkback radio this morning. I think the story will grow legs for a while but in the end wont matter much because of the age thing, as others have said. –Moondyne 01:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest ABC story on the issue http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/05/2891048.htm SatuSuro 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You have to assume that this is a monumental stuff-up by the on-shore team. All they can do now is PR damage control. I feel so very sorry for the person in the middle of it all. Perhaps she could take hard right and sail around NZ before entering Sydney harbour. –Moondyne 06:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there was never going to be any official records broken in the first place. From [2]: "Jessica and all her team are well aware that the WSSRC do not recognise voyages for those under the age of 18." Johnmc (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also of interest is to note that the WSSRC lists Kay Cottee in their records, but as was pointed out on the JREF forums[3] she travelled even "less" using this method of calculation than Jessica Watson will have. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The rules allow not only islands and capes to be used as waypoints for the calculation of the orthodromic track, but also fixed points at sea, which Jesse Martin used when he had a turning point in the Atlantic ocean. If including just two waypoints in the Atlantic Ocean and two in the Indian Ocean which Jessica went on the north side of, the orthodromic track will be above 20.000 nm. She planned to use this route, far longer than using the orthodromic track between Cape Horn and Cape Aghulas or Cape Aghulas and Cape Leeuwin. It is possible to make the orthodromic track longer than that but I don't know if that is allowed. --BIL (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WSSRC rule 26 says "Only fixed points of land, fixed navigational beacons or other charted objects fixed to the land or seabed can be used as reference points..." Is there another section I am overlooking? (SEC (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Oh! I misread your point, BIL, exactly what the rule says. And you make a very interesting point; I wonder if she has such reference points she would be able to use. Looking back, that seems to be the logic behind her rounding Kiritimati instead of just crossing the equator. (SEC (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

When I read more careful, the rule says there must be only one such point, otherwise it must be the shortest path from the start port and back that doesn't go on land. Jessica has used such a point, Kiritimati. Kiritimati was rounded to fulfil the rule about crossing the equator. Jessica would have needed to go far north of the equator. Actually Jessica as I read the rules, she could not use Cape Aghulas or Cape Leeuwin in the orthodromic track calcuation, since it is shorter to go direct path (although it is not needed to calculate to go below 63°S). ---BIL (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Why nessarily measure Cape to Cape? Sidney - Kiribati - Cape Horn - Tristan da Cunha - Ile Amsterdam - Tasmania - Sidney = 22,000+ nm Lineanus (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the rule for world record says orthodromic track, that is shortest possible track, and from Cape Horn to Tasmania that means going near Antarctica. One single odd waypoint is allowed, but Kiritimati is the one she has used. To have two more waypoints (Tristan da Cunha and Ile Amsterdam) is not allowed, and still that would not be long enough because tacking and going away from storms does not count according to this rule. On the other hand another definition of circumnavigation is simply to pass all longitudes and the equator, which Jessica soon has done.--BIL (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The shortest line to Sidney from Cape Horn runs westwardly! So, next destination: Tristan da Cunha. The shortest line to Sidney from Tristan da Cunha runs over Antarctica! So, next destination: Lle Amsterdam. Then Tasmania to Sidney. The sum of these point to point orthodromic distances as measured by the ruler tool on Google Earth is 22,200+ m. Watson has traveled well over 22,000+ nm not counting tacking or avoiding storms. On the other hand, rereading the WSSRC rule, it seems the further south one starts the further north one needs to travel, regardless of where or how far one actually sails. Lineanus (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to debunk my own argument, as a nautical mile (6076 ft) is much further than a statute mile (5280 ft). Even measuring point to point by the landmarks I have proposed is around 19,370 nautical miles. So, the Watson route is based on GPS distances and not land-based point to point measurements. She, of course, had no reason to try to meet the WSSRC rule since she is not even eligible for the "uncontested" WSSRC title. Well, she had one good reason: she easily could have avoided all this controversy. Lineanus (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lineanus (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

There was some controversy over the replies to the defense of the watson team. Basically The Watson team have said they sailed 23 000 nm, however the point to point distances are what matters, not actual miles sailed. Some thought the original contributor to this section on the replies to the Fraser comments was putting too much weight to the "anti" side by mentioning the replies to the Fraser comments.

However it remains that Fraser did make these comments. That Jessica sailed 23 000 nm, and many people have debated those comments made by Fraser. Much of that debate has been made by sailing authorities and well recognised sailing commentators. It would remiss to not mention the replies to the defense. This is an ongoing debate and to only mention part of it is clearly wrong. To leave it at where Fraser makes his 23 000 nm claim seems to indicate nobody has debated this claim. In fact they have.

However I felt the original contribution may have been too much about Fraser (as was mentioned by someone else). So I have edited the comments. I also added who Bob Fisher is and made some editorial changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowabunga438 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

One concern I have is we are placing too much WP:WEIGHT on this section. When you think about it its a storm in a teacup and as Watson says she and her team don't care. The media loves a beat-up and we're running the risk of playing it up for them. I also wonder why she didn't sail north for a few more days, but its not appropriate to speculate about that in this article. We should only be reporting hard facts about what happened and what reliable sources state about those events. We're not a newspaper and have no business editorialising. Fraser has replied to lots of questions on this a matter but the gist of what he's said is already in the article—we don't have to repeat it. Its reasonably self-evident this is a did/didn't/did/didn't issue and its obvious (to me anyway) that technically she didn't, but for all other intents and purposes she did. –Moondyne 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is your opinion (editorilising) it is a store in a teacup, but in actual fact whether she did sail around the world or not is very important to many people and has made the front page, the news, and the radio. What next - you walk 3 metres around the south pole and claim to have walked around the world?

This is how the debate has gone

Sail World made a criticism.

Fraser Answered that criticism, but not fully.

Now several people, amply summed up by Fisher, have replied to Fraser's original defense. If you leave out their reply you are in effect giving far too much weight to the Fraser defense. This ongoing debate is important - it has a section of its own, so to leave it half done is in fact a travesty of the ongoing truth.

Nobody, except you, is editorilising. The comments - the replies to Fraser's defense - by the sailing authorities are public record and they are being reported here. Nobody is saying who is right or wrong (though by ommission you are giving Fraser extra weight). For some reason you only want to report 2 thirds of the debate? Why? There have been answers to Fraser's defense. Why leave them out, they are different and an extension to the first criticism. He refuses to justify his use of the 23 000 nm distance to these critics. That is the essence of this criticism and it is simply poor reporting to leave the debate at the halfway mark. --Cowabunga438 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I did tone down the original contributor's section of replies to fraser's defense. It is interesting that even though the article is now nicely balanced with the ENTIRE debate summarised you simply do not want any of the final act of this debate in the article. --Cowabunga438 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In reply to ""The media loves a beat-up and we're running the risk of playing it up for them. ""

The media beat up is the fact that money and PR is overiding the truth. In not reporting (just reporting what has been said - not editorilising) these criticisms you are in fact playing nicely into News Limiteds hands. They would much prefer no mention of these criticisms.--Cowabunga438 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Finaly you talked about weight. This is in part what wiki says

"" Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered; ""

It says making sure ALL majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered;

This is certainly a significant minority view. It has appeared in reliable published sources and those sources have been referenced. It would in fact be anti the neutrality of the article to leave out a significant (basically 1/3 of the debate) reply to the criticisms. --Cowabunga438 (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ALL views are covered. I introduced the section into the article in the first place, so please assume good faith. You misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not a news service that needs to report every opinion piece by every journalist. We strive for a neutral point of view which I believe was where the article was at, without the Fischer quotes. Perhaps if you could condense his article down to one or two sentences without all the quotes and the praise, that may work. –Moondyne 04:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

All views are not covered. You are reporting only 2/3's of the debate. It is silly in the extreme to say ""that needs to report every opinion piece by every journalist"". Not every journalist and every opinion is being reported. What a funny little strawman you created there. In fact the entire debate is being summarised using only a few references to a couple of journalists and spokepeople.

I shall look at rewording, but your insistance on only showing some of the criticism not consistent with wiki, neutrality, or good encyclopedia management.

Please assume good faith and allow a proper reporting of this very important debate. --Cowabunga438 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the kothe comment because it was unreferenced and really had nothing to do with the scrutiny of the watson attempt. Just trying to keep this discussion/article on track. A page on True Circumnavigation with appropriate links to the attempts would probably be in order as there has been a fair bit of controversy over many attempts. --Cowabunga438 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that removal. –Moondyne 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Long time lurker first time talker. I am a deep water sailor and navigator and have been following this whole shooting match. I have to say - and this is the first time that I have done this one wiki - or elsewhere - that the extended article is far better and more balanced then the shorter one with the final comments taken out. To me all the comments are worthy because it is what a LOT of people with any navigation or sailing background have been talking about.

Really I prefer the longer section - it makes more sense to what has actually happened. jerem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.19.106 (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks lurker and moondyne. I have adjusted the wording to come to some sort of middle ground compromise. It is far different from the original contributor's, and is less than I would personally think is appropriate. Happy to make the compromise though. Please take it in good faith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowabunga438 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry moondyne missed the priase comment you made --- did you want me to take out the first fisher comment? I cannot see how that is "damning with faint praise". If you think that is faint praise then I'd hate to see what you think full blown praise is :) --Cowabunga438 (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The faint praise comment was uncalled for and struck out. –Moondyne 06:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Lurker here. Just read the history section -- Moondyne stop being a bully. jerem (i must get an account) 114.73.19.106 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

gotta agree with lukrer there. How do I edit a page because there is more info reqd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.88.163 (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Due to heavy IP sockpuppetry, the article has been semi-protected. If an IP editor would like to suggest changes to the article, they should use the talk page to do so. As there's also been edit warring on the page, consensus should be gained before making any changes. Please note consensus is not a vote, especially in terms of numbers of SPAs and IP "lurkers" who all magically show up at the same time. Dayewalker (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi just got an account and now wish I hadn't. I was the lurker. If you make one post, and because some admin guy doesn't like your view you get accused of being a sockpuppet (whatever that means) then really what is the point? Was going to be interested in participating in a discussion on something I have extensive knowledge in, but apparently lurkers and sockpuppets are not allowed a voice on the site that ANYONE can edit

sheeeesh jerem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremlurker (talk • contribs) 07:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

If this controversy is going to be included with much detail, then it should be noted that both Jesse Martin and Michael Perham are in Watson's camp, and both plan to be in Sidney to congratulate her for being (let's all say it out loud together) "the youngest person to sail around the world, nonstop and unassisted." Lineanus (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If Jesse Martin or Michael Perham make statements about this issue, we should report that. If they are merely present when she returns, it might deserve mentioning somewhere, but not in this section. (SEC (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC))

I think the intro section should be revised, as noted earlier. It cites Reuters as source for the statement that she "is currently the youngest individual to sail non-stop and unassisted around the world.[1]" but that is not a good reading of what they say, since they say that officially her route didn't qualify. It seems that the balance of credible sources concludes that she did not meet the requirements for a circumnavigation, and that should be reported in the summary, as well as in the later section. --NealMcB (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of ordinary English usage, why does the word circumnavigation carry with it the need to travel a distance equal to the girth of the Earth at the Equator. It's not like she resorted to some kind of trickery like circling the South Pole with a quick trip to the Equator and back. In ordinary parlance I'd say most people would not begrudge her the few hundred nautical miles she may have fallen short. By the way, can we please correct all "Sidney" references to "Sydney"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pargy (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Circumnavigation means going around the entire shpere. A true circumnavigation actually requires the antipodes to be crossed. This is ordinary english usage. because of land masses crossing antipodes can be diffcult when sailing so the sailing governing body has allowed an alternative way of claiming the record. One of the requirements is that you travel at least the distance of the circumference of the world. This is actually a very logical requirement - if you want to say you traveled around a sphere then at the very least you should travel the distance of the circumference of the sphere. Jessica didn't fall short by a few hundred nautical miles, she fell short a few thousand nautical miles. 19 200nm as opposed to 23 000 nm. That is a long way, even in ordinary english usage. Now in a website devoted to facts not just public sentiment, it would be remiss not to note this fact. Jeremlurker (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Er... According to this article the distance she had to sail was 21,600 nautical miles not 23 000. 23 000 is the distance she claims to have sailed not what she needed to sail. Also again from the article the rhumb line distance she did sail was 19,631.6 nm i.e. ~19 600 nm not 19 200nm. So she fell short by slightly under 2000 nm which wouldn't normally be called a few thousand in normal English usage. Still a big amount (over 9%) of course. Incidentally the article doesn't use 'Sidney' at all. It would not be appropriate (and is also unnecessary) to change contributor comments where they used Sidney. Completely OT but the rules certain bodies and people follow are well known and fairly understandable, Pargy does appear to have some understanding of why they exist. Many would argue ultimately falling short of the requirement no matter by how small an amount (not that >9% is a small amount IMHO) means you fell short and shouldn't be counted. If a marathon runner passes out or even dies 1 metre from the finish line 1h 59 mins 30 seconds after starting and 10 minutes ahead of everyone else do you think they will get the gold medal (or whatever) for the marathon? Do you think they'll be recognised as the first person to do a 2 hour marathon? Similarities with Andrew McAuley, George Mallory+Andrew Irvine & Craig Barrett (athlete)... Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Re "true circumnavigation actually requires the antipodes to be crossed": this is NOT ordinary english usage, it is techical usage. Ordinary usage is defined in the OED which simply says "sail round (esp. the world)" IMHO most people would say that it simply entailed going right round the world (ie. crossing all lines of longitude.) Sir Francis Chichester proposed the antipodes definition however the WSSRC did not follow it but instead chose a hotch-potch of conditions which sort-of simulated this. Rigid definitions are needed if you want to be able to compare voyages and say "A beat B", but they do not define the common meaning of the idea of circumnavigation. So Jessica certainly did sail around the world, however strictly speaking she did not beat anyone else's record but made a new different one (similar in length to Kay Cottee's in fact, and even the WSSRC accepts that record for some reason). Samatarou (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As this has come up a few times, and it may be relevant, Kay Cottee's record is accepted by the WSSRC because it occurred before the WSSRC started confirming records. The WSSRC was engaged to confirm circumnavigations after a number of attempts were accepted as records in spite of issues with the distances covered, as a number of sailors had moved away from the antipodes model which had previously been employed to the common definition of "sailed around the world", and thus managed their circumnavigations by sitting as south as they could. My understanding is that the move away from antipodes approach by the WSSRC was a response to the issues found in meeting the antipodes requirement given the large land masses in the Northern hemisphere, so they instead moved to point-to-point distances that would equal the circumference at the equator. - Bilby (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already been noted that, as sailors stay further and further south, eventually the achievement becomes "circumnavigating Antarctica" rather than "circumnavigating the world". HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

With the proviso that you have to cross the equator, usually. There are a lot of possible circumnavigation routes that far exceed the minimum distance that don't come anywhere within five hundred or a thousand miles of "making an antitode". She wasn't allowed to compete for the record, so chose her own, shorter, path. Now they want to make a fuss about how she didn't follow their rule. :rudenoise: htom (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned in her book

I wrote in the article:

Watson has commented this in her book True Spirit (page 316). She writes that she has written letters to the WSSRC asking what she had to do to claim the record. The answer was that she could not claim the record since age records is no longer recognized. Therefore they said it was not necessary to follow the route Jesse Martin followed (which went far north of the equator in the Atlantic), a route Watson knew about well after reading Martins book more than once. Watson decided to follow a route commonly accepted as round the world.

It was reverted by HiLo48 because it allegedly had no reference and not correct language. But it is referenced, to her book, and page number. Could you improve the language according to Wikipedia standards, and so we could return the text to the article? By the way I thought that language improvements usually are done directly in the article, not on the discussion page.
Regarding the impression I got from what she wrote, I get the hint that she thought if the WSSRC doesn't judge the route, no one does. But maybe she didn't understand that the news media would. But she couldn't ask the media for what they would write in different circumstances, so it would be hard to fulfill the requirements of the media. --BIL (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was genuinely confused about what you were trying to tell us with that addition. Is it that, since age records no longer count anyway, she could sail more or less wherever she liked from Sydney to Sydney, passing some points in the southern hemisphere, and claim she had sailed around the world, but not that she had set a record? As for the reference comment, I'm sure you used her book as your source, but you must set up a proper Wikipedia reference link to it and cite that source. You could (and probably should) have a look at WP:REFERENCE, but that is a bit daunting, so I'd suggest having a look at some other reference links in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jessica was a little confusing on this also. In my impression the WSSRC gave answers confusing to her, but she got the impression it did not matter, at least not to WSSRC. She chose a route she knew was previously sailed by people (like Kay Cottee) who have been commonly recognised as having sailed around the world. She also wrote that her management (like her PR manager Andrew ("shoot the messenger")) were heavily blamed for the route mistake, and that hurt her, becasue it was her decision. Should I write the content of those two pages of her book here? --BIL (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to read this text in her book I scanned two pages and a few lines more and temporarily placed the text here: http://goto.glocalnet.net/bengtinge/True_Spirit_315-.htm --BIL (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BIL. I have the book on order but it isn't available here for another week or two. First, let me suggest minimal edits to your original to correct for nuances of native-language English. We can work from that, and you'd just need to add a proper citation.(SEC (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

Watson commented on this matter in her book True Spirit. She states that she wrote letters to the WSSRC asking what she had to do to claim the record. Their answer was that she could not claim the record since age records were no longer recognized. Therefore they said it was not necessary to follow the route Jesse Martin followed (which went far north of the equator in the Atlantic), a route Watson knew well from reading Martins’ book more than once. Watson decided to follow a route commonly accepted as round the world.

I think "Therefore they said it was not..." is not accurate as the text says "I decided..." Otherwise, I think it reads just fine.(SEC (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

worldsailingrecords.com is a terrible source

A random blog. Where the domain name is linked only to a PO Box. Belonging to an anonymous registration organization. the website does not list any owners or affiliations of the website. Fails WP:SPS and smells distinctly of a promotional nature. Not remotely close to an acceptable source. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just trying to help. You want to throw the book at me? I ducked! :-) --Skol fir (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, just a friendly reminder that one needs to be very careful about what websites one uses for sourcing articles. Especially where JW (or any of the related record holders and attempers) are concerned, since as publicity stunts, their supporters may resort to promotional gimmicks in order to increase said publicity (or legitimize the stunt). Sailsbystars (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, my addition was just to confirm what is already in the article, from the point of view of the circumnavigation being completed, not the official record. No one in his right mind would argue that Jessica did not complete the circumnavigation. What is being criticised is that her team claimed a world record, and that is contestable, based on the zig-zag route she took to make up her mileage, while she failed to complete the actual route from point-to-point that would equal the required 21,600 nm that the WSSRC wanted in her logbook.

I realize after your tirade, that my reference was not helpful, as their only contact is an email form page, no physical address, no one to chew out! --Skol fir (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my tone. I should not have used quite as harsh an edit summary as I did. A calm edit summary and a nice wet trout would probably have been a better response on my part.:-) Please know I do appreciate the efforts you are making on improving the article. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually like trout. I will consider using the template on nice wet trout. Where I live, they are currently under 9-12 inches of ice and the only way to get them is to dig a hole with an ice auger, sit in the makeshift ice-fishing hut and take occasional sips from a bottle or two of Jameson's fine whiskey. I wish I was out there now, but more important duties keep me in the city. :-)

As for the domain server that serves the address WorldSailingRecords.com, I was able to dig up this info:

ICANN Registrar: DISTRIBUTE IT PTY LTD Created: 2009-09-22 -- Expires: 2011-09-22 Name server: NS1.COVE.COM.AU (has 1,730 domains) IP Address: 112.140.176.193 -- (links to EveryLastSecond NOC -- address: PO Box 119, Beaconsfield, Victoria, AU

IP Location: - Victoria - Melbourne - Every Last Second Pty Ltd

That still does not tell us who actually registered the name of the website. Since it was registered before Jessica had even left Australia, I don't think it is related to her sailing team (unless they anticipated the problem with her route well in advance!). Jessica departed 18 October 2009; the website was already registered on 2009-09-22. Seems like a neutral disinterested party to me, just keeping tabs on those young'uns. --Skol fir (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

After more research, found this through "register.com" --

Domain name: worldsailingrecords.com

Record created on: 2009-09-22

Record expires on: 2011-09-22

Registrant Contact: Domain Name Agent, PO Box 761, Narrabeen NSW 2101

Technical Contact: Domain Name Agent, PO Box 761, Narrabeen NSW 2101

Phone: +61.280147040

Administration Contact: Domain Name Agent, PO Box 761, Narrabeen NSW 2101

Phone: +61.280147040

Nameservers: ns3.cove.com.au; ns2.cove.com.au; ns1.cove.com.au

Registration Service Provider: VentraIP, sales@ventraip.com.au. http://www.ventraip.com.au

Registrar of Record: Distribute IT Pty. Ltd. - www.distributeit.com.au

"Domain Name Agent" (abbrev. to DNA) is still not the actual registrant, but the registrar. Contacting them by phone would probably elicit a response like, "I am sorry, but we are not allowed to divulge that information. Click." Sounds like we won't be able to track down these nitwits, after all. I took the following from the website of the RSP: "It is an unfortunate fact that any business, anywhere in the world, with a rapidly expanding customer base will at some point deal with a customer (or two) who feel they are not getting a satisfactory response to a question they have asked, or believe they are not getting what they paid for." Darn right!! --Skol fir (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and if you do a google search on the address, you get a link to this [4] forum thread, where someone mentions his privately registered domain. The registration date is also just before her departure, and shortly after she started getting negative media media attention after the unfortunate encounter with the business end of a freighter. Hence you can see why the website raises red flags once you know what to look for. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Jessica Watson

I took the liberty of adding a new photo of Jessica, that I thought would represent her in a better light, on a sailboat and with a cheerful smile! With all due respect to the person who had submitted the previous "mug shot," I thought it was dreary-looking, and there was some strange lighting that caused the white of one of her eyes to light up like a miner's lamp. She also had a rather tired expression in that picture.

The new photo was taken by a professional photographer, with whom I have corresponded, and she was fine with using it, under the "fair use" provision. She was reluctant, on the other hand, to give us the "free" version under a license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). That is the reason I uploaded the file with a claim for "fair use." I have also stated the reason at File:Jessica W.jpg for using this copyrighted image under the fair use rationale. --Skol fir (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've had to remove the image per policy, we can't use a non-free photo of a living person except under fairly tight circumstances - which this doesn't fall under. It is great that you were able to source a better picture, and I agree that the free image isn't as good, but while I'm open to the suggestion that we'd be better of not having a photo over using the current one, the policy doesn't give us much room to move. If it isn't free (and that includes for commercial use), and there is the possibility that a free equivalent could be taken, then we can't use photos of living people under the fair use provisions. - Bilby (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the light reflection in one eye, the image can be edited, like they do for ad photos. Personally I think she looks good in the photo, and it does not need editing. --BIL (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep the frowning photo rather than none at all. Hopefully it will encourage someone to take something better. –Moondyne 09:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem solved. I added a better photo obtained under a free license from Jessica's manager, Andrew Fraser. I also added another photo of Ella's Pink Lady (also under a free Creative Commons license) at the appropriate place in the article. I hope this is satisfactory to all involved in this discussion. --Skol fir (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I personally feel that the german photo looks better than the one with her out sailing (although I can't provide a rational reason as to why). There's nothing preventing us from using both photos, and the one of her sailing certainly goes well in the section about her voyage. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way, now that both photos are in the article. If the majority wants the German "sulky, sexy" looking photo up front (in the infobox), à la "Jessica Alba" that's your prerogative. I just thought it was more tasteful to have her in action on a sailboat doing what she loves! She was sailing around Cape Horn in the photo I preferred, for goodness' sake, not posing for a model photo shoot! That's all I have to say about it, and I am done. --Skol fir (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

English girl

JESSICA WATSON is 100% ENGLISH descent, both her parents are of 100% English descent a few days ago I put it & reput the Categories of Australian people of English descent & NZ people of English descent (the 1:st had been the 1:st time I read this article, by January, both categories had been deleted by user:Jevanesen) but I don't know why I wrote his, instead of her. Please, don't count this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GEAT BEOWULF (talk • contribs) 11:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

At the category's talk page, it says:

In accordance with Wikipedia:Categories, the applicability of the category should be based on a consensus that the connection to England is important enough to include in the article text before this category can properly be considered.

Her English ancestry is not included in her article and doesn't need to be. —Diiscool (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is her English ancestry not important? Are you an Anglophobe? -GEAT BEOWULF 10:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, who, apart from you, cares about it? England doesn't. Australians with English ancestry receive no special immigration favours from the English government. They have disowned us. And there are thousands of articles here about Australians with English ancestry. Are you going to add that reference to them all? HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not an Anglophobe. Quite the opposite in fact. And I would suggest you take a look at WP:PERSONAL. —Diiscool (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted GEAT BEOWULF's latest edit as it is unsupported by the reference he/she has included. Also, Watson's website should be used as a last resort for references about her. There are very strict guidelines for biographies of living persons (please see WP:BLP) and we need to follow them. —Diiscool (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Early life

I corrected the first sentence in this section to read that JW was born "on the Gold Coast" not "in Gold Coast". I changed this once before but it was reverted back. I can't find a suitable reference, but this is the local use. Lacewing (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Circumnavigation scrutiny

There is an edit war going on, regarding if she did sail around the world or not. The claim is that she did not fulfil the requirements of the World Sailing Speed Record Council (WSSRC). The WSSRC has a fairly hard and difficult-to-read requirement on route for round the world speed records, invented 20 years ago. But the WSSRC has claimed that it is not needed to follow this rule for age records, since there is no official age record, and since the rule is there only to make speed records comparable. What rule should then be followed? Traditionally, for example about what early circumnavigations were done, it has been accepted to cross all longitudes and the equator and return to a place visited before the circumnavigation. In this case the press has set the rule, afterwards only, while the WSSRC has written that their rule is not required.--BIL (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The first and second sources, which are cited in the introduction of this article, clearly back up the original statements. In the first source (Reuters) headline: "Australian teenager finishes round-world solo sail"; first paragraph: "Watson is the youngest person to sail solo, non-stop and unassisted around the world." In the second (Australia Times) article: "16-year-old sailor Jessica Watson crossed the finish line at ... today, putting her into the history books as the youngest person to sail unassisted around the world." There are a number of other cited sources that back up this claim. This issue was already discussed here at great length four years ago (see first "Circumnavigation scrutiny" section above). Both sides of this issue and the debate are also covered at some length in the article itself. Both sides of this issue were already covered in the original introduction, too. SEC (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)