This is an archive of past discussions about Reid Stowe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Reid Stowe did not write this; I'm one of the principle contributors and I like it enough on dry land to convince me that I'm not Reid Stowe. The lack of critical commentary is a concern I share; see Biography specific remarks (renamed Article status). He appears to have his detractors among professional mariners. Judging from comments posted to the 1,000 Days at Sea blog (http://1000daysatsea.blogspot.com/), at the time of the May collision, many professed being alarmed by what they regarded as insufficient planning, and the wisdom of taking as a first mate, an individual with practically no open ocean sailing experience. However, none of those blog posters identified themselves, or pointed to a good secondary source with well-reasoned, decently researched material, by an author willing to use a real name in print, so the criticism, at present, is so much blog-babble. With the absence of published, critical commentary, this article IS unbalanced, which is why it is marked 'Start' — "The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas... One could prod it for deletion, I suppose, but personally I find that dissatisfying. What establishes Wikipedia's utility is that it does, indeed, have information on material that is probably obscure to 99 and 44/100 percent of the readership, but which some editor in the 66/100 percentile thought was worth the effort to scrape together enough information for a partial (incomplete, unbalanced, and not entirely accurate) answer that, at least, gives a hint to the other 99 44/100 percent of humanity, and therefore is better than no answer at all. In that spirit I invite you to invest some effort to proactively do something about the POV bias. Scan the nautical literature. Uncover critical review. Find supporting references. To the best of my knowledge, the professional mariner, behaviorist, or survivalist who thinks Reid Stowe is Looney Tunes has yet to put his or her reputation on the line in a reasoned, published article with his or her byline. It's up to you (and others like you) to show that the best of my knowledge is not good enough: find that article (or two or three) that takes Reid Stowe to task and address the unbalance with your new material. Remember: WP:BLP calls on us to be careful with our reference work. Have fun; looking forward to your contributions. — Gosgood03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Reminder to editors that adding unsourced, defamatory or controversial information is not allowed, per the biographies of living persons policy. While the reference for the "Prison" section is a page that shows he was indeed, in jail, it does not give any reason why, and thus, until a reference that can verify this was a DEA involved arrest, those comments are hidden. Any additions that are disparaging, or negative, need to be backed up by a reliable, third-party source. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Mr. Osgood and the missive he sent me regarding verifiability of sources, it would appear that much of the information provided by Mr. Stowe apparently cannot be verified independently. I'm also a little confused as to why Mr. Osgood would send me a link to the '1000 Days of Hell' site. 68.34.160.25321:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
For this particular article, Mr. Stowe has provided no information whatsoever. In light of that, I don't think that it is apt to question the verifiability of 'his' information versus that furnished by anyone else; he is not playing in this sandbox. You are welcome to question the verifiability of information that I have provided in this article. Such questioning is the normal mode of operation for Wikipedia. In that narrow focus then, how well verified is the information in this article? I claim 'pretty well.' But I also think that the article has large omissions and hope that other editors can address them, so long as standards of verifiability are understood by all participants.
Information in this article stems mainly from sources that I found published around May, 2007 when, upon hearing of Stowe's endeavor, was surprised to find that Wikipedia had no article on him. Since I value Wikipedia for its ability to furnish information on every inquiry imaginable, I took it upon myself to fill the gap. In this endeavor, I tried to govern my effort in accordance with policy on biography of living persons, neutrality of viewpoint, no original research, and verifiability. I like to think that I've done a decent job with respect to these four policies, but that may just be my hubris. I've made liberal use of the {{Citation}} template embedded in <ref>...</ref> tags so readers can find the references I've cited and judge for themselves if they adequately back up the prose I've written. I welcome — indeed, implore — any reader to don the editorial hat, audit the references and cross-check my efforts. Grounding an article on verifiable sources happens to be tiresome, error-prone work and, in the interest of quality, should be performed by as many editors as possible.
On the flip side, I hold all other editors' contribution to the same standards to which I hold myself. I go through that tiresome, error-prone business of finding backing references and, quite frankly, expect other editors to shape the same course. Nor am I alone in this expectation. There is a very active Wikipedia project called the Recent Changes Patrol that monitors articles which suddenly undergo major changes. The editor that pulled many of the sub-par edits last month, ArielGold, is a participant of that project and became aware of significant changes to this article by monitoring the Recent changes stream, requesting that the page be put under semi-protection. This editor has no particular interest in Reid Stowe but is interested in ensuring that the information in articles adhere to certain standards of verifiability. I expect that when this article undergoes its next assault (not 'if', 'when'), recent change patrollers will sniff the smoke again and attempt to put out the fire. That, too, is dull, dull work, sad in that it saps Wikipedia resources, but necessary because there are many readers of Wikipedia who passionately believe that Wikipedia is hiding, avoiding, or supressing the truth, especially in biographical articles, where all kinds of 'criminal behavior' are masked by 'politically correct' prose. Hundreds of articles are changed daily by editors who are passionately motivated to get the 'truth' out, and, to their astounded outrage, find their edits reverted in minutes, if not seconds.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter, I think: 'truth.' You may have concerns about the 'truth' of Reid Stowe not being represented in this article, and perhaps you hold the opinion that Wikipedia is engaging in a conspiracy to 'hide' all manner of truths about him from the public. Wikipedia does not deal directly in truth. It cannot. Necesarily, then, it deals with truth's proxy, verifiability. It must follow this indirection because its contributors, by and large, are anonymous or choose not to disclose themselves beyond what they say about themselves on their user pages under wikipedia 'identities.' The few who do furnish their 'true' identities cannot be trusted: Recall the whole Essjay controversy. Since contributors can't be trusted, how can their contributions be made trustworthy? it is not directly through the writing of its contributors, but through the diligence of its contributors in furnishing verifiable references. It is through no other connection than this that Wikipedia can claim to be authoritative on anything. This is not a perfect connection, or even a good one, but I think it is the best game in town. Similarly, Wikipedia's connection to the body of information surrounding Reid Stowe is indirect, through noncritical human interest stories that surfaced during his various attempts at getting his voyage under weigh. If there seems to be 'hiding of information' about Reid Stowe in this article, then it is a manifestation that these human interest articles are collectively incomplete.
Should something be done about this 'missing information'? Absolutely, but the effort is not trivial, nor should it be trivialized. There are holes in this 'biography' of Reid Stowe: big ones, That is why this article has a start rating and is presently worthy of no better one. But filling these holes have got to be done responsibly, which WP:BLP spells out.
Many would-be contributors to Wikipedia think that the encyclopedia is absolutely frustrating in this regard, finding the citations to WP-this, and WP-that maddening when they discover that their edits have been deleted. I appreciate this feeling, having experienced it, but do not sympathize with it. There is a craft to anything: sailing a small boat; contributing to an encyclopedia. Mature people figure out what the applicable skills are and strive to master them. Those who do master them find that their edits stick; they gain respect among Wikipedians and they possibly even improve the encyclopedia. All others simply cause process friction to varying degrees, and Wikipedia has developed mechanisms to deal with them. Sadly, maintaining those mechanisms sap effort from directly working on articles. Such is the cost of doing business.
I mentioned the 1,000 Days of Hell blog site only because there are other venues and other wikipedias with different editorial standards. If you do feel compelled to get the truth out, whatever that is, you may wish to investigate one of them and publish there. The thought had crossed my mind that you may very well be one of the contributors to the 1,000 Days of Hell blog, but I have no way of knowing that; to me you are a bunch of fingers behind an IP address that makes letters appear inside of Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions — written with absolutely no intent of sarcasm whatsover — and take care. Gosgood20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Incidents at sea
There is no evidence, other than Stowe's blog, that Stowe did have a collision with a Maersk freighter. Unless this claim can be supported through third party documents, I think that reference to this incident should be removed, as it portrays Maersk in a poor light. Evidence such as an accident report from the freighter, insurance documentation, or a report from the Coast Guard would validate this claim. NautiGirl17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Large amounts of the material in this article seems to have been directly supplied by Reid Stowe or supporters of Reid Stowe. Much of the information from the main stream media seems to have simply been taken from press releases by Reid Stowe or from interviews with Reid Stowe. There also seems to be a large amount of information that has been posted here via "sock puppets" edit: sorry actually "meat puppets" Mmoes20:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
One site in particular is bothersome -- "though Stowe maintains personal contacts with a number of present and former NASA personnel.[2]" That site is from an interview more than 4 years ago and is solely Reid's statement without any collaboration from current or former NASA personnel. Due to the lack of collaboration and that the statement was made more than 4 years ago, that line should be stricken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Regatta dog is correct that the reference to the alleged association with NASA be stricken, but in the interim, I have changed just a couple of words to avoid misleading the reader. I have removed the word "presently" from the line "...there is presently no formal connection between Stowe's project and the major space agencys' research on humans coping..." as it implies that there may have once been a connection or might yet possibly be a connection -- of which neither idea has any source.
Further, I have changed "though Stowe maintains personal contacts with a number of present and former NASA personnel" to "though Stowe claims to maintain personal contacts with a number of present and former NASA personnel" as it more accurately reflects the source -- an interview with Stowe, himself. Oldgoatroper04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Revisiting my first edit "there is presently no formal connection" ... I've also removed the word "formal" as the article cited does not, in fact, intimate ANY kind of connection whatsoever, casual, formal, or otherwise. Oldgoatroper05:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
External reference #7
I'm seriously wondering if external link #7 should be removed. (^ a b Reid Stowe (2007-04-21). 1000 Days at Sea. Press release. Retrieved on 13 May 2007.) Says that NASA as well as the Smithsonian Institution have interest in the endeavour.
Aloha2717:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Removal of Autobiography, Disputed, Notability templates.
I removed these templates for reasons stated here.
There is no basis for using the {{Autobiography}} template simply because it seems plausible. One has to confirm that a meat puppet is in play. Simply saying so doesn't make it so.
There can be a basis for the {{Dispute}} template. I gather, because of inexperience, the editor did not set a topic of discussion, which the template documentation requests. I trust an editor with a less than perfect admiration for Reid Stowe can repost the tag with a particular matter that is in dispute, so the discussion can move from procedural to substantive areas.
I removed the {{Notability}} template. It seems that Stowe has an entire blog site nipping at his heels, establishing some kind of notariety (negative notability?), and his feat, act of foolishness or not, seem on par with a number of other minor notables who have undertaken one or two interesting things in the past few decades.
I think these templates have been inexpertly used, and in my humble opinion are generally overused as a substitute for actually editing articles and furnishing references that make a case. I concur with editors that the article is unbalanced, but hope that new editors will bring new material to the table, not hearsay, or personal guesswork, but material, critical of Stowe that has appeared in verifiable sources. I've made that case more fully elsewhere and won't repeat it here. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
See also and youtube cite
Hey Gosgood, I removed the see also per WP:GTL. If you can work those other folks into the article, ok I guess. Also, youtube is not an appropriate cite for this project. Anyways, cheers, --Tom (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Not appropriate? How So? There is no blanket ban on rich media, especially when the same is a supporting reference, for reasons that I've gone into on your talk page. The concept of citing video media is certainly supported in Wikipedia's citation scheme. See {{cite video}}.
(Next morning...) Forgive me. Sometimes I'm a bit slow on the uptake. Are the grounds of your objections to the inclusion of this reference is that it is a direct citation of YouTube? Please review the citation that you pulled, and the care and feeding of the {{cite video}} template. I'm citing Manhattan Neighborhood Network, a publisher of video media works, which runs a series called "Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer" The particular program being cited aired on August 04, 2003. YouTube functions here simply as a digital repository, similar in function to New York Times Select for accessing digitized copies of the New York Times or Google Books for accessing digitized copies of printed books. In the latter two cases, one doesn't cite the repositories, but the underlying material in the repository.
One can (and should) inquire whether the repository has a legitimate copy of the work. The user who posted this calls himself 'haroldchanner' and following his user link shows a picture that appears to be the interviewer himself. One can split hairs here, but I'm satisfied that Harold Channer, as representative of Manhattan Neighborhood Network, is permitting this content to be accessed and cited. In light of this, what is your particular objection to this source? (Forgot to sign. Datestamp is late. See 'Next morning...' below for when this was written)Gosgood (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What this GTL section prefers editors to do is, as they develop articles, to supplant internal links with a few sentences about how the internal topic relates to the article at hand, a useful development technique to move a particular article toward self-sufficiency. In light of that preference then, the 'See also' section serves its purpose as an intermediary structure, a useful aid to readers until the editors do more integration work. That guidance does not, in any fashion, deprecate 'See Also' sections. Nor does it implore editors to remove them wherever they appear. As recognized by any number of featured article reviews, 'See Also' sections serve general readers as intermediary navigational aids, and they are present even in the very best Wikipedia articles.
I think it would be useful to read what other editors think, so I plan to take no immediate action and see what other comments occur in this thread. However, after a week, in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, I will restore the reference and the 'See Also' section, because, at present, I don't think you've made your case either in regard to the Guide to Layout or what constitutes an appropriate citation. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
(Next morning...) I've no right to set deadlines here. I withdraw it. If we disagree, after a week or so, we should really do a Request for comment on the article. One of us will have to write a 'neutral statement' (hee, hee,). Take care. Gosgood (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Gosgood, actually, I have no problem with that week deadline. Most editors usually allow about 3 minutes before reverting :). I personally don't like See also sections and youtube links. Thats just one editor's opinion. Could we/you find other reliable sources in place of that? Can the See also folks be incorporated into the article? This is not a biggie for me so I will try not to revert again. Anyways, good luck and cheers! --Tom (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
'See Also' sections are crutches. But if you are missing limbs, love 'em, hate 'em, it won't matter – you'll be using crutches. This is a broken article. It is missing aspects of the man's life, so it needs to link to other biographies for themes that aren't developed here yet. I've been looking at what you do over the last month: link cleaning. Good work; not too many editors notice when their articles become redundantly linked, and I've noted that in cases where you've purged other articles of their 'See also' sections and nobody notices or complains, then I take this as their implicit agreement that it was time to kick the crutches. The article has grown enough legs to stand on its own. But if I were doing what you do (and I don't I have the tenacity for that) and I got push-back, Like here at this article, or over here where Andyvphil pushed back over the [[Ketuanan Melayu]] link, then I think I'd defer to the judgement of the other editor and leave things be, especially if the editor shows up in the article's edit history frequently. I think you do this anyway: you don't unconditionally remove 'See also' sections; from time to time you just prune them, as you did here. Even top-rated, featured articles like the United States Senate has them. Heck, even the Guide to Layout, has one. Wikipedia isn't finished. ninety-nine percent and plus articles are incomplete. 'See also' sections compensate for their incompleteness by funishing links to related, and necessarily supporting, articles. I think when editors ask that 'See also' should be kept, they should be kept.
I guess you and I disagree on YouTube, but to me there appears to be no ban on referencing material from there on Wikipedia – there is even a {{YouTube}} template to facilitate external links to the site, and citations to material on YouTube arise in {{cite video}} usage. As I noted above, I'm really using YouTube as a repository. I'm referencing a show that ran on Manhattan Neighborhood Network because the producer put it there. Regardless of its format, it is a key reference. To my knowledge, Reid Stowe does not have a published autobiography or biography. Without the Channer show in the reference list, large chunks of his biography are now unreferenced, and readers of the article cannot follow up on Reid Stowe's claim to having navigated a small boat twice across the Atlantic. You and I probably disagree on this, but to my mind, YouTube is just another repository of references. One does have to take care not to cite stolen material, or material that embeds copyright violations. That's a cautionary which is not unique to YouTube. On this ground: key reference with unique material, I wish most emphatically to restore the reference. It is an important to this article and that it happens to be housed on YouTube is an incidental not worth kicking about. If you want to do an RFC on this, let's do it. Otherwise, in the absence of other commentary I really, really would like to restore it. Soon. Thanks! take care. Gosgood (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gosgood, you have rightly determined that alot of my edits are "clean-up", style issues, ect. I wouldn't bring this to RFC since this is pretty low radar stuff and you have made your points well. Feel free to be BOLD and I will not revert this article but will comment here. Cheers again! --Tom (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)ps, I just reverted myself on the article page, --Tom (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote
The quotes that have been removed were taken directly from the 1000Days.net site, which is authored by Reid Stowe. I see no reason why they should not accompany this article, and why they were moved. I would like to see this quotes restored in their original form. NautiGirl13:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the Wikipedia Bold, Revert, Discuss (Discuss, (Discuss...(Discuss...))) Game. See something you don't like? Be bold and change it. Dislike a revert? Be bold and revert it back. But before falling into change->revert cycles, take round two to the talk page and hammer it out with whoever thinks the edits should go the other way.
My humble opinion. These quotes belong in Wikiquote. See remark three: When not to use quotations. As for the citations to these quotes? Slovenly done. I know editors who have been working on this encyclopedia for awhile are not supposed to bite the newcomers, but we can ask newcomers to study how citations are done so that general readers of the articles can find references quickly, in their original form, or study the contexts of quotes. Much of that study involves learning the care and feeding of the Citation templates, the norm for this article. An unlinked string of text in the main article space is amateurish and practically useless and begs the accusation that the quote is really made up and is being attributed to Reid Stowe. Mentioning here, in an entirely different place, that the quotes were taken from 1000Days.net is hardly any better; that site gushes words; we are asking readers to go search for strings. Some readers, like 75.5.202.81, might just decide that it is easier to edit/delete than it is to go find quotes that some editor did not cite well in the first place and they are in their rights to do so. Please use {{cite web}} and do the due diligence research to fill out what the template asks for. Done correctly, the template furnishes a link that brings the reader directly to the web page where the quote resides; the reader can then look at the quote in context and decide if it is apt or not. Failing this, these quotes are fair game for any deletionist in a housecleaning mood. Take care Gosgood17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Retain neutral content
I removed Donald Crowhurst reference as it is an inflammatory redirect and I removed full section of QUOTES as I agree with Gosgood that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. Catdreams (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
--I believe the quotes are an important insight into the psyche of Stowe and have restored them, as well as the reference to Donald Crowhurst and the Bumfuzzles, given the similarities that they are/were persons with little offshore sailing experience.
Audio God™ (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Audio God, née Aloha27, I removed the quotes again because they make their point poorly, if at all. They sit there, without explanation, or without aiding the general reader of the article. They function in the realm of vague innuendo. Encyclopedia articles are not well served by vague innuendo. They are better served by clear, unambiguous prose that summarizes information gleaned from reliable, outside sources. Particular points follow.
If the purpose of these quotes is to bring balance to the article, and by 'balance,' I mean some viewpoint that runs counter to how Reid Stowe has been popularized in the press, how he represents himself on his web site, or how this article represents him, then there is a far better way: (1) find published critical analysis on either the Mars Ocean Odyssey or Reid Stowe's seamanship, written under an author's byine. (2) write the synopsis of the author's analysis here, integrated within the body of the article, and (3) cite the author's work as a supporting reference. Such a contribution would be worthwhile because it would bring balance via explicit and unambiguously written prose, prose that would make the case far more clearly than this accumulating mass of unsynthesized quotes.
The sheer mass of quotes makes the article look like a page from Wikiquote. This is an encyclopedia article, not a place to list sundry quotations from Stowe's blog site. Dragging quotes over from his web site from time to time, without integrating the material into the article is just a lazy way to add content, a bad substitute for keen, critical writing. See the opening paragraphs of the Wikipedia quotation guidelines for further remarks on the excessive use of quotes.
Quotes are best integrated into the body of the article In what way, precisely,does a quote illustrate an 'insight into the psyche' of Reid Stowe? A conscientious editor would map the topic of a particular quote to a point on the arc of the article's narrative so that the quote and the article work together to reinforce one another. In the present case the quotes sit entirely outside of the article, sans any explanation whatsoever. This is slovenly work at best: it selfishly expects the reader to reconstruct whatever insight the quote is supposed to illustrate.
The {{Cquote}} template is being used improperly. It is intended for pull quotes, a journalistic device to lead readers into a key topic. Here they are applying graphical emphasis to nine separate quotes. With all these quotes receiving graphical emphasis of a key topic, none are being emphasized. As they are all equally competing for eyeball attention, it makes for a confusing page that does not serve the reader.
Please regard these quotes as a contested edit: Over the past month 141.149.82.5, Catdreams and myself have raised objections to these quotes. Please do not subject readers to unnecessary and unwelcome article volatility by unilaterally restoring them. Instead, please discuss here and establish consensus. If that fails to materialize, then let us take the matter to a wider audience via an article request for comment. Thank you. Gosgood (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Audio God, née Aloha27 on both your points you fail to address the actual issue for why these entries are being deleted. [1] Encyclopedia article should not contain QUOTES that function in the realm of vague innuendo. [2] Links to Donald Crowhurst and the Bumfuzzles are inflammatory. Your reasoning of including them as "similarities... little offshore sailing experience" is flawed. The article already clearly describes earlier voyages of Reid: 1973 North Atlantic to Holland, solo voyage to Africa, a second Atlantic crossing, a trip to Brazil and the Amazon, five months sailing the waters around the Antarctic Peninsula and the South Shetland Islands. That does not equate to "little offshore sailing experience". 64.131.181.89 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Little offshore sailing experience is exactly, in my opinion what Stowe and crew have. According to your logic, since my father played 16 years (some 450 points) in the National Hockey League and myself one game (0 points), between us we have amassed 450 professional points in the NHL. Ridiculous!
Patti and I have 13,000 logged miles cruising on our yacht and STILL consider ourselves intermediate cruisers at best. However, you put our vessel/crew/experience/preparedness vs. Stowe's and he comes out a very, very poor second indeed. Aloha27 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but so what? No one knows who you really are, Aloha27, which is why your, mine, 64.131.181.89, 141.149.82.5, Catdreams, or any other Wikipedia editor's opinions have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia articles. See your talk page for a fuller discussion. We are all inherently anonymous agents and our competencies cannot be established, so what does it matter what we think? What has a bearing on this or any other Wikipedia article are only just contributions substantiated by writers who publish under bylines in publications with editorial oversight. These writers furnish us the secondary sources upon which to ground Wikipedia's authority to publish. To the heart of the matter: you have opined on my talk page that "rotting sails, foul hull and questionable seamanship capabilities" mark Reid Stowe's expedition. state your sources. If they meet Wikipedia's not especially stringent standards of reliability, then your contributions to the article constitute 'signal.' Otherwise, it's 'noise'. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Should (75.12.148.224) recent contributions be considered vandalizing? I don't see value in Revision 02:42 30 Jan 2008 edit. Catdreams (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia has an intentionally narrow definition of vandalism, given the all-too-human failing of labeling anything contradictory to one's cherished point of view as disruptive behavior. These edits are not obscene; they do not constitute examples of crude humor, and they are not obvious nonsense. No portion of the article was deleted without explanation. In absence of such behavior, guidelines urge us to assume good faith. But are they good edits?
The quality of edits on Wikipedia is established through consensus among editors within a framework of policy, guidelines, generally accepted conventions of good writing, rounded out by a collection of interesting and sometimes contrary essays. 'Consensus' is the key word; unless an edit is 'obviously bad,' editors should not act unilaterally in reverting them.[1]
My own opinion on the value of these edits are (in the order that they appear in edit diff):
Weather conditions: Comes from a Stowe quote in the ESPN reference. Is Wikipedia on solid grounds in writing as if those conditions were actually extant? Probably not. It's Stowe's quoted observation to ESPN, and not an independent observation, that conveys weather conditions to this article.
No wind instruments: No backing reference. According to verifiability policy it is the responsibility of the editor introducing a change (here 75.12.148.224) that can be challenged to furnish a backing reference supporting the change. No reference establishing how the expedition was equipped has been provided; a general reader of the encyclopedia cannot check this fact. An excessively polite editor might tag this alteration with {{cite}}, but if Jimmy Wales had his way, it should simply be removed.
'Turned over' v. 'Knocked on its side': The underlying source by Doswell employed the phrase 'All of a sudden, the entire boat turned completely over sideways and slammed into the water within seconds.' The new wording seems to adhere to Doswell's wording more closely than the old article wording did; in no manner can Doswell's language can be construed as a 360° rotation of the hull. I have one small technical issue: this language should be before the Doswell citation tag, not after it; a casual reader would be mislead into thinking that this material is based on the following New York Times source.
Reasons for cancellation: Even before the copy changes, the sentence has been unreferenced and open to challenge. See the second point above. Nichol's Daily News piece Epic Trip or Con Cruise does collaborate on pre-voyage financial difficulties, as reported by Stowe. To my mind, attribution to Stowe is valid here.
'Moving from Pier 63' v. 'Moving from Pier 63 according to Stowe' Williams' New York Times piece on the Hudson River Park development does not quote Stowe, so 'according to Stowe' has no support in that particular reference. Williams reports that a company called 'Pier 63 Maritime,' owner of 'an old railroad barge' was vacating the pier without contest. The Williams article does not make a direct connection with Stowe or the Schooner Anne to this railroad barge. To make that connection, one has refer to Stewart's earlier New York Times article (On the Waterfront, at Least for Now) That article connects Pier 63 Maritime to John Krevy, and that Stowe docked his boat there. Technically, citation tags to both references should follow the passage. Taken together, both New York Times articles establish the events that Pier 63 closed; by inference all habitues of the railroad barge had to go elsewhere. Stowe isn't in the loop here; it's not Stowe's utterances but the reporting of the New York Times that establishes the causality of the move. The edit is inaccurate and makes the passage more wordy.
Ozone Depletion. The quote is valid, but it is from a primary source (Stowe's web site) from which 75.12.148.224 is synthesizing a conclusion about Stowe's understanding of the depletion of the ozone layer. Because primary sources have such limited contexts, extending plausible conclusions from them is tempting for editors ('It is perfectly obvious that...'). But the enlargement of context that such conclusions engender is synthesis, and to my mind, this sort of synthesis is more properly done by named authors producing secondary sources; it is not the business of Wikipedia editors, who are anonymous and who cannot be held accountable for their editorial work, to be constructing conclusions about article subjects on Wikipedia turf (and at risk to Wikipedia's reputation). Also, on a purely technical ground, the editor should use the {{cite web}} template rather than a bare HTML reference. That is the norm for this article, so that references neatly appear in one place, at the bottom of the page, and so that readers can easily find them and use them.
If I have been condescending in enumerating my opinions of these edits, I apologize; that is not my intention. These are my attempts at illustrating careful editing practices, particularly important in the realm of living persons. I think I've made it clear that these edits are not vandalism, but that [2], [5], [6] are questionable, and subject to modification, while [1], [3], and [4] work for me, though they suffer from minor technical issues. Consensus? Lack of consensus? Take care. Gosgood (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk page notes
^This is not a hard-and-fast rule, but a 'good-behavior' approach to consensus building. Some editors engage in bold edit, bold revert, talk page discussion cycles, a somewhat more drama-prone way of arriving at consensus. See Quote, above.
Sailing Anarchy external link
There are two sources of information about this topic on the Internet: the mission home page and the Sailing Anarchy discussion forum.
One is favorable, the other critical. To my mind, both qualify under guideline 4 of the external link guideline. It's not a matter of truth, balanced point of view, or accuracy.
it is simply a matter that
when a significant event occurs during the course of this voyage, these two sites fairly quickly reflect something of the nature of what happened. Any reader having only a
vague awareness of who Reid Stowe is can get the synopsis here, and then move on to the two most active sites on this topic for further commentary -- much of it, of course,
being slanted, disingenuous, and charged with particular points of view. I trust that readers can figure that out on their own and form their own opinions. On the other hand,
for this article to offer external links to one but not the other site is to simply do an incomplete job of topic coverage. It is on that basis that I've restored the link
to the Sailing Anarchy and contest unilateral edits involving its removal. If you don't like the link, and think that it ought to be removed, bring the discussion here first;
do not subject readers of this encyclopedia the instability of edit warring. Thanks, and take care. Gosgood (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone has put this link on the spam list without justification. I have submitted an inquiry and hope to have it reinstated, along with another couple links added to the spam list. There is no spam on these sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 18:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Link to 1000daysofhell
I'm curious as to when the link to the parody website was removed? Rather than just replace it, I thought I'd find if it was taken down for a reason.Aloha27 (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am in favor of removing 1000daysofhell link. The SailingAnarchy link is the true critical source. It shows the entire dialog between people making critical comments of the project. 1000daysofhell is not timely and it is redundant. Catdreams (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The majority of substantive posts at Sailing Anarchy are critical, however there are quite a few posts in support of 1000 Days at Sea. Many of these supporting posts are quite confrontational in nature. Anyone who supports the voyage is free to post whatever they wish at Sailing Anarchy without censorship. 1000 Days of Hell is timely, and actually reported Soanya's arrival in NY many hours before it was reported on 1000 Days at Sea site. Sailing Anarchy is uncensored and neutral. A link to 1000 Days of Hell should be included to ensure balance with 1000 Days at Sea.
External links for this article states "Commercial or promotional links, or links that are only tangentially related to Reid Stowe will be removed.In the discussion page." While the 1000 Days at Sea site contains valuable information updated on a regular basis, it can also be argued that the site is commercial and promotional. On the site they solicit funds to maintain the site and fund the voyage. Should the link to 1000 Days at Sea be removed based on these rules?
Regatta Dog left these comments on my talk page, enumerating his motivations for his March 2nd edits. There doesn't seem to be anything about these comments that are personal to me, particularly, and seem more appropriate for the article talk page, so if there are no objections I'm moving them here for general review. I appreciate that Regatta Dog took time to explain why he edited the article the way he did; it is a marked improvement over fly-by-night visits from anonymous editors. I plan to respond to some of these in the fullness of time, just not now: it's a busy weekend for me. Just one remark on the NY Daily news reference. The February 22 printed version of the article does indeed have the title "Seasick, she's bailing: Novice got in too deep with 1,000 day sail" The printed version appeared on page 8 of the Daily News, and that page number was the only indication in the citation that I was sourcing from the newspaper itself, and not the online version. Probably make sense to cite both printed and online versions; they differ somewhat in matters other than the title. Gosgood (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
March 02 edits
Re - Weather conditions - You state in the Reid Stowe Talk Page - "Weather conditions: Comes from a Stowe quote in the ESPN reference. Is Wikipedia on solid grounds in writing as if those conditions were actually extant? Probably not. It's Stowe's quoted observation to ESPN, and not an independent observation, that conveys weather conditions to this article." Yet, the article still contains the entry. The entry should be removed as it is unverifiable by an uninterested source.
RE - Mission Planning and Execution - The last line reads - "Of these unrealized scientific research plans, entailing personnel trained in data capture, Harrison noted in his 2001 Spacefaring: The Human Dimension, "...when it was all said and done, just as in the case of a real Mars mission, it proved difficult to fund."[18]" The quote from Harrison was written over 5 years before the voyage commenced. Therefore, Harrison could not have been referring to this voyage as the quote implies. Also, the press release that contains the goals of the voyage was an official document of the voyage the day they departed Hoboken and it is still on their website without alteration as of today. The article should not allow any external reasons for not attaining their goals. I have removed the Harrison quote.
RE - "A second, more serious mishap occurred on May 6th 2007 when the schooner ran into a container ship that left the schooner's bowsprit heavily damaged, though the hull and the remainder of the ship was unscathed." Changed "had an encounter with" to "ran into" The Coast Guard incident report that appears on the 1000 days at sea site makes it clear that the Anne hit the freighter. An important distinction, though not sure it warrants a footnote.
RE - Second paragraph of article replaced "captain of expedition" with "head of expedition". Use of title "captain" implies that Reid Stowe has a USCG Captain's License. There is no evidence that he does.
RE - Subsequent Attempts - Removed "Pier 63 Maritime, operator of the railroad barge to which the Anne was moored, was removed in 2007 to make way for the demolition of Pier 63, a part of the development of the Hudson River Park. This required Stowe to move the schooner Anne to Hoboken, giving rise to further delays.[21][28]" Neither article establishes a causal relationship between the removal of the barge and the delays.
RE - - Added "I've given him nearly $7,000 worth of food,". From same NYDaily News article and Relevant to Reid's following statement regarding contributors.
RE - First paragraph of article added - "funded by thousands of donated dollars". From NYDaily News article. Entire voyage is funded by donors/sponsors - critical to the overall story.
RE - Mission Planning and Execution - Replaced "the onboard infrastructure reported from time to time on" with "due to lack of equipment" and "periodic entries in". The text deleted was confusing and difficult to decipher.
RE - Mission Planning and Execution - Moved "A representative for NASA says she doesn't know anyone at the agency who is following Stowe's mission", reported Eliza Strickland in Wired Online." to introduction with other NASA discussion. Important quote, but not related to planning and execution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
RE - Added "Stowe and Ahmad's trip has been criticized by many other sailors who consider it ill-conceived, dangerous and irresponsible.[5]" from NY Daily News. In the reference for theis article, the title of the article is incorrect. The article is titled "One-half of amateur sailing duo gets seasick and jumps ship from voyage" I don't know how to change that. Can someone let me know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
March 22 Edits -- From Regatta Dog Added information gathered from the press about Reid Stowe's legal issues ---
"Shortly after Mr. Stowe dropped off his companion, the press revealed that he is a convicted drug smuggler and owes back child support. Adam Nichols, of the NY Daily News, reported that Mr. Stowe is a “deadbeat dad running from nearly $10,000 owed in child support”. The article states that “New York's Department of State issued a warrant for Stowe in 2005, claiming he owed $11,581" [4]. According to an article at Gothomist.com, Reid Stowe also served some time in a federal penitentiary in the early 1990s after he was caught smuggling 15 tons of marijuana aboard his boat [5]."
As the article's topic is "Reid Stowe", his smuggling conviction and his outstanding child support are important aspects of his life. Adam Nichols has written a number of positive stories for the NY Daily News about Reid's efforts which are referenced a number of times. The same reporter found evidence of Reid's child support problems. He and the editors at the NY Daily News felt it notable enough to publish an article about it. The Gothamist article references Reid's conviction for drug smuggling. As the vast majority of this article is attributable to press releases from Reid's shore team, quotes from Reid and/or his supporters and shore team, and articles in the press which have been favorable to Reid Stowe and his efforts, balance dictates that his child support issues and drug smuggling conviction be included in his article.
I apologize if external links cause a problem. I studied the tech info, but was unable to figure out the footnote thing.
I don't know how to change the references/footnotes at the bottom of the page, but there's a major error in footnote 40 which reads -
"^ a b Jock Main and Jon Harper of http://FreoDoctor.com.au interviewed Soanya Ahmad shortly after processing by Australian customs officers. They briefly interviewed Jon Sanders as well, who had been part of the pickup crew. Mr. Sanders had conversed with Reid Stowe, found him determined to continue with the voyage and thought the schooner capable of going the distance. Soanya Ahmad, Jock Main, Jon Harper. Interview with Soanya Ahmad, Feb. 22, 2008, Perth [On location video camera]. Royal Perth Yacht Club VIP Jetty, Perth, Western Australia: Freo Doctor."
I think it is inappropriate to editorialize within a footnote. In the interview, Jon Sanders did not say the "schooner was capable of going the distance". To say in a footnote that Jon Sanders "found him determined to continue with the voyage" is an opinion of whoever wrote the footnote and does not accurately reflect Jon Sanders' statements in the interview. I would suggest eliminating all editorial comments. They don't belong in the footnotes section or even the article itself.
30,000 pounds of marijuana conviction and time served
Once again, any reference to the conviction of Stowe for conspiracy has disappeared, apparently because the reference and documentation is being hosted on a blog. Since most of the "positive" information about this subject come from blogs and websites controlled by persons involved with the "voyage", I'm wondering how NPOV can be maintained?
Stowe's conviction for conspiracy to import "1000 kg or more of marijuana" as well as citation for not having pollution control devices installed on the schooner while tied alongside pier 63, regardless of who the complainant was is a matter of public record and must be treated as such. You'll no doubt notice that no reference has been made by "Mission Control" as to toilet facilities while the boat was in Hoboken.
Aloha27 (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Edits long overdue
Reading this article gave me the impetus I needed to return to Wikipedia after a long absence. I really don't know what motivates some people to hide behind a pseudonym while using this site to vilify denigrate a living subject on the basis of tabloid or tabloid-like articles, or misrepresentation of material in respectable news outlets.
Here's a list of my main edits starting with the lede:
1. Its clear from several sources that Stowe had contemplated the journey. just about any journey begins with contemplation. So what? "Contemplated" can be edited out.
2. "...though Stowe claims to maintain personal contacts with a number of present and former NASA personnel.[2] "A representative for NASA says she doesn't know anyone at the agency who is following Stowe's mission", reported Eliza Strickland in Wired Online. [3]"
This is misleading: Strickland's comment was not a reference or response to Stowe's claim during the sourced interview as far as I can tell. In any case, that type of detail belongs in the body of the article, not the lede. Adding the 2nd quote to discredit the first looks like original research. I'm deleting both.
3. "Nichols, Adam. "One-half of amateur sailing duo gets seasick and jumps ship from voyage", February 22, 2008, p. 8. Retrieved on 2008-02-22." I was unable to track this down. If someone has a reliable source that confirms (names) and quotes experienced sailors ( not anonymous contributors to blogs), then such criticism should be included. I'm removing this bit of criticism for now. Maybe someone can come up with a reliable, detailed source. Note the reference further into the article to Jon Sanders, for example, who spoke favorably about the condition of Stowe's vessel.
4. Tabloids such as the NY Daily News are not acceptable sources for biographies of living people. Hyperbolic headlines from such publications cannot be used. Please see [[1]]
For those reasons I am removing the "Deadbeat dad" quote.
5. Links to an obscene blog site and 2 other sites which lampoon the subject of the article and contain defamatory material are not acceptable. Material of that nature is not acceptable in any article. Attempts to circumvent that by linking to such material is not acceptable either. I am removing those links.
Please note that I am not in any way associated with Stowe, his girlfriend or his support group. I have made these edits out of concern for the quality of Wikipedia articles, biographies especially.--Zanthorp (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Original Research cannot be included in this or any other article. For that reason I have removed "The child support obligation appears to have been satisfied. A recent search (Jan. 3, 2009) of the NY Department of State - State Child Support Enforcement Warrant Notice System revealed that there are no longer outstanding warrants for child support" --Zanthorp (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
To IP 76.24.226.181
I note that you reverted my edits without discussion. Merely asserting in the edit summary that the material was valid and cited is not an adequate reason to revert. Please read my reasons above for making those edits. I'm happy to discuss those points with you. For now, I have restored my edits. --Zanthorp (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
In a nutshell, here's why the paragraph you added to the significant events section is so problematic: It is includes a hyperbolic headline from a tabloid, and original research based on a primary source (an official document) and a blog (the Gothamist).
Hyperbolic content such as the "deadbeat dad" ("...sez state") quote from the NY Daily News can't be used in BLVPs. In fact, if you read the article closely you will see that the "state" did not say Reid was a deadbeat dad. The "state" made no such statement. The headline is not just factually wrong, it may also be legally actionable.
Primary sources such as official documents and you tube videos are not acceptable sources for BLVPs, [[2]]
and Original Research based on such material has no place in Wikipedia. [[3]] Blogs, The Gothamist included, are generally not acceptable sources for BLVPs. [[4]]
If the rules are applied strictly, my alternative, much short paragraph would not be permissible either. It is neutral in tone at least, but the source is the Gothamist. I'll ask an administrator to have a look at it.
Another souce, Nichols, Adam. "One-half of amateur sailing duo gets seasick and jumps ship from voyage", February 22, 2008, p. 8, appears to be unverifiable. Where was it published? Can you provide a link to it? I haven't been able to locate it. The only comment I've seen so far from experienced sailor, Jon Sanders, was not in any way critical. Please also read the introductory text guidelines. [[5]]
Trying to contribute to Wikipedia articles can be very frustrating. I understand that. Please take time to read the relevant rules and guidelines. --Zanthorp (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Check this out! I just located the Adam Nichols article.[6] Turns out it was published by the NY Daily News, and guess who the journalist interviewed - none other than Wikipedia editor, contributor to this article and anti-Reid Stowe web sites, Regatta Dog [[7]]. Hmmm... Could that be why the citation was incomplete and did not link to the NY daily news web site? Could it also be that our visiting IP is actually Regatta Dog? --Zanthorp (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Check this out! I was able to track down the original story from The Daily News and NOWHERE in it does it mention any known editor of Wikipedia. It also includes a direct quote about "the State" having the authority to seize Stowe's vessel to pay the outstanding debt. Fortunately, the arrears were satisfied just over eight months after the story was printed. Maybe I'll let someone else reinstate the fact as well as this link. [8]Aloha27 (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Unethical use of source
Here's the situation: In Feb 2008 a Wikipedia editor is interviewed by a journalist, contributes to an article in the NY Daily News [9] and is identified by the journalist in the article. The same editor then adds to this article a quote from the tabloid article to which they contributed, [[10]] however, the citation is incomplete and no link is provided. The quoted tabloid material remains in the lede of this article for more than 2 years. I delete it, but it is repeatedly reinserted by an IP without discussion.--Zanthorp (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. The naysayers of Reid Stowe are trying desperately to undermine his character in order to bring down his achievements as a sailor, adventurer and artist. I think that Wikipedia prides itself on neutrality, and fairness. Defamation is out. Period! Skol fir (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how your personal views of Reid are important to the article. A wiki editor may have opinions about a subject one way or the other, and I think in an article like this one, it is important that all sides of the story are told. Your questioning the motives of other editors ("trying desperately to undermine") is evidence of your own impartiality. I agree that there is no place for defamation within wiki, but providing quotes with accurate sourcing is not defamation. Regatta dog (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Support appreciated. Thanks. Best to keep an eye on this article, and if any more problematic editing occurs I'll take it to the BLVP notice board. --Zanthorp (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
In the four years I've been a contributor, I have yet to see a more unbalanced article anywhere In Wikipedia.Aloha27 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on your last edit to this article, I would not speak too loudly. Digging up some outdated mission statement that has no bearing on the current mission in its stated form as of 2007, you risk being suspected of holding an unbalanced opinion, not Wikipedia.
The mission statement referenced was the same one that appeared on his website the day he departed. It is a critical document from which to measure his actual accomplishments against his goals. Regatta dog (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Unbelievable that this could have been missed. The third entry at the top of this page also confirms that the intended goal for this was "multiple circumnavigations", dated 17 May 2007 in "Did You Know?"Aloha27 (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I also noticed that a user with your name (Aloha27) once added some low-handed material on Reid Stowe's personal life, including his reneging for some time on child support payments and a jail sentence for importing marijuana. These items are not relevant to a person who has obviously learned from his mistakes (and never repeated them). You must be some holy, self-righteous person to be the judge of another man who has shown his determination and grit to take on many challenges that would daunt the average person. I would say that you have a lot to learn about compassion, and Reid Stowe has that in droves, from what I have read on his exploits. We could all use more of that, not cynicism.
Reid's smuggling conviction and child support arrearages are well sourced and should be included in his biography. It is not the role of a wiki editor to make an assumption that he "has obviously learned from his mistakes". It is also inappropriate for one editor to insult another. Your positive, personal comments about the subject of the article speak for themselves. Regatta dog (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The most important point, one that seems to be overlooked by some editors, is that there is no reliable secondary source for any of that material. The NY Daily News does not qualify. It is a tabloid with a reputation for hyperbole, and as I pointed out above, the "deadbeat dad" headline is probably legally actionable. Primary sources, blogs (e.g. the Gothamist) and Original Research are out. If anyone is in doubt about that, please use the links I posted above to read the relevant site policies and guidelines. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
If every article cited were to pass the same test which you appear to wish to apply selectively, there would be very little left of this article. Unverifiable claims by Reid Stowe, commentary from his mission control team, other cites from the very same "tabloid", other electronic publcations and the self promoting 1000 Days at Sea cite would all be questionable sources.
To be honest, I believe that Reid Stowe is not a saint. However, if what you say is true, that only one source was used for either of these allegations about Reid's character, then that alone is enough to dismiss them. However, that being said, I am sure that Reid himself would not deny the nine-month prison term for importing marijuana, or the fact that he was not always up-to-date on his child support payments. For instance, see this article: Sailing quest tests couple's skills and bond by Verena Dobnik, San Francisco Examiner from May 2, 2009. She writes, "Stowe has his detractors: authors of Internet posts who paint him as a fraudulent, Svengali-like figure who seduces women and spirits them into danger. One blogger pointed out that Stowe had been convicted of drug dealing. He acknowledges having served nine months in prison for conspiracy to deal drugs in the Caribbean — helping transfer marijuana from a Colombian vessel to some yachts in 1987. 'But what I'm doing now is an honorable thing — working hard and keeping love in the forefront to guide my actions,' he says."
For me, the major issue is that we should leave a man's past behind, since he served his time and paid his dues. These indiscretions have no bearing on this ocean voyage, since no one involved in the enterprise was misled by Reid and would call him up on it now, after the fact. Skol fir (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It makes no sense to leave a man's past behind in a biographical article. This is not an article solely about the voyage. The very nature of a biography is to delve into a subject's past. Your claim that no one was mislead by Reid may be true, but that is your personal opinion and has no place here on Wikipedia.Regatta dog (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It is my opinion that you can't have it both ways Skol.
Seeing as how much of the material currently referred to comes from blogs (1000 days site), the aforementioned New York Daily News, local cable channel pieces and the like, which as has been stated apparently do not do a great deal of research into the article, perhaps they too shall have to be discarded as "tabloid-style" publications. Having spent many years in broadcasting, I'm pretty confident that I know why NO major news source has touched this event. See your talk page.
Aloha27 (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes, Aloha27, tabloids get it right, because they obviously have to have some truth thrown in for good measure, to keep a significant readership. However, when they set out to attack someone's credibility, usually with very weak sources or unverifiable evidence, they step over the line of acceptability for Wikipedia. If you found some references to the New York Daily News and local cable channel in the Reid Stowe entry, they are still there because they did not cross the line, plain and simple.
Wikipedia is only able to keep a modicum of respectability if its editors and admins maintain a strict code of ethics and legal propriety, especially for BLP's. If you have any legal knowledge, the term libel should be familiar to you. None of us wants to go down that path, and neither should you or any of the other people who wish to throw stones at Reid Stowe, because he is "not like them." Go find a hobby where you don't have to damage people's reputation, like golf or tennis, or maybe even a friendly game of whist, you name it. Skol fir (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Your negative, personal comments directed at another editor are inappropriate. Your claims that editors are throwing stones are inaccurate and your baseless assumptions about motivation are also inappropriate. Regatta dog (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a hobby. It's called sailing. I'm very interested in it, passionate about it and do reasonably well at it. I suggest you try it sometime, perhaps on Stowe's next voyage. Aloha27 (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm also a lover of the sea with some offshore experience in yachts half the size of Stowe's. It was due to my interest in sailing that I came across an article about his voyage some months ago. I forget which one. I'm not anti or pro, but I am concerned about the quality of Wikipedia articles, and especially concerned that BLVPs reflect site policies and guidelines. If a reliable secondary source - a quality broadsheet such as the Washington Post or the NY Times for example - published something about Stowe's alleged involvement in smuggling marijuana, there would be no reason to exclude it from this article. If anyone can produce such a source, it can be used. As it is, as far as I know, the only sources for any of that material are tabloids or worse. The SF Examiner refers to blogs as a source, and that article in the NY Daily news even named a Wikipedia editor as the source of its info for Christ sake!! BLVP policy is pretty clear. Sources of that nature are not up to standard. Material from an official web site associated with the subject of the article can be used, and has been used fairly extensively. But apart from one or two sailing journals, this article generally suffers from a lack of high quality sources. Hopefully that situation will change in the near future if Stowe completes his voyage on schedule. I wish him favorable weather and the best of luck. Whatever opinion you might have about Stowe's character (personally I don't have an opinion or care one way or the other), I think you would agree that his achievement so far has been extraordinary. There's no way I'd try single handing a gaff rigged vessel of that size, especially for years on end.--Zanthorp (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I had inadvertently removed the entire discussion about small boats and double crossings of the Atlantic Ocean, not realizing it was based on real evidence from Reid Stowe's interview with Harold Channer in 2003. (See discussion below).
I re-watched the interview and those were Reid Stowe's own words. Here is a link to the interview - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkK3CS6qAo4. The quote is a direct quote from Reid - "The first boat that I built was, was very small because my budget was smaller, and I was learning to build boats and so forth, but it was the smallest boat to cross the Atlantic Ocean twice." The quote can be heard at 38 minutes and 20 seconds. Falsely accusing other editors of fabrication is highly inappropriate.Regatta dog (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Nicely spotted. Well done! Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would go to so much trouble trying to make the guy look bad. BTW, I note that Jessica Watson's [[11]] web site is no less promotional that Reid Stowe's. I don't see a problem with someone promoting their endeavors and seeking sponsors. The Wikipedia article about her does contain a paragraph of 'criticism' but the sources are a a sailing journal, a reliable broadsheet newspaper, and only a very brief mention of something in a tabloid that was responsibly written. She has also received a great deal of praise. Both criticism and praise are presented in a balanced, neutral tone as they should be. On that note, I'm a little concerned about the tone of the new material added to the 1st paragraph. "Furthermore, already in Oct., 1998, the projected voyage of 1000 days attracted the attention of NASA researchers..." has somewhat of a 'telling the naysayers how it is' ring to it. Perhaps it would be better to simply write, "No major space agency has any known connection to Reid Stowe, although a NASA engineer and a lab manager at the Johnson Space Center have expressed interest in the voyage." --Zanthorp (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
About the statement by the NASA researcher, I followed your sensible advice and toned the rhetoric down to the following: "No major space agency has any known connection to Reid Stowe, although a NASA engineer and a lab manager at the flight crew support division of NASA's Johnson Space Center have expressed interest in the voyage," (with references attached). Skol fir (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This Wikipedia page is becoming nothing more than a marketing arm of 1000 Days at Sea. For your convenience - here is the link again to the interview with Harold Channer -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkK3CS6qAo4. For your further convenience, here is the direct quote from Reid which can be found at 38 minutes and 20 seconds - "The first boat that I built was, was very small because my budget was smaller, and I was learning to build boats and so forth, but it was the smallest boat to cross the Atlantic Ocean twice."
It appears as though Zanthrop and Skol are the guilty parties of falsification here, not the original poster.
It is also very troubling that external links to sites which paint the voyage in a less favorable light have been not only removed, but banned as spam when the only external web link that solicits funds is the 1000 Days at Sea link.
If I had the time to go through the entire article and apply the same credibility rules for sources as you have done, there would be very little left of the article.
Regatta dog, as soon as I saw your original edit this morning, about comparing Reid's statement in the Channer interview with the known facts about the "Little Western," I went back to the interview itself and listened to the portion you had pinpointed as occurring at T=38:20, and finally found it. The reasons that I missed this quote of Reid's while listening to entire interview the other day, was 1) that it was about 3 in the morning, 2) I was looking for the "needle in the haystack." Needless to say, the conditions at that early hour, and the quickness with which Reid rattled off "the smallest boat to cross the Atlantic Ocean twice" conspired to allow me to completely miss that quote. It's the aural equivalent of "he blinked, and missed the town of Bunkie, Louisiana as he drove through!"
While I can appreciate your circumstances and your explanation as to why you inadvertently missed the quote in question, I do feel that your unfounded, accusatory response to another editor was quite inappropriate. Regatta dog (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
So, my solution would be to modify your input somewhat to not look like an accusation of mendacity, but rather a slip of the tongue.
In his 2003 interview with Hudson Channer, Stowe characterized the catamaran as "the smallest boat to cross the Atlantic Ocean twice",[1] although he may not have been aware at the time that a boat that was at least 10 feet smaller had made the round trip crossing as early as the nineteenth century. In 1880-'81, George P. Thomas and Frederick Norman navigated their 16 ft 7 in (5.05 m) dory Little Western from Gloucester, Massachusetts to Cowes England in June-July 1880, stayed in England for nearly one year, and returned the following June.[2][3][4]
We do not know if he was aware at the time of his statement or not. As editors, we should not assume either way. Regatta dog (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As for your statement, "The hypocrisy and advocacy of a couple editors here are very troubling," I hope you are not referring to the attempts to keep defamatory statements and deliberate muck-raking out of this article. What is more troubling is people with a specific agenda to destroy another person's character without regard for the rules of privacy in matters that do not concern the general public (as Reid Stowe is not running for political office). When a person has served time for offences committed and paid up for reneged promises, it is none of our business to keep dragging a person through the mud for past indiscretions, when he has obviously regretted his mistakes and put his past behind him for this project of this 1000-day voyage. My only purpose, as a volunteer editor watching certain pages that have caught my attention, is to keep a fair balance between critical and laudatory input, so that a person reading the article for the first time does not sense a bias in either direction, and feels that the subject in question was given a fair shake. Don't we all wish we were given a fair shake in all circumstances?
Defamatory statements are not appropriate in Wikipedia, however quoting valid sources regarding a subject that may not be favorable or neutral is appropriate. Accusations of muck-raking, that people are out to destroy another person's character and invading a person's privacy are not appropriate here. Mr. Stowe has had many positive interviews and stories published over the years. To limit the article to only positive stories does not provide the balance Wiki readers have come to rely on. If we were to remove any and all blemishes from BLPs, Wikipedia would suffer a severe lack of credibility. These "indiscretions" are critical to the biography of Reid Stowe. Regatta dog (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you tried to reinsert an external link leading to Reid Stowe and 1000 Days at Sea - Reality Check which would paint a definitely unflattering view of Reid Stowe, and make people think twice about the two (or three) faces of Reid. We have a prime example in the persona of Tiger Woods who was held up by the press and his sponsors as a model of finesse and elegance, never mind a family man. We can see how quickly that image has changed with a few (or many depending on your standards) indiscretions with merry maids.
The job of an editor is not to flatter the subject of an article. If the facts, as laid out for the reader, makes the reader think twice, that is a good thing for Wikipedia. If you feel so strongly about this, I suggest you edit the Tiger Woods page and delete any references to his affairs. Regatta dog (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
However, I do think that Reid Stowe's offences do not amount to a hill of beans, because his daughter, who was supposedly bilked out of years of child support, has since gone on to be a lawyer in CA, so she did not seem to have suffered much in the process. The drug charges against Reid are minor compared to big drug lords, and other king-pins of that sordid industry. He tried to get some more bucks, playing a minor role in a larger scheme and got caught. Did he learn from his mistake? Yes, and he did not repeat it as far as anyone can tell.
Your job as an editor is not to decide if a prison conviction and owing back child support amounts to a hill of beans, that is for the reader to decide. If it does not amount to a hill of beans, then why so adamant about keeping it out of the article. Unpaid chaild support and a smuggling conviction are extremely relevant. Regatta dog (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
So, the bottom line is that including any such embarrassing personal information about Reid's past serves no purpose other than to ridicule, which is definitely out in the Wikipedia standards for a BLP. If Reid had not paid for these petty crimes, it would be another matter altogether. The fact that he put his past behind him is a valid enough reason for us, who are such perfect angels, to forgive him and let him move on with his life. I believe that inserting material about these offences belittles him and us as well, because in my opinion it is precisely muckraking.
The information in question, while it may be embarrassing to the subject of the article, is not "personal information". It is published information and a matter of public record. If readers choose to ridicule the subject based on the information presented, that is their prerogative; just as they may praise him for his achievements or find them less than noteworthy.
Your personal feelings about the subject, which you've expressed above, Have no place in this discussion. Objectivity demands that the information about his drug conviction and back child support be included, as they are in no way minor events/issues in the subject's life. Regatta dog (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If people wish to find the dirt on Reid, let them Google "Reid Stowe". The 7th choice on the first page of search results is Reid Stowe and 1000 Days at Sea - Reality Check.
Should we simply reroute the Wikipedia main page to Google? As an editor, your role is not to cherry pick what goes into an article, and if there are two sides to a story, both are to be heard as per Reliable source and neutrality [12] -- "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." Regatta dog (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that you took the time to get involved with this discussion, instead of just making edits with little explanation. If an editor here at Wikipedia wishes to survive for long, he or she needs to be able to face all the facts of an issue and come to a reasonable conclusion about what belongs in an article, after much back-and-forth with other editors/vistors to the discussion page. We are open to other viewpoints, and in all the discussions I have been involved with, the conclusions have been most satisfactory.
I despise blatant negativity and like to be honest and forthright when I make edits, not "hypocritical" as you so wrongly put it.
My comment on hypocrisy was in response to comments where there was obvious bias in favor of the subject of the article while at the same time being critical of those with a perceived opposing bias. As editors, our job is to present and discuss documented facts and sourced third party opinions.
Regatta dog I realize that you took offense to my lashing out at a supposed fabrication. I apologize for making that assumption, and for letting loose my acerbic remarks on an innocent editor. I will watch my editorial tongue in the future, and accept the proverbial nine lashes as punishment. Ouch! that hurt! :)
You may not be aware that I am not biased in favor of Reid Stowe. I was the editor who down-played his claims of meeting Bernard Moitessier, because of reading an article by Charles Doane which I have linked as a reference into that section about Reid. See the section "Early Voyages", paragraph 2, where I modified the wording to read "Stowe met other sailors who had stayed with Bernard Moitessier" from the original which claimed Reid had met Bernard Moitessier. I don't know if this is any indication that Reid is not always to be believed, when he spouts off about his past adventures. You may have a point here.
A wiki editor, Skol fir, who has affirmed his/her neutrality and simple concern for this Wikipedia article, appears to have taken upon him/herself the role of editor well beyond wiki beyond what most would consider reasonable.
First - Please review the discussion above regarding quotes.
Second - Selectively building a series of quotes into a "philosophy" is not the role of an editor and is improper.
Third - The "quote" posted by the editor, Skol fir, was presented to look like a continual quote from the subject of the article. A bit of research showed that -
- Paragraph 1 from the "quote" was from a press release dated Aug. 22, 2009.
- Paragraph 2 from the "quote" was from Reid's blog post on day 888.
- Paragraph 3 from the "quote" was from Reid's blog post on day 860.
- Paragraph 4 from the "quote" was made up of a number of different quotes within the paragraph. 1st sentence from day 860, the rest from day 862.
- Paragraph 5 from the "quote" was from a press release dated July 1st, 2009. The first 3 sentences were as they appeared in the Press Release, however the last sentence came from a different part of the release.
Apparently, Skol fir took it upon him/herself to create his/her own content by pasting together a variety of different quotes and presenting them as a single cohesive quote from the subject of the article. Here is a situation where a Wiki editor has way overstepped the line. This type of action does serious damage to the credibility of Wikipedia, IMO. I will leave it to others to speculate as to motive.
If I am wrong here, and there is a place where these disparate quotes are found as a single cohesive quote, I apologize.
You were wrong here. I took this block of quotes out of a press release PRESS RELEASE: OCTOBER 9, 2009, under the second heading "From his blogs at www.1000days.net". They were supposedly compiled into a cohesive unit by the staff of "1000 Days at Sea."
I commend you for taking the time to sort out the original source of each of these quotes. I did modify the entry in the article to avoid listing the quotes, which I admit was unnecessary and does look a bit like I was pushing Reid's philosophy. That was not my intent. I just wanted to put it out there for other's to judge, what was in his mind during such a long stay away from people and land.
Thanks for pointing that out, and I apologize for the implications of what I wrote. The original link referred directly to the main page and not the Press Release itself, which created the confusion. I do not think that it is a good idea to allow a press release from Reid's support staff be used to draw any conclusions about Reid's state of mind - especially since the quotes were cherry picked by his staff to shed the most positive light on his and their efforts. There are plenty of other quotes from Reid that show a quite different state of mind (being massaged by Buddha, rearranging his lower intestine using yoga, etc.).
Regatta dog, apologies accepted. I would not object to removal of this paragraph, because those who wish to seek out "Weid," as the SA crowd would say, can do so at will by observing his ruminations verbatim on the Voyage log, the original link at "1000 Days at Sea" which I originally referenced and which apparently threw you off.
Yes I did and commented above, but this is worth repeating. If we were to apply all the rules you appear to want to apply to those entries with an opposing or less than flattering view to those which have a favorable view of Reid Stowe and his voyage, this article would contain relatively little content. I do not think that Wikipedia BLP's should be used for marketing purposes. Much of the content cited in the article contains a great deal of unsubstantiated information from the subject himself from interviews, blog postings, and Press Releases. That does not result in a balanced, neutral article, but rather it makes Wikipedia a promotional tool for the subject of the article.
Very good case in point -- links to external sites have been discussed here (see above) and deemed acceptable -providing balance to this unfolding story. Someone recently not only deleted the links to the three sites that provided differing views and open discussion, someone actually put those links on a spam list so they cannot be restored. Sailing Anarchy is not a spam site. It is the largest sailing website in the world and the place where the discussion of this Wikipedia subject is not censored. Pro's and con's alike can post their views. I'm not sure who put SA and the other sites on the spam list, and I am trying to reverse that so readers can find additional information that isn't filtered by the subject's support team. Any support you can lend towards achieving restoration of those links would be greatly appreciated.
If there's a single spam link in the article, it is certainly the link to the subject's web site where there's a well crafted message and a request for financial support via PayPal button.
Strange to say, when I first came across this article back in 2009, I thought the external links to critical or judgmental websites about Reid Stowe were extremely useful for me. They allowed me to not be duped by any sweet talk, and gave me insight into how Reid got to this point in his life. He has certainly not enamored the larger yachting community, it appears, although some people at SA seem to have fallen for his charm. :)
I am not afraid to see the truth about anything or anyone, but I reserve judgement about how the truth should be applied. I would not hold against anyone mistakes they have made. I am not perfect, by far, and I am also not religious, by definition, but I find this passage in the Bible enlightening:
"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?"
"This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him."
"But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground."
"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst."
"When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"
"She said, No man, Lord."
"And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:2-11 KJV)
When I read that, I think I have a chance. :)
On the SPAM issue, I'll look into it, because I don't exactly put those external sites—which after all are well-managed blogs just like any other—into a SPAM category. The definition of SPAM is clear...unsolicited advertising attempting to lure potential customers. However, the Wikipedia definition appears to be broader than that: "External link spamming : Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."
I fell into that trap myself today when trying to send you a comment that included the link to Reid Stowe and 1000 Days at Sea - Reality Check, and got the warning that this site had been blocked for SPAM. I scratched my head in bewilderment, and dutifully removed the said link, so I could push the message through. Anyway, it might have been the frequency of attempts by you or others to reinsert that link that set off our alarms!
There is no problem with Reid claiming his voyage is "space analogous", but I think there is a problem with references to NASA. I believe that readers will be mislead into believing that Reid and his voyage are associated with or endorsed by NASA via inference. A 10+ year old article containing a quote from a single lab manager that may have been keen on Reid's voyage, might have been relevant if he had gained funding for or an endorsement of the voyage. This is nothing more than a single individual expressing interest in the voyage who happens to have worked for NASA ---- over 10 years ago.
The other cite to a NASA engineer is not from a neutral 3rd party, but from the subject's own website. It is not properly sourced and unverifiable. As an extreme hypothetical, the subject might just as well invent quotes claiming official NASA endorsement and then reference that here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Your deletion of properly sourced material in the first paragraph was disruptive and pointless. It belongs there because it covers a significant point and refers to information included further into the article. There is no inferred connection with NASA. The paragraph clearly states that there is no connection with any known space agency. Outside [13] is one of the better sources in the article. Its age (12 years old) is no reason not to use it. I have worked on 2 previous BLVPs which use reliable sources that are much older than that. And there is no problem using material sourced from Stowe's official web site either. In future, please do not delete relevant and properly sourced material. Many of your edits are merely blatant attempts to push your POV. The worst example of that was your unethical use of a tabloid piece in which you were named by the journalist as a source (see section above, Unethical use of source).
Some of your edits, removal of unnecessary detail for example [[14]] have improved the article. However, I will revert any further disruptive, POV driven edits. --Zanthorp (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The information I removed was irrelevant to the biography, except that it implied a non-existent relationship with NASA. The only "point" it covers is that an individual who worked for NASA more than 10 years ago was interested in the project. I don't see how that can be construed as "significant". I do not challenge the source, but just because the source is valid does not make such a minor, outdated, individual opinion "significant".
There is a problem with using information from Stowe's website, as per the wiki rules on "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" [15]
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."
The cite is self serving, involves claims about a third party, and there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
If you can locate the same quotes from a neutral, credible source, I would still argue that it is irrelevant to the article. Regatta dog (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The cite (Stowe's web site) quotes expert opinion. I don't agree that it is self-serving. There is no "claim" as such about a third party other than the name of the author and their position in an organization. Are you suggesting that its fictitious? If you can prove that, please do so. Otherwise, I see no problem with it.
You seem to have forgotten the name of the voyage - 1000 Days at Sea: The Mars Ocean Odyssey - and the fact that the similarities of isolation and confinement between such a long sea voyage and a long space voyage had been mooted by Stowe and Harrison in their paper. It is a significant point and relevant to Stowe's bio. The Outsider magazine is a reliable source which quotes an authority on the topic. I see no problem at all with it. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Child Support and Smuggling
Leaving port with over $10,000 in back child support and being convicted and serving time in a Fed Pen for smuggling are both very significant and they are appropriate for BLP's. Look at the wiki page of almost any celebrity who has had a significant run in with the law and you will find that referenced. I'm not too sure it belongs in the significant events section, except that the public revelations occurred while he was at sea. I look forward to opposing viewpoints. Regatta dog (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant! I don't care if he eats babies for breakfast. If there is no reliable source, and so far you have failed to produce one, there is no place for it in the article. Read the sections above from Edits long overdue down. Links to relevant pages covering the rules and guidelines of this site are provided. Read them. That might save you wasting your time and mine. --Zanthorp (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have re-read the "edits long overdue". The New York Daily News is a credible source. If you feel so strongly that it is not, perhaps you might back up your convictions by removing any and all source material gathered from the paper. While you are at it, you may want to delete all information from the article that cites the 1000 days web site and interviews with Harold Channer or explain to me how those are reliable sources or at the very least neutral. Until you delete all other cites from the Daily News, eliminating this well cited and important part of the subject's life needs to stay. Regatta dog (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Regatta dog, you seem to forget that this is a BLP, not an article about the schooner "Anne" and its multiple adventures. Please see the section on Defamation:
Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. 'Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.'
There is no disclosure of "private facts". The history of the subject's legal problems are a matter of public record. Regatta dog (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Invasion of privacy is considered "defamation" in a BLP, and constitutes vandalism.
I suggest you take up the defamation accusations with the NY Daily news and/or Gothamist. Please don't shoot the messenger. Regatta dog (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The NY Daily News? Would that be an article written by Adam Nichols, the same journalist that interviewed you and named you as a source of his information? [16] Just to refresh your memory, "Stowe and Ahmad's trip has been criticized by many other sailors who consider it ill-conceived, dangerous and irresponsible."Everyone ... no matter how critical they've been about the cruise, is expressing relief that she's off the boat," said "Regatta Dog," a member of Internet-based sailing group Sailing Anarchy." Does any of that ring a bell? Funny that Ahmad stated soon after in an interview that she was "heartbroken" at having to leave the boat. Stowe didn't seem too happy about it either. I guess everyone means you and you and a few like minded associates. As for shooting the messenger, the Gothamist is a blog - not acceptable as a source. i'm more than a bit tired of your persistent, unethical efforts to turn this article into a refection of your POV. I'm taking it to the BLVP notice board. --Zanthorp (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It WOULD be written by Adam Nichols. However, as explained above, the story does NOT include any reference to any known Wikipedia editor, only an official with the State of New York in charge of collecting child support arrears. This is the article that revealed just how much Stowe owed the state at the time of the interview. [17] Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, that one arrived on the scene just 15 days after the publication of an article by the same journalist [18] in which he names wikipedia editor, Regatta Dog, as a source. --Zanthorp (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Did Reid Stowe ever meet Moitessier and if so when? There's a great deal of conflicting information about this. The deleted text presumes Reid had been influenced by Motissier on this first trip to the pacific and is sourced to a Harold Channer interview. The next paragraph says that after Reid was inspired by Moitessier, he returned to NC and built his catamaran. On his website, Day 574, he claims he met Motissier after he built the catamaran -- "I met Bernard Moitessier in the early 1970's, one of the first men to sail solo non-stop around the world. By then I already had ocean solo sailing experience on my catamaran. I was preparing to build this schooner and thought I would always be sailing with people." In the Doane article Stowe claims he met Moitessier in California in the late 70's - between his catamaran voyage and building the schooner. Doane then goes on to assert that Motessier was not in California at the time. Did they meet? If so, when? Before he built the catamaran or after. If so, where? California or the South Pacific?
Anyone who can sort out these contradictions is welcome to try, until then, the Moitessier meeting is questionable at best. Regatta dog (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not in the interest of Wikipedia BLPs to have advocates for the subject of the article create an article to promote the subject of the article - that would make Wikipedia a marketing tool for anyone who wanted to sell a product. Does Wiki disallow references to Tiger Woods' affairs?
A neutral biography is a neutral biography. If part of the subject's past includes a conviction for drug smuggling and failing to pay child support, and both revelations have been covered in the press, this is important to biography. Wikipedia is not free advertising. 76.24.226.181 (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Does the T Woods article contain input from tabloid articles written by a journalist who quoted and named a wikipedia editor as his source, and is that same wikipedia editor actively involved in writing wikipedia's T Woods article? Do you know what the word unethical means? --Zanthorp (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Who are you? At least I'm honest about my position. I don't like Wikipedia being hijacked for free publicity. I look forward to the press digging deeper into the subject's shore team and I hope they trip over this Wiki discussion page and compare the comments of the new editors to the Particle some Press Releases, blog posts and quotes in the media. I'd also like to see Gosgood swing by and afford this article some adult supervision. Regatta dog (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you (76.24.226.181/Comcast in Connecticut/Regatta dog?) should read more and talk less. The reference by Herb McCormick from Cruising World that I put back in place of your two very biased articles on Reid Stowe, is precisely the kind of reference that Wikipedia is looking for to give a balanced view. In this reference, McCormick states that Stowe is an "ex-convict," "unconventional," "sometimes acting like an aging space cadet."
Further quotes from his piece:
"[Reid] says that the French sailing legend [Moitessier] "had a great influence over me," not that he actually met him. That he ever met him appears to be a myth, so this quote is very telling.
"The original idea was to land a major sponsor, and for years Reid searched for one, hoping he'd find a corporate backer who'd understand the value in a "space analogous" expedition that would take as long as a journey to Mars and pose similar psychological challenges. But none ever materialized..."
"(If Reid reaches 1,000 days, he'll easily break the singlehanded record set by Sanders, but because Soanya sailed the first 306 days with him, he hasn't yet.)"
"Along the way, Reid has had his detractors, some of whom seem dangerously obsessive. One such critic has gone so far as to build entire websites devoted to Reid's claims, deeds, and transgressions over the years."
So, it seems that you have discarded an article that presents the facts on Stowe, and also presents him in a realistic light. Instead you choose to put in its place two very negative, derogatory sources, one of which is a questionable source (Gotham) only to satisfy your personal agenda. I am trying to work with you on this article but your single-minded mission is to destroy a person's integrity, and that cannot be tolerated here on Wikipedia. I am ready to take action against any more attempts to reinsert any defamatory information, since your agenda is based on hate for all the Reid Stowe represents and that is too obvious from your actions here.
Not two "negative, derogatory sources". Again, delete every NY Daily News cite if you truly feel that strongly. I won't do it myself, but based on your criteria I could do so without and be in your favor. As a Wiki editor, who feels this article is more promotional than informational, I feel obliged to enlighten the readers. That you think I am trying to "destroy a person's integrity" by including weirll sourced information about the subject's criminal background, suggests to me that you should assess your own bias.
Please, Skol fir, back up your accusation of my "hate for all the Reid Stowe represents". If you feel educating Wiki visitors about a subject's criminal background is hateful, perhaps you should not be an editor. Regatta dog (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This was posted by someone named "Ducky" on July 7, 2008, at a NY Times blog called "The Lede".
"Stowe’s detractors are angry and his supporters are many. The somewhat scurriless article in the Daily News which was planted by his most virulent group of detractors, is full of half truths and wholly unnecessary innuendo.
It’s easy to attack a man sailing alone on his own boat on the other side of the globe who has no internet capability to fight back.
One might even think it cowardice."
Hmmm... so if the Reid detractors "planted" the article about his child support defaults, back in Mar. 2008, then I suggest that any editor who considers himself a Reid detractor has a conflict of interest in promoting that article for Wikipedia. In a BLP one cannot refer back to a reference that one had a hand in creating in the first place. That is self-referential, just like POV.
Regatta Dog, I think some of your edits have improved the article. Getting rid of excessive, unnecessary detail and overly promotional wording are a step in the right direction. As I've already stated, this article suffers from a lack of high quality sources. Hopefully that situation will change soon when Stowe completes his journey. With better sources, the article can be improved. I have no objection to including a reference to Stowe's alleged involvement in smuggling marijuana, for example, if it is written in a neutral style citing reliable secondary sources. So far, I have not seen any. the Gothamist? Forget it! And you must surely be aware of how unethical your editing became when you contributed to that NY Daily News article via interview, and then inserted material from the same Tabloid article into this one. Your credibility is shot along with the credibility of probably anything written after that point by Adam Nichols concerning Stowe. In other words, Nichols' tabloid articles have been rendered unusable as wikipedia sources thanks to your unethical action. Had you not contributed to Nichols' Feb 22nd 2008 article, its a moot point whether or not his articles would pass the reliability threshold. And finally, your persistent removal of reliably sourced material from the 1st paragraph is not appreciated. If you have an axe to grind, grind it somewhere else, not here.--Zanthorp (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I have reread the article to which you refer. There is only one quote attributable to Regatta Dog "Everyone ... no matter how critical they've been about the cruise, is expressing relief that she's off the boat," said "Regatta Dog," a member of Internet-based sailing group Sailing Anarchy. There may be a bit of uncertainty here on which "Everyone" is being referred to. As a clarifying point, let me say that unequivocally, "everyone" who followed this on Sailing Anarchy.com was indeed relieved that Soanya was off the boat and safely ashore. Aloha27 (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Zanthrop - Here's what someone replaced my edits about drug smuggling and child support with -- "The Associated Press took the opportunity to interview Reid and Soanya separately in May, 2009, with some valuable insight into the views of Stowe's detractors, who are vocal in their opposition to his project.[52]"
Please visit the article linked. It is more of the same promotional material. It is a very lengthy article promoting the voyage. Here are the insights into the Stowe detractors -- "Stowe has his detractors: authors of Internet posts who paint him as a fraudulent, Svengali-like figure who seduces women and spirits them into danger. One blogger pointed out that Stowe had been convicted of drug dealing." Two sentences.
Is this a credible source? Yes. This source also confirms what was written in Gothomist -- "He acknowledges having served nine months in prison for conspiracy to deal drugs in the Caribbean — helping transfer marijuana from a Colombian vessel to some yachts in 1987." Now you've got two sources confirming the drug smuggling - one of which has even confirmed it with Reid Stowe himself -- He admits to it! When the subject himself acknowledges a fact, how can that possibly be slanderous or defamatory?
Regarding the NYDN and Adam Nichols - how is his credibility hurt by writing an article in which he quoted me? My quote, BTW, was not derogatory in any way, but rather accurately reflected my observations on Sailing Anarchy that Soanya was safe ashore. Your selective application of which articles of Adam's lack credibility and which don't is troubling. A great deal of the positive aspects of the BLP is built upon the NYDN as a source. The NYDN is a credible source and Adam Nichols didn't just write an accusatory piece out of hand. He did his research, confirmed the story and even included quotes from a state official.
Your comments, after rejecting a well researched and sourced newspaper article while calling an unverifiable quote which appears on the subject's own website "reliably sourced material", hypocritical to say the least.
Hopefully a truly neutral editor can swing by and help balance out what, as of now, is little more than an on-line brochure to promote the voyage and increase PayPal contributions. Regatta dog (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Regatta dog, if you were hoping to get the editor who first created this article to help us resolve this dispute about exposing Reid Stowe's past transgressions, you might want to go back to the first page (not in the Archives) of this Talk page. At the end of the white box with text, you see a comment by the same editor :
In this matter, I believe Biography of Living Persons, Presumption in favor of privacy rules. He did it. He regrets it. He pleaded guilty. He served his time. The sentence he received does not entail wearing a scarlet letter for the rest of his born days. It has little bearing on the article. Enough said. Gosgood (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what he would say now.
As far as I am concerned, Reid Stowe's past offences, however adamantly you might be motivated to brand him with these forever, are not of concern to the public, which is not the same as saying that they are "on the public record." Would you want your entire life history available on the public record to be exposed in a widely distributed article about you? No, you would not. So, don't be a hypocrite and apply different rules to people you despise. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship ruled by fanatics.
Please, Skol fir, back up your accusation of my "hate for all the Reid Stowe represents". If you feel educating Wiki visitors about a subject's criminal background is hateful, perhaps you should not be an editor. Regatta dog (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This was posted by someone named "Ducky" on July 7, 2008, at a NY Times blog called "The Lede".
"Stowe’s detractors are angry and his supporters are many. The somewhat scurriless article in the Daily News which was planted by his most virulent group of detractors, is full of half truths and wholly unnecessary innuendo.
It’s easy to attack a man sailing alone on his own boat on the other side of the globe who has no internet capability to fight back.
One might even think it cowardice."
Hmmm... so if the Reid detractors "planted" the article about his child support defaults, back in Mar. 2008, then I suggest that any editor who considers himself a Reid detractor has a conflict of interest in promoting that article as a reference for Wikipedia. In a BLP an editor cannot refer back to a reference that one had a hand in creating in the first place. That is self-referential, just like POV.
Hmm..... I'd think that Watergate didn't happen, because Woodward and Bernstein had an ax to grind. I'd also conclude that Skol fir is a stronger advocate for the subject than I am a detractor. Regatta dog (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully a truly neutral editor can swing by and help balance out what, as of now, is little more than an on-line brochure to promote the voyage and increase PayPal contributions. Regatta dog (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Regatta dog, if you were hoping to get the editor who first created this Wiki article to help us resolve this dispute about exposing Reid Stowe's past transgressions, you might want to go back to the first part of this Talk page. At the end of the white box with text, you see a comment by the same editor :
In this matter, I believe Biography of Living Persons, Presumption in favor of privacy rules. He did it. He regrets it. He pleaded guilty. He served his time. The sentence he received does not entail wearing a scarlet letter for the rest of his born days. It has little bearing on the article. Enough said. Gosgood (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what he would say now.
As far as I am concerned, Reid Stowe's past offences, however adamantly you might be motivated to brand him with these forever, are not of concern to the public, which is not the same as saying that they are "on the public record." Would you want your entire life history available on the public record to be exposed in a widely distributed article about you? No, you would not. So, don't be a hypocrite and apply different rules to people you despise. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship ruled by fanatics.
I on the other hand do not support this position because this article is NOT to be an autobiography.
IF one desires to seek the spotlight and all of the acclaim pertaining thereto, that person MUST be willing to accept properly sourced and cited articles which are less than positive in nature. The quote from Michael Hayes, (of New York's Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance which manages child support collections) that the State of New York had the authority to seize Stowe's boat and the quote from Jim Benedict from Stowe's shore support team that Stowe's financial situation had not improved in 30 YEARS are notable indeed. One positive event did come out of the printing of the story however, Stowe's arrears were satisfied a little over nine months later in December. NOWHERE does the article say anything about ANYONE critical of Stowe being interviewed in this story. And anyone who insinuates that it does, is quite simply, a liar.[[19]]Aloha27 (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Skol fir -- Maybe I should go to the Tiger Woods page and delete any mention of his transgressions. After all, Tiger hasn't been convicted of anything or served time in a Federal Penitentiary. Regatta dog (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Aloha27, in your "Revision as of 15:00, 6 May 2010 (edit) (undo)
Aloha27 (talk | contribs)
m (Undid revision 360581107 by Skol fir (talk)," you wrote, "ISAF deals with sailboat racing exclusively. Guinness WBOR MIGHT be the governing body?"
You changed my version "None of these records, however, have been officially recognized by the International Sailing Federation."
to read... "None of these records, however, have been officially confirmed."
"Soon you will achieve the 1000 days at sea. Your long ambition. Record.
Soon longest period alone at sea, unassisted - more than 658 days. Record.
The WSRC part of [ISAIF], normally keep those records.
As you have not paid the initial $2500 you may need to find a sponsor to do that, and perhaps they will pencil it in. (And maybe in due course will ink it in). Never the less, Advise them of all your achievements. It is probable something will fall off a truck and Guinness World Records will publish it. They do not always publish first opportunity and seldom repeat. (Because the book is a annual xmas publication)."
So, tell me why you insist that "ISAF deals with sailboat racing exclusively"? Did you not know that ISAF has a division for Offshore Special Regulations? ...and that "In 1988 following several controversial claims about the times and status of long voyages, WSSRC was asked to take over additionally offshore sailing records."?
In case you didn't realize it, I WAS trying to cut you some slack. IF the WSSRC refuses to back-date Stowe's claim for whatever reason, then he would have the additional option of perhaps finding some governing body somewhere who would. Then your entry would have to be discarded. God knows the article doesn't need more corrections than it does now. Aloha27 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
1. Regatta Dog's unethical behavior 2. the marijuana issue 3. the recent edit war
Regatta Dog's actions have been unethical to say the least. He contacted NY Daily News staff writer, Adam Nichols, was interviewed, quoted and named by Nichols as a source for a tabloid article about Stowe. [20] It stands to reason that the Regatta Dog interview would have heavily influenced a subsequent similar article published 15 days later. Regatta Dog then inserted material from at least the first of those NYDN articles into the wikipedia Reid Stowe article to which he had been contributing. [[21]] To cover his tracks, he did not properly cite or link to the on-line version of the first NYDN article.
It is disingenuous of Regatta Dog to try to whitewash his unethical activities and minimize his influence over journalist Adam Nichols.
Obviously, Regatta Dog's behavior has compromised the credibility of Wikipedia. If Regatta Dog and Aloha27 can't understand that, they should not be editing this or any other article.
About the marijuana issue, the Associated Press article by Verena Dobnik is a fair article published in a reliable secondary source. However, I think 3 (?) editors have invoked Presumption in favor of privacy - avoid victimization [[22]] After giving it some thought I have decided to support that stance.
Actually, In this day and age I think there would be few people under the age of 60 who would associate marijuana with criminality. In fact, there are plenty of people who would applaud marijuana smuggling. To include that in the article would merely elevate Reid Stowe to folk hero status. Any genuine encyclopedia would avoid that.
The disagreement and edit war over the first paragraph has not been resolved. Regatta Dog objects to using Stowe's site as a source. I'll ask an uninvolved admin for an opinion about that. In the meantime, Outside (the magazine) is a reliable secondary source. [23] Does anyone have any reasonable objection to it? --Zanthorp (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think User Regatta should under the circumstances be editing the article at all he clearly he a conflict of interest. I also agree with you that the content should stay out. Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I find it interesting that I have a conflict of interest and yet MDougan and other members of Reid's support crew can come here and turn an article into a promotional brochure. I would not be at all surprised if Zanthrop and others claiming neutrality here are members of Reid's own team. One needs only read the past few weeks of discussion and it is obvious that they are far from impartial - they are advocates intent on censoring the article, spinning it in the most favorable light and using it as a marketing tool to the subject's advantage.
Again - in the interest of fairness, please justify why you would challenge my edits and allow other obvious edits which are blatantly promotional made by staunch supporters of the subject stand?
How many of the media references in this article are the direct result of Reid's team soliciting publicity? An article which is largely based on the subject's own website as a source and his own quotes to the media is far from impartial. Reid's recollection of events of which he was the only one present are represented as fact and a great deal of the content of the article is based on the NYDN as a source, however when the NYDN reported on Reid's back child support,the paper was labeled a tabloid and became a source of dubious credibility......for that one single, well sourced article.
I'm just looking for balance, something Zanthrop and others appear to have no interest in. Notice the spin being applied above - don't post anything about his smuggling conviction, because it has the danger of skewing perception in his favor as a folk hero? That's just amazing and disingenuous. Let the readers decide if he's a hero or a man who showed blatant disrespect respect for the law. Either tell both sides of this story in a balanced way, or pull down the article altogether.
Regatta Dog, take a look at my contributions to Wikipedia. [[24]] Scroll down the page a bit and have a look at the date of my first appearance here. Then take a look at some of the other articles and discussions to which I've contributed.
Get the picture? Probably not, so let me clarify it for you. No, I am not a Reid Stowe supporter. I am not a member of Reid Stowe's support team. I don't know any of them. I have never made a contribution, financial or otherwise, to his voyage. The article needs a rewrite; we would probably agree on that point, but so far that hasn't been possible because we have been preoccupied with YOU and YOUR CRAP. --Zanthorp (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Regatta dog, none of the references that compliment or cast a positive light on Reid Stowe could risk being an invasion of privacy. On the other hand, digging up a person's past offences with the sole purpose of finding fault to denigrate someone, is clearly an invasion of privacy.
Furthermore, I have never contributed in any way whatsoever to the content of any articles from the 1000-Days at Sea website—or from any other source—that were cited in the Reid Stowe article. I have no personal stake in the failure or success of his mission. I live in Canada and have not even been east of Chicago for the last 13 years. I have never contributed one cent towards the 1000-Days at Sea endeavor. I have never used PayPal in my life.
On the other hand, you personally had contact recently with at least one of your sources for Reid Stowe, Adam Nichol. The two criminal offences you have been pinning on Reid Stowe ad nauseum for the last two years are irrelevant to his current biography, as they add nothing notable to this article. The issue here is not who is for or against Stowe's mission. Criticize him however you like, with appropriate references to support that, on his role as a mariner, artist, builder, explorer, adventurer, i.e. roles that are of concern to the public. Leave his private life alone, because that is nobody's business but his. One definition of "private" is " unsuitable for public use or display." Using articles written with the intent to harm a person and written by someone you have talked to in person serves no purpose to educate anyone. Such tactics only serve to promote your own mission to overblow his faults in areas that are not of public concern. In a BLP, presumption in favor of privacy takes precedence over raking someone over the coals for what most people would view as minor indiscretions, not justified in a BLP.
Furthermore, being an ex-convict does not qualify anyone to be villified for the rest of their lives. Here are some examples of famous ex-cons:
The Author O'Henry spent 3.5 years in jail for bank embezzlement, later going on to write over 380 short stories.
Actor Tim Allen spent 2 years in jail for dealing drugs.
Huddy Ledbetter (aka Lead Belly), famous folk and blues musician, served 7 yrs in prison for homicide, and another 4 yrs for attempted murder.
Oscar Wilde did time presumably for perjury but it was basically for being homosexual.
Nelson Mandela served 27 years in prison for sabotage (as a political prisoner), and went on to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 and to become the President of South Africa for 5 years.
These are some examples I was able to fish up on a short search. There must be many more such success stories.
Furthermore, Reid Stowe's offences are nobody else's business, because he paid for them and it is now time to move on.
Tiger Woods is a completely different case. He was having his affairs "at the same time" as he was presenting a clean-cut, respectable image to the public and to his sponsors. Hypocrisy comes to mind. Reid Stowe, did not commit any crimes or offences while seeking sponsors. He started his plans for the 1000-day voyage in earnest only well after being released from jail. The child support payment arrears were a private matter (akin to not paying your credit card debt on time) and the so-called "child" involved, according to my calculations, turned 21 in 1999. Both of these offences are no longer an issue and have no bearing on the individual except to point out that he is not perfect. But then, who of us is actually perfect? Please stand up if you can say "Yes!"
I think the article was just fine for a number of months until recently when a hand full of people decided it was time to alter it so that it lost any semblance of balance and became nothing more than a promotion of Reid and his voyage. I appreciate the work you and other editors have done on other articles, but your claim of an unbiased view about Reid Stowe is not supported by your comments in the discussion pages.
Perhaps you have respect for Mr. Stowe and whatever it is you think he's doing out there, as do a handful of other people who are following his trip. There are others, however, who don't feel that he is accomplishing anything other than nautical pole sitting. If you compare his own goals upon departure with his actual accomplishments, he has not even come close to his own measures of success. That, it seems to me is significant.
I am sorry that you don't feel that well documented and well sourced information that is critical to the subject's background and/or opposing views should be permitted in this article. That there are only 20 hits a day is not the point - that number will increase as Mr. Stowe returns in about a month and an unsuspecting readership will be exposed to what amounts to a Reid generated press release.
If you want examples of "CRAP", I can point out plenty of examples I had removed from the article (Moitessier section, for example)and still more instances that still infect the article ("valuable insights into the view of Stowe detractors" which links to a puff piece that devotes a single line of supposed insights.) As an experienced editor I would expect more impartiality to his conviction, prison time and back child support, as well as his failure to meet his own stated goals (some of which he knew he couldn't achieve before he left, but continued promoting them anyway in fund-raising efforts).
Through your edits, you seem to think that holding Reid up as some wonderful example of a human being and an inspiration to others is appropriate for this article. If that's the end result of the Wiki article, so be it -- but I think there are parents and others out there that deserve to know that this hero to have lived off the generosity of others based on soliciting donations/sponsors for an educational/scientific voyage of discovery, doesn't appear to have had a steady job for the past 20 years, pled guilty for his role in smuggling 15 tons of illegal drugs into the US, and owed over $10,000 in back child support before he left the dock.
Minor details? I think not, and yet I'm not advocating inclusion of all of them - just the big ones that readers can use to better judge the character of the subject.
Your connection to Reid Stowe is irrelevant. Your being an advocate on his behalf as an editor is. I have no problem having reasonable discussions, with you or anyone else. You will find that I will not challenge anything that is relevant and well sourced.
Responses to some of your direct comments --
Minor indiscretions - serving time for being convicted of smuggling 15 tons of pot and owing over $10,000 in back child support are hardly "minor indiscretions".
Tiger Woods comparison -- Reid Stowe left port with over $10,000 in back child support. A child was conceived at sea. He could have cut the trip short to be there for the birth of his child and the first couple years of his child's life, but he opted to stay at sea. I'm not suggesting that the article make any kind of direct judgment about that, but it is certainly relevant.
No Offenses while soliciting sponsors - He owed child support while soliciting sponsors and he was also cited by NY for a violation having to do with no holding tanks - toilets, sink, etc dumped directly into the Hudson (someone deleted that reference from the article as well).
Finally - regarding the other ex cons you mention above. I invite you to visit their individual Wikipages, and the corresponding, specific section in each article devoted to their legal histories/problems --
The Author O'Henry - "Flight and Return"
Actor Tim Allen - "Arrests"
Huddy Ledbetter (aka Lead Belly) - "Prison Years"
Oscar Wilde - "Imprisonment"
Nelson Mandela - "Imprisonment"
I'm sure there are many, many other subjects out there that require some editing to clean up any mention of criminal background, but you may want to start with these, that have their own sections devoted to it. Regatta dog (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The differences between the examples I gave for ex-convicts and Reid Stowe, as they apply to Wikipedia, are: 1) O'Henry, Ledbetter and Wilde are no longer living; 2) Mandela actually ran for public office, so his past record is fair game; 3) Tim Allen's offence was more serious: drug-dealing. The point I am trying to make here with Reid Stowe, on which your opinion clearly differs, is that his offences don't merit mention in this biography. However, that being said, I will consider all your arguments and get back to you. My current impression is that we have moved from pure cat-fighting—or dare I say dog-fighting?—to a reasonable, rational dialogue here, and I would like to take advantage of this more sensible approach to the discussion. (In a more humorous vein, I noticed that you, Regatta dog, "don't have a dog in this fight.")
Regatta dog, thanks for the kudos on my and other editors' input into Wikipedia, on other pages. I know you are not about to give us the same praise for our contributions to this article, since there remain a couple of sticking points, where we differ.
As for your comment above related to the mention of any records of Stowe's not being confirmed, I agree that there is no official confirmation at this time, exactly based on the fact that Stowe's "expedition" failed to pay the appropriate fee upfront, and this might actually preclude them from claiming any records on the books. That was not my issue with Aloha27. He stated, in his edit notes, that "ISAF deals with sailboat racing exclusively." I proved him wrong on this point*, and that was all. I am not saying that they will accept Stowe's claim for record(s). That is at their discretion, as they have their rules and procedures, as a sanctioned body of the ISAF.
BTW, I am currently reading Bernard Moitessier's famous book, The Long Way, that first came out in the English translation in 1973. As the original French edition was published in 1971, this should give me some valuable insight into whether or not a) he mentions Reid Stowe as a then 19-year-old plying the oceans with one of his protégés, Ivo van Laake, b) Stowe is a comparable sailor and adventurer to Moitessier, his apparent idol.
Sorry Skol, I've been all over the sailing.org website (Google ISAF and this is what you get,) and have yet to find anything on the site that does not pertain specifically to the sport of sailboat racing. I have, on the other hand managed to find http://www.sailspeedrecords.com/other-kinds-of-sailing-records.html which at the present time shows Jon Sanders (a true modest gentleman and most excellent ambassador for the sport of sailing), as the record holder of "Longest series non-stop single handed circumnavigations, one westabout/two eastabout 657 days" which, IMO is a record that won't be touched in my lifetime. Aloha27 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Aloha27, this is what I said to you in the section above: "..and that 'In 1988 following several controversial claims about the times and status of long voyages, WSSRC was asked to take over additionally offshore sailing records.' The latter quote is direct from World Sailing Speed Record Council. You can check it out yourself."
I judged from this statement by the WSSRC, that they deal not only with speed but also any offshore sailing records. At least that is the gist of the wording.
BTW, that is the same website where you found the record of Jon Sanders, which I agree has more circumnavigations to it than Stowe's "once around the globe." This, together with the statement from Jon Sanders himself about who normally keeps such records (longest voyage on the ocean, etc., regardless of speed)—quote: "The WSRC part of [ISAIF], normally keep those records."—gave me to think that ISAF is actually the organization that would officially recognize such records claimed by Reid Stowe, not Guinness BOWR, since the latter is not devoted to sailing, and how should they know what is a properly registered sailing record? However, Guinness might donate a barrel of Guinness, the beer, to a valiant effort. :)
I did find this on the WSSRC website which for me explains the link to ISAF (although you may not find any specific reference to it at sailing.org): "The World Sailing Speed Record Council was established by the International Yacht Racing Union (now renamed the International Sailing Federation) in 1972." Does this help?
Skol fir - I don't think I'm splitting hairs here when I point out that Tim Allen is not running for public office and that he was arrested for possession of 1.4 lbs of cocaine, while Reid Stowe was arrested for and pled guilty to taking part in smuggling 30,000 pounds of marijuana. A 1.4 lb cocaine possession charge seems fairly small when compared to a 15 ton smuggling charge. There's also a mention that Tim Allen, who is not running for office was also arrested and served a simple probation for drunk driving. The arguments you've put forward for not including the drug conviction and the back child support make no sense to me. They are contradictory and presume Mr. Stowe receive special treatment because?
I don't believe it is at your sole discretion to determine whether or not these two run ins with the law merit mention. I'm not sure if I should be pleased when you say "I will consider all your arguments and get back to you". Do you have final say in this article. or can I also say to you regarding the NASA connection/disconnect that I will consider your arguments and get back to you?
Reading Bernard Moitessier's book is rather useless at this point in this discussion as the latest article by Charlie Doane certainly would have confirmed a meeting between Reid and Bernard. Doane does mention in the article that Moitessier mentions Evo in his book, but goes on to debunk Reid's claim of meeting Bernard in California. In an article that delves heavily into the Stowe/Mortissier connection, he covers everything except for an actual physical connection. That said, I have no problem with saying Reid was inspired by Moitessier, but even to insinuate a connection between the two would be disingenuous without a credible source. Further, if at the end of reading Moitessier's book, you find Reid is a comparable sailor/adventurer, I'm not sure how your perception is relevant to this article.
Lastly - the previous back and forth between two opposing views was not innitiated by me, but by another "impartial" editor. I can take credit for my reverts, but the other "impartial" editor can take claim for as many. Unfortunately, the article was locked at a time when it was most favorable to Mr. Stowe at the request of this very same "impartial editor". With Mr. Stowe arriving very soon, and interest sure to increase upon his arrival, this same "impartial" editor now seems to have assumed ownership of this article. That "impartial" editor, Skol fir, is you.
Cites for Reid Stowe's Drug Conviction and Back Child Support
DRUGS -- An article in the San Francisco examiner confirms Reids drug smuggling. Reid himself is said to have acknowledges his conviction and time served "He acknowledges having served nine months in prison for conspiracy to deal drugs in the Caribbean — helping transfer marijuana from a Colombian vessel to some yachts in 1987." Cite -- [25]
BACK CHILD SUPPORT - In an article in the NY Daily News (a very frequent source for other parts of the biography) it is confirmed that Reid owed back child support upon his departure - "The adventurer who is a third of the way through a 1,000-day sailing expedition is also a deadbeat dad running from nearly $10,000 owed in child support, records show." The article also states - "New York's Department of State issued a warrant for Stowe in 2005, claiming he owed $11,581." Cite - [26]
Before this discussion page was archived, Skol fir had argued that Reid Stowe's criminal past was not relevant and listed 5 or 6 people as examples of people who's criminal background was not relevant. I then pointed out that in all 5 cases, Wikipedia articles not only alluded to their criminal backgrounds, but in each case had a separate subhead under which it was covered.
Now that the topics have been adequately sourced, I would like to invite Skol fir to continue on with the discussion as to why these two legal topics should not be included in the article.
A couple of opinionated editorials, one with fluffy claims from over twenty years ago and some not notable child support claims, neither of with have been widely reported and neither of which with these citations is worthy of inclusion in the article, you should stop your campaign against the subject of this article. Off2riorob (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The drug smuggling'article [27], though agreeably "fluffy", is not an editorial but an article carried in the SF examiner and credited to the Associated Press. It contains an admission of guilt from the subject regarding drug smuggling presumably during an interview which took place a little more than a year ago - more than 2/3 the way through the subject's current voyage, which certainly gives it relevance.
The article about 'back child support'[28] is well sourced by the author. Your assertion that it contains "not notable child support claims" is a highly subjective call on your part and makes no sense in context. I would suggest that for a well known and often cited reporter for this BLP to investigate the charges, confirm them and have an article published where the topic is dedicated to the back child support makes it notable.
The back child support is also relevant in light of what transpired on his latest journey. The subject departed on his journey owing over $10,000 in child support. The subject then conceived a child at sea. The child was born while the subject of the article was still at sea. The subject chose to continue on the voyage even after learning of his pending fatherhood. The subject will see his new child for the first time upon his return. This is a very relevant issue that needs to be included. In the press article, Jim Benedict, a member of Stowe's own support team lends weight to the relevance of the back child support issue--
"By the time this thing is over, hopefully some cash would have come in," said Benedict. "Enough for Reid to pay what he owes."
"This is just another crazy chapter in a crazy story."
If a member of his own support team considers the issue a chapter in itself, it certainly deserves a mention in the Wiki article.
I would also suggest that discounting press articles out of hand that may be considered "fluffy" would leave this Wiki article with little if any substance. Regatta dog (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As II said your conflict of interest and your involvement in one of the articles means you are unable to take a neutral position here, and your repeated discussion over this is tiresome. One of the things I dislike the most is not fluffy articles that do no harm to the subjects of our articles but single purpose accounts with as conflict of interest. You are now double posting the same links, once is enough thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I am in no way trying to editorialize within this article, unlike a number of other editors involved here. I am simply trying to gain inclusion of relevant, well sourced information ad preset it in a neutral fashion. I have not seen application of the same strict requirements of impartiality to other editors here who are clearly advocates and supporters of the subject, if not actually members of his support staff. Almost the entire article as it now stands is a "single purpose account with a conflict of interest".
I like the article as a neutral wikipedian editor it is totally ok. I have commented about the content, wikipedia is not to be a primary vehicle for the publication of controversial content about living people that is not widely published. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As a neutral Wikipedia article, this one does not pass muster. Again - I would ask you to apply the same standards to other BLP's. If this was an article about the voyage, as the subject and his staff would like it to be, you might have a point. However, this is a biography that covers his childhood and previous voyages. Did Reid spend more time in prison than in college?
It appears as though he spent about the same amount of time building his catamaran as he did in prison. His BLP covers from birth to the present with some serious gaps - one gap of which he served time in a Fed Pen. So we can have an article that highlights significant events in his life like his time as a child, leaving college, building surf boards, etc. -- but being convicted of smuggling drugs and spending time in prison is not worthy of note?
Are we willing to drop any reference in the article to his latest child who was conceived on the voyage and that Reid has yet to meet? No, of course not - it is integral to the current story of Reid Stowe. But if we allow the article to contain positive mentions of him as a father of a child conceived on the voyage, his failure to pay child support must be included or this article has no credibility.
I would also mention to you, Off2riorob, that if you want to apply the concept of "content about living people that is not widely published", this article should be taken down. The vast majority of this article is sourced to the subject's own promotional web site and press reports containing Mr. Stowes own, unverifiable accounts which are often contradictory (see archived discussion about Moitessier, Charlie Doane article, etc).
Mr. Stowe is due back in NY in about a month. I don't think that the editing war's timing is coincidental, or that that a couple "impartial" editors happened to trip over the article at this time. Anyone that reads the archived discussion can make their own judgments. Great thing about Wiki is that any and all discourse survives. Unfortunate thing is that a Wiki article can be hijacked for personal gain. Regatta dog (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Moving on: Improving the article by paraphrasing
Concern has been expressed that the tone of this article is too promotional. Much of that can be remedied by paraphrasing quotes. It also helps to reduce the length of the article, For example, rather than quote Jon Sanders we can paraphrase his comments as follows:
After boarding the vessel, Jon Sanders stated that the Anne looked seaworthy but would not break any records. He conceded, however, that Stowe could break his (Sander's) record for the longest time spent at sea continuously without resupply.
Please note that this is offered only as an example. Suggestions for alternative wordings are most welcome. Does anyone have any objection to this approach? --Zanthorp (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the approach, and that the article needs some trimming. It might help to give it the balance we are looking for, without too much self-promoting language. I would start with the first sentence, that sounds like a "sound byte" to set up this page incorrectly as a promo for the 1000-day voyage, which it obviously is not..."William Reid Stowe (born January 6, 1952) is an American artist and mariner, and the remaining participant of 1000 Days at Sea: The Mars Ocean Odyssey, a one thousand-day voyage which commenced on April 21, 2007 from Pier 12, Hoboken, New Jersey."
As this is a biography about a person who has one or two notable achievements that would be considered of interest to the public, we should not allow it to sound like a plug for his latest achievement. That achievement should stand on its own two legs, without help from Wikipedia. That means rewording to take out anything that sounds like a marquee statement. I also think that a distinction should be made right up front, that Reid Stowe is not a typical "racing" sailor, but a "cruising" sailor, which might help to put his whole persona into perspective, and get rid of the animosity that other more traditional sailors have shown towards him. He is in a different class, and proud of it, from what we read in the media. I think that would help to alleviate some of the caustic language we have seen in this discussion.
Yes - and his back child support and prison time might not qualify as one or two of his notable achievements? They both should stand on their own two legs. Let the Wiki readers decide. Cruising sailor I'm good with, but is it really the job of us Wiki editors to repackage a subject? Sounds more like a marketing effort than a bio.Regatta dog (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Neither prison time nor past child support difficulties are notable achievements for this biography. Furthermore, you are a great one to talk about "repackaging," as you, Regatta Dog, were the only original source of the documents relating to trumped-up allegations about Reid Stowe. You then most likely fed this distorted information to the NYDN and the Gothamist, and then repeatedly tried to insert those sources as references here in this article. I already detailed the clear link between the NYDN and your blog post of Mar. 1, 2008 entitled provocatively "Reid Stowe is a Deadbeat Dad." I should also point out for your benefit that the Gothamist article from Mar. 10, 2008 stated falsely that he was "caught drug smuggling" and directly linked this false accusation to your blog entry from nine days earlier (also dated Mar. 1, 2008) and entitled "Reid is a Convicted Drug Smuggler - 30,000 Pounds of Marijuana." Making those claims was already libelous, as I have stated before.
This is totally unacceptable, for an editor at Wikipedia to be the primary source of derogatory information, to alert other media to that information after having distorted it, and then to use those references to back up his outrageous claims. You must be joking if you think that such a Conflict of Interest will be tolerated in a balanced biography. Think again. Skol fir (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
