Talk:Reid Stowe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removed NYDN source

All the NYDN citations are now sourced elsewhere. However the following paragraph I can't find any source except the NYDN and so it was removed:

In the six years since this second exercise, there have been a number of sailing dates announced, but not undertaken.[2] Funding issues is the reasons Stowe gave for launch cancellations. Such delays gave rise to sponsor unrest and questioning of motives. "I've given him nearly $7,000 worth of food,"reported Danny Kadouri, of Brooklyn-based Kadouri International Foods. "I've met him a few times and I've been on his boat, but I'm no sailor." he said to the New York Daily News. "I think he's genuine but, honestly, I don't know. I hope he's not pulling my leg." "Of our contributors, I think most of them have seen what we are doing and our hard work and they're still expecting us to go," Stowe reported to the Daily News. "We've been planning this project for ten years and most of them are sympathetic."[3]

If there are other reliable sources for some or all of this we can add it back in. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this edit, as discussed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this edit. The NYDN is reputable and reliable news source that practices investigative journalism and has editorial oversight is a reliable source. Some people may not appreciate the message, but the truth sometimes hurts. I ask that the deleted content be put back in as it was. Please see above discussion of the NYDN as a source. It was only challenged for two articles. No one has challenged it as a source in general. Regatta dog (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We've already established NYDN has shown a strong bias against Stowe (calling him a "deadbeat dad" etc) and that for most citations we found alternative stronger neutral sources, and for the few citations where NYDN is the only source, it is not reliable enough on its own, it needs additional sources. If you can find additional sources for that material we can look at adding it back in. There is also your open COI case which is ambiguous about your connection with the NYDN, we are waiting for an admin to rule on it. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The NYDN has shown balance, which this article lacks. There were a number of articles about Stowe and the voyage in the NYDN that were highly positive about the subject and there a number which showed the subject in a less favorable light. The NYDN has been balanced, whereas this article is not. A number of other reputable sources, used as references within this article, have also shed light on the less positive aspects of the subject's past. Should we eliminate all outside links to anything written by Charles Doane or the SF Examiner because they confirmed these facts about the subject? The same facts reported by the NYDN?

You will note, Green Cardamom, that I have argued strongly for a balanced article, but have not done any editing of the article itself since the lock-down was lifted. I have never cited myself or tried to include any original research (like the "facts" claimed by the subject and his shore team). I would suggest that when it comes to COI: arguing that anything the subject says should be treated as fact, trying to eliminate anything that doesn't put the subject in the most positive light, selectively accepting blogs as reputable sources, and accepting anything from the subject's website as fact is a far greater threat to the integrity of this article and Wikipedia as a reputable source of information. There are, IMO, editors involved in this article that have a far greater COI than myself. Regatta dog (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Reid Stowe article in progress

Prologue

This is a new section to discuss edits to a "parallel" article on Reid Stowe, pending the lock-down of the actual article. As Green Cardamom has explained, the draft at User:Green Cardamom/Reid Stowe is being updated to match any changes currently being made to the locked article, plus other changes we agree to make by consensus. --Skol fir (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I begin with a repeat of changes I had proposed earlier in the section Talk:Reid_Stowe/Archive_2#Call_for_consensus_on_minor_changes-_Part_3.

Read the discussion - there's not a whole lot of consensus there. Your commitment to consensus is duly noted. Regatta dog (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Call for consensus on proposed changes

Please add your comments (pro or con) to this request for change, and if no objections are raised, we can implement them. (replace "--" with square brackets for final edit within ref tags; view edit source for full text of inline citations; the actual replacement text is marked by "•")
Request for changes to Reid Stowe Article (numbered):

1. An author for Ref # 42 was misspelled. It should be "LaDonna Bubak."

• Agree. Green Cardamom (talk)

Absolutely. Aloha27 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Green Cardamom (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

2. There is a mistake in the section "The Caribbean and Antarctica," 3rd paragraph. Please correct to read: "The Anne, twenty-one meters long and displacing sixty tons, would set forth with a crew of six to eight..."

• Agree. Green Cardamom (talk)

I would think it bad form to state the length of the vessel in metric, while leaving the weight as an imperial measure? Aloha27 (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. but best to state the length in feet. I remember reading that the length is 70ft. To be precise, that's 21.336 meters. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Aloha27 and Zanthorp. BTW, the weight was never an imperial measure. It was listed as 60 tons (meaning U.S. or short ton) which is equiv. to 54,400 kg. "Imperial" means U.K. or British. I know because that is what we use in Canada. As for the length, I agree to write in 70 feet, since the conversion to meters was already stated in the header of the article. We could also put "[seventy feet]" as the actual text contained within a "nowiki" tag, since we are changing information quoted from a reference, which may have had the error in the first place.

~The new wording: "The Anne, [seventy feet] long and displacing sixty tons, would set forth with a crew of six to eight..." --Skol fir (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Green Cardamom (talk)

Agree as well. In Canada we use the term "tonne" (or long ton.) Aloha27 (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done (keep US spelling of "ton", since it's a US boat/owner). Green Cardamom (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

3. One reference that is repeated three times in the article has been listed separately each time. It should be given a ref name so it is listed only once. These are currently Ref's 44, 45 and 47, which are all the same reference: ...

• ^{REF start} name="freodoc interview"> -- http://1000days.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=449&Itemid=92 Soanya interview by freodoctor.com.au + short segment with Jon Sanders -- from 1000 Days at Sea website, 23 February 2008.^{REF end}
  

...using the ref name "freodoc interview" at the other locations (Ref # 45, 47), as in "^{REF start} name="freodoc interview" ^{REF end}

• Agree. Green Cardamom (talk)

• Agree --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - non-controversial change. Any complaints, will back out until resolved. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

4. Reinsert the following in section "Significant events", as the second sentence in paragraph 3...

• Also on Day 658, Stowe's schooner Anne was hit by a rogue wave, after having already rounded the infamous Cape Horn. The huge wave caused the boat to roll more than 90 degrees, after which it righted itself, as it had been designed to do in such a case. Fortunately for Stowe and his expedition, nothing had been lost overboard, the electronic equipment had been spared, and essential supplies remained unaffected. As for Reid, he suffered only minor bruises to himself, as he was probably thrown against a wall during the capsize.

The above text was removed in a recent edit for no reason except that the subject of the article was the source of the information. This is no reason to prohibit a fact. The event is well-documented as Stowe took a photo as evidence of the capsize showing food splashed onto the ceiling, and one reliable source is included here. There is also audio evidence from two phone calls that Reid made after the incident.~~added by Skol fir (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC) -- Please see the following Wikipedia Policy, which backs up using the subject as a source on himself.

All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources

-from the article on Verifiability (WP:V)

I'm not supporting this one, unless we want to include Reid's meetings with Jesus and Buddha. His website says 90 degrees and in a TV interview after his return he claims "completely upside down" which is 180 degrees. I think we should wait for him to make a final call on his 1000 days site. Might be 150 or it might be further exaggerated to 200+. Facts on his website change from time to time and we should wait until they get their story straight. Regatta dog (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if you actually read the section in the Voyage Log, you see that Reid made his own deductions based on where things landed in his cabin after the capsize, and by all appearances, 90 degrees would be the minimum for the results that he saw and photographed, and as he says "In the photo. I noticed the sprouts hanging from the ivy today. They are 90 degrees over the sprout box and three feet back. It seems that would imply we went over 90 degrees: I can't be sure." At least he is honest, which is more than I can say for you, who are making up facts as you go along, just to make your own weak case wherever you can. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would be willing to change the wording to "The huge wave caused the boat to roll over at least 90 degrees..." until someone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is less. Furthermore, again you are taking some of his words too literally. If his TV interview said "upside down," that just meant not right side up! Got it? --Skol fir (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New wording (2 different references):

• Also on Day 658, Stowe's schooner Anne was hit by a rogue wave, after having already rounded the infamous Cape Horn. The huge wave caused the boat to roll over at least 90 degrees, after which it righted itself, as it had been designed to do in such a case. Fortunately for Stowe and his expedition, nothing had been lost overboard, the electronic equipment had been spared, and essential supplies remained unaffected. As for Reid, he suffered only minor bruises to himself, as he was probably thrown against a wall during the capsize.

• Agree. Green Cardamom (talk)

I believe some of the information in this sentence is redundant. Sailing vessels are designed with a "righting moment". It is not noteworthy to include "as it had been designed to do..." I would also suggest stating that the boat "suffered a knockdown", rather than the wordy proposed edit. Aloha27 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

First - we shouldn't embellish by using "the infamous Cape Horn", unless we also want to report on the mild weather Reid had while rounding. Simply stating the date of the incident is accurate without suggesting dramatics.

Second - I agree with Aloha - "knockdown" is the appropriate word. Keel boats simply do not capsize. It is the wrong word.

Third - We cannot assume the boat rolled over at least 90 degrees or that it was a rogue wave. I believe Reid himself was below at the time and therefore he himself can only assume it was a rogue wave. As to the "evidence", a boat doesn't have to turn 90 degrees for things to fly all over the cabin. Been there done that (today actually). It makes for good show, but the evidence doesn't stand the test of physics. Regatta dog (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful here. With Stowe not on deck, the knockdown may have occurred because of a header (wind shift) thus backwinding the sails. Aloha27 (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fourth - Why in the world do you keep insisting that the burden of proof falls on anyone other than the sources we need to cite? If Reid says it, it is gospel unless proven otherwise? Silly, that is. Regatta dog (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree basically, but it can be shortened considerably to convey the same info in a more neutral sounding tone. Knockdown is a specific sailing term that would not necessarily be understood by the average reader. Best to avoid jargon. How about the following:

• Also on Day 658, Stowe's schooner Anne was hit by a rogue wave, after having rounded Cape Horn. The huge wave caused the boat to roll over at least 90 degrees, after which it righted itself. Fortunately, nothing had been lost overboard, the electronic equipment had been spared, and essential supplies remained unaffected. Stowe suffered only minor bruises. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree, with Zanthorp's last change. --Skol fir (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

*Agree. Green Cardamom (talk)

To address concerns of Regatta dog and Aloha27 above, how about this minor modification to Zanthrop's text (mods in bold):

Also on Day 658, the schooner Anne was hit by a rogue wave after having rounded Cape Horn, according to Stowe. The huge wave, Stowe said, caused the boat to roll over at least 90 degrees, after which it righted itself. Fortunately Nothing had been was lost overboard, the electronic equipment had been was spared, and essential supplies remained unaffected. Stowe suffered reported only minor bruises. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, it all depends on which source you link to. He also claimed that the boat turned completely upside down, which is 180 degrees. Based on the contradictions from Reid himself, and that he was below at the time and cannot be sure what occurred, I don't feel that this event has much credibility and therefore should not be included. Regatta dog (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"depends on which source you link to." - as far as I know, there is just the one, his his web-page log, linked above. Do you have other verifiable sources? You mention there is a TV interview, is it on YouTube or a transcription? As for Reid's uncertainty about the event, that can be incorporated and is notable. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick Google instead of going through videos and there are a number of hits including -- "I took a photo of rice and lentils hanging from my ceiling, as proof that my boat was upside down," Stowe said." -- http://www.petethomasoutdoors.com/2010/06/after-three-years-at-sea-sailor-reid-stowe-is-coming-home.html. I also don't see how the Cape Horn rounding has anything to do with the alleged knock down. Had something like that happened during the Horn rounding, it would make sense, but Cape Horn had absolutely nothing to do with the event being discussed. Regatta dog (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text:

Also on Day 658, the schooner Anne suffered a knockdown after rounding Cape Horn. Stowe believed it was caused by a rouge wave and he gave various accounts of how far the boat rolled, from 90 to 180 degrees, in one instance saying "I took a photo of rice and lentils hanging from my ceiling, as proof that my boat was upside down." Nothing was lost overboard, the electronic equipment was spared, and essential supplies remained unaffected. Stowe reported only minor bruises.

Mention Cape Horn because that is where it happened. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Either or remove it, is it particularly noteworthy, or damage and no injury. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Stowe's own logs, the supposed knockdown happened 20 days after he rounded Cape Horn, so Cape Horn isn't relative, IMO. I also agree that the relevance of this as an event is questionable. No real damage, no injury, conflicting info from the subject as the only witness -- not a significant event. Regatta dog (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We could say "near Cape Horn" to place the event in geographic context. We could say "in the South Atlantic off South Africa", but the source says Cape Horn. At Wikipedia we report on events like journalists using the 5 W's who what where when and why - it would be strange to give all the details except where it happened, it would be incomplete. As for the relevance of the knockdown, the dangers faced by Stowe being at sea were a notable part of the cruise, unlike someone anchored in a protected harbor for 1000 days. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that both sources cited for the inclusion of "Cape Horn" are Reid Stowe himself. He was 20 days past the horn and using a simple lat/lon distance calculator, he was 1,000 miles from Cape Horn when the supposed incident occurred. He was only 700 miles from Buenos Aires, if that helps put things in perspective. Again - based on the subject's playing loose with the facts about this incident - proximity to Cape Horn as well as claims that range from 90 to 180 degrees, this whole incident is suspect.

The dangers faced by Stowe are not that substantial he only completed one of the four circumnavs he originally committed to and spent more time drifting than sailing. I'm not seeing the dangers he faced, quite frankly. He spent most of his time drifting and the most dangerous incident besides running into a container ship in 1000 days was a single exaggerated knock down falsely associated with "Cape Horn" where there was negligible minimal damage and a couple bruises. I don't think Wikipedia should be a party to creating a a sense of drama where no drama exists.

I don't think it is worth mention as it is not significant to the story and is very poorly sourced, relying on contradictory claims made by the only witness - the subject of the BLP. Regatta dog (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's all un-sourced original research speculation, and highly biased, there's no way we could say any of that. As for Stowe being the only source, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as it says "according to Stowe". We report on what Stowe said, that's normal and acceptable at Wikipedia. Unless there was reason to believe Stowe is lying about it, that would be notable, do you have good evidence that Stowe lied? I'd sure like to include that in the article if you do. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Green Cardemon, the facts are as mentioned above. I am not suggesting the information be included in the article, but they are facts. To package them as other than that - as Reid and his supporters would like them to be packaged - would be doing a disservice to the readers of the article. If you and the rest of the editors participating in the discussion are willing to tell the story as it has unfolded, I have no problem with that. In his blog entry (Day 661) right after the "capsize", Reid writes --

"In the photo. I noticed the sprouts hanging from the ivy today. They are 90 degrees over the sprout box and three feet back. It seems that would imply we went over 90 degrees: I can't be sure. The rice is on the ceiling at an angle of less than 90 degrees, but it did not angle back like the sprouts or the soot mud from the fireplace. The angle back could have been caused by the forward motion of the schooner"

In an interview on Red Eye Radio a couple days ago, Reid said --

"It was later, when I came back in and looked at the ceiling above the stove and my rice and lentils were stuck to the ceiling directly above the stove, and over in another place in the galley, where I do my sprouts, my sprouts were hanging from a wire on the ceiling directly above where I do my sprouts, and I said - Well that has to prove that I was turned 180 degrees upside down"

Reid has gone from the implication that the boat rolled 90 degrees, though he can't be sure, to claiming proof that the turned 180 degrees. I won't go so far as to call that a lie, but it certainly is highly contradictory information from the same source.

As for un-sourced research, the source for time and distance are Reid's own log entries. Is it un-sourced to simply compare the date of the log entry of the supposed incident to the date in the log he claims to have rounded the horn? 20 days difference. Comparing his chart position between the two times? 1000 miles. The two events, rounding the Horn and the supposed broach are completely unrelated and should not be presented as though they are. Based on the contradictions, and the fact that Reid himself claims "It happened so fast, I didn't know what was happening" (Radio interview), and that he claims to have been below at the time and didn't witness a "rogue" or "huge" wave, make this proposed addition highly suspect. I can't support it. Regatta dog (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Green Garamom - In the discussion above you wrote - "Unless there was reason to believe Stowe is lying about it, that would be notable, do you have good evidence that Stowe lied?"

Please see the Day 661 quote from Reid's blog entry. Please compare it to what he said in an Energy Stew interview dated 6/24/2010 with Progressive Radio Network regarding the "capsize" -

"I sent back to the website the next day photos of the rice and lentils on the ceiling above the stove that had stuck on the ceiling. And then a day later I noticed that above where I do my sprouts, some sprouts were hanging on some wires, above the sprouts, so a day later I sent back the photo of the sprouts and I said, " 'These wires are directly above where I do my sprouts. I think this boat turned completely 180 degrees upside down.' "

Obviously - that is not at all what he said with regard to the degree of heel. Do we use Reid Stowe's log entries as a "credible source" or Reid Stowe's interview comments as a "credible source"? They are very far apart from one another. Reid contradicts himself even when he tries to tell us in an interview what he wrote in his log. I won't use the word liar, but embellishment of this magnitude adds very serious doubts as to what really happened. Regatta dog (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

On Day 640, Reid Stowe had already rounded Cape Horn (map), the southernmost part of South America. On Day 658 he was already north of the Falkland Islands, which is well past Cape Horn, but still in the Roaring 40's, as Stowe put it in this interview: Feb. 13, 2009 - Reid Shares What Happened When He Capsized. One day later (Day 659) he was 500 miles north-east of the Falklands. He had certainly rounded the Cape well before that, but was still in stormy weather, as he recounts in the above interview. He also mentions having experienced two knockdowns earlier in the voyage, which he considered less severe than this capsize. No matter how you word it, his mast hit the water. To me that is significant. --Skol fir (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Listen to the link you just provided -- Reid says he's 10 days to 2 weeks past the horn and that "I've made it north of there", an obvious reference to the Horn, and that he's surprised he had worse weather where he was above the Horn. Thanks for helping put the Cape Horn Capsize to rest, Skol fir.

His mast hit the water? Says who? The same guy who was below deck at the time and didn't witness a wave? The same guy who wrote in a log entry "I can't be sure" the boat went to even 90 degrees but later claimed it was completely upside down?

Would you rather include all Reid's versions of the same story -

"Reid reported that on day 658, while rounding Cape Horn, he encountered a rogue wave that he believed rolled his boat as much as 90 degrees (sideways), though the event might have been even more significant - Mr. Stowe has also said of the exact same event that it occurred as many as 14 days after rounding Cape Horn, North of the Falkland Islands, and that the boat turned 180 degrees (completely upside down)."

We could use any combination of cites from Reid himself to build any number of scenarios. Maybe turning completely upside down while rounding the Horn?

I think it is more important to get the story right than get the story out there. Unfortunately, with all the contradictions, I don't see how we can get the story right. Reid Stowe can't even do that. Regatta dog (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI - The embellishment of this "event" continues in an interview with "Catch It, Cook It, Eat It". Reid claims in the interview that he was near Cape Horn, which is false. The log entry the day after the event which claims he was "thrown against the wall" has now become in this latest version of the story - "I banged against the wall and the ceiling". Regatta dog (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

5. Remove this part "supplied largely from debris thrown up by Hurricane David.[19]" in the section on "Construction of the Anne," as the reference #19 is a dead link and nowhere else can this fact be verified.

• Agree. Green Cardamom (talk)

• Agree --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Found it on the Wayback Machine and updated the reference accordingly. For now I'll mark this as complete as the objection is resolved. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Green Cardamom (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

6. Add some information about the media coverage for Reid Stowe, adding as a new paragraph 4, section "Significant events."

• I need to work on this one, now that there are additional media sources after the landing on June 17.

This is ridiculous, unless you want to include balanced press coverage. Press coverage is not the story here, is it? Totally disagree with this as a significant event. The event itself is what the media covers. The media coverage is not the event. Regatta dog (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. We should add appropriate links to the external links section. I don't think the press coverage was notable for any particular reason so no need to include that in the article other than to correctly state that he was met by his family, friends and the press. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree in theory with the idea, it is notable that Stowe was in the global spotlight. Media attention is the currency of an explorer. I've read about many explorers from the early 20th century who I'd never heard of, and how they were stars of the day for a brief time, than disappeared from memory. It may still be early in his life for that kind of perspective. Feel free though to make a proposed addition, I will seriously consider supporting it if it's not a PR piece. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the only thing noteworthy about the press coverage is that some of it has been negative. I don't think there will be consensus to balance the article by providing links to negative coverage, so links to positive coverage should be kept to a minimum. Wiki is a great source of info, but most people are also familiar with Google if they want more info. Regatta dog (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

7. The last sentence of the section "Significant events" should read...

• None of these records, however, have been officially recognized by the World Sailing Speed Record Council or Guinness World RecordsTM.

Clearly, the records claimed by Reid Stowe's support team must be recognized by a qualified organization to become official.

• Agree. Green Cardamom (talk)

I would suggest that it read None of these records, however, have been officially recognized. Aloha27 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Best to use something similar to the NY Times wording, e.g. Stowe claims the record for the longest, non stop sea voyage. Then add, Guinness is investigating the claim. There are at least 2 sources which state that. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Aloha27 (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I edited boldly to read: "As of the voyages end, all of the records are self-claimed by Stowe and none have been recognized by an official body, such as the World Sailing Speed Record Council or Guinness World Records, which is currently investigating." Please suggest changes in content and wording, this will probably be updated soon anyway. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to find a reliable source that backs up the claim that Guinness World Records is investigating. Not in the NY Times article and Google only resulted in a few blog hits. Can you provide your 2 sources Zanthrop? That they are investigating should be verified and a link added. Greatly appreciated. Regatta dog (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New change(s) added

8. Discuss the changes for other links that are obsolete or inappropriate as described in Non Working and Inappropriate Reference Links.

Including Reid's website's "Fact Sheet" for removal. Regatta dog (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Anything from his website is allowed in this BLP as a reference, since it has no risk of harming the individual, and therefore is free of being accused of defamation. Furthermore, that is the official site for Reid Stowe information, and has every right to be part of the article about him. Your constant haggling over material from his website is getting obnoxious, to use a mild term. He is the subject, not you! --Skol fir (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The subject claiming facts is ridiculous. Please see earlier archived discussion where the subject claimed meeting Bernard Motessier. That "fact" was debunked by none other than sailing writer and Reid Apologist Charles Doane.

The article is supposed to be "about him" and not "by him". To keep arguing for references to the subject's own site seems.....like maybe you have a conflict of interest? Find other sources that corroborate his claims. Please. Regatta dog (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I tried just now to check the page. Stowe's site is off the net so I can't make a definite call at this time. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

9. Remove any direct quotes that look lop-sided, or paraphrase them to balance the issue being discussed. If the quote is intended to provide more detail for an event or fact rather than to support a POV, then it may be kept. Any quotes from Reid Stowe are allowed without dispute, as there is special immunity granted to the subject when writing about himself or recounting his experiences—see the discussion at Call for consensus on changes- Part 2. This section also contains current disputes about POV quotes; item #2 in that list is already mentioned above, and reposted within item #12 below.

As long as Reid quotes are presented as quotes and are relevant, I have no problem. However, to present Reid quotes as facts is not acceptable. Also, Specific quotes for removal should be presented here for discussion. One person's "lop-sided" might be another person's "balanced". Regatta dog (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There were only three examples of POV quotes, and if you bother to look again at what Zanthorp stated above at Talk:Reid_Stowe#Moving_on:_Improving_the_article_by_paraphrasing, they can be balanced by paraphrasing with the alternate view included. It is that simple. Lop-sided means lop-sided, as far as POV is concerned. --Skol fir (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Care must be taken here with quotes and claims, as Stowe has been proven many time to "embellish". Aloha27 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with the proposal. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

10. I am just listening to the podcast of the most recent interview with Reid Stowe, Soanya Ahmad, and Charlie Doane, on the NPR show from Boston, "On Point". We need to incorporate this into the article somehow. I will think of a place and some lead-in words to place it into context. The interview hosted by Tom Ashbrook was most informative about the whole journey, and facts came to light that I never heard or read about before. Interesting stuff, to those who have the spirit of adventure. --Skol fir (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does this need to be in the article? The subject is home, the article reflects that, and this is not a significant event. Absolutely opposed. This article is already a marketing tool. Regatta dog (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be in the article because it is the best interview of Reid and Soanya, barring none, and provides a good picture for the scope of the voyage. It covers many issues, including the internet campaign against Reid Stowe, the difference between cruising and racing, the meaning of being isolated on the open ocean for over two years, and much more. A gem of an interview, a dynamite host, named Tom Ashbrook, and well-produced, on top of it. This is the real stuff of professional journalism that we are looking for to cover this trip, albeit only a part of the total picture, as far as the biography is concerned. --Skol fir (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"The best interview" is subjective. How about the interview they did with Montel Williams where Montel himself, on hearing about Soanya's pregnancy, quipped -- "Bingo, bango, condom broke". Maybe it is the interview YOU like the most, but your bias is tiresome. Regatta dog (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

11. We should mention somewhere in this article that Reid Stowe is not a typical "racing" sailor, but a "cruising" sailor, which might help to put his whole persona into perspective. He is in a different class, and proud of it, from what we read in the media. I know there are already references that touch on this aspect. I will try to put them together. --Skol fir (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Look forward to the specifics. Regatta dog (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely concur. Aloha27 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree if a reliable source can be found. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have four references so far that discuss this issue: 1) Unfortunately a blog, by Lonnie Bruner—whom you already know from some recent comment sections—wherein he mentions sailors objecting to Reid Stowe's manner of sailing, which he describes as cruising as opposed to racing. 2) The podcast of the most recent interview with Reid Stowe, Soanya Ahmad, wherein Charles Doane explains the unique "state of mind" for cruising saiors, on the NPR show from Boston, "On Point"; 3) The recent NY Times article, "A Record-Smashing Sea Journey, and Not for Its Speed"; 4) Article from Sail-World.com talks about Reid as "A long LONG range cruising sailor."

--Skol fir (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Lonnie Bruner's blog? You toss the NY Daily News aside and then want to reference Lonnie's blog? I have no problem with your using Charles Doane as a source, as long as you are OK with including his confirmation of Reid's drug conviction and back child support. Regatta dog (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We can't use Lonnie Bruner's blog anyway, because of the rules against using blogs as sources. That is why I prefaced my first choice cautiously with the word "unfortunately." And I quote your comment above, "Look forward to the specifics." You changed your mind, so soon? --Skol fir (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No change of mind, just pointing out the hypocrisy of an editor who thinks the worlds most popular sailing website, Sailing Anarchy, can't be sourced and then tosses in a reference to Lonnie's website. I've chatted with Lonnie on SA and he seems a decent and credible guy, but he is certainly no expert on the subject. I have no problem whatever making it clear to readers that Reid Stowe is not a racing sailor, even if the link goes to Lonnie's blog. Regatta dog (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

12. I am reposting some corrections I thought should be made to the header information of the article. Here are my thoughts:

(changes in bold)...
a) in the last paragraph, replace text with "Reid Stowe sailed the schooner Anne up the Hudson River..."

• Agree --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Green Cardamom (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

b) in the first sentence, replace with "...is an American artist and mariner, who was recently involved with an ocean voyage called 1000 Days at Sea: The Mars Ocean Odyssey, a one thousand-day voyage which commenced..."

• How about, who was recently completed an ocean voyage called... ?

--Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean, "who has recently completed an ocean voyage called..." Otherwise, yes, I agree. --Skol fir (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole lead section needs to be rewritten - past-tense, some details removed, summaries added. The lead section is a summary of the article body, summarizing what is contained in the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem with that. Aloha27 (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

c) first sentence, second paragraph, replace text with "which Stowe was sailing on the voyage."

• How about, which Stowe sailed on the voyage. ? --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Skol fir (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Aloha27 (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

d) replace "She departed the vessel near Perth, Australia on February 22, 2008, after a call was made to the Royal Perth Yacht Club seeking assistance for the "gravely ill" Ahmad." with start> "Ostensibly suffering from seasickness, Ahmad left the schooner near Perth, Australia on February 22, 2008, assisted by members of the Royal Perth Yacht Club." <end This change was already discussed at Consensus on minor changes- Part 2.

--Skol fir (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree --Zanthorp (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

References Used

Skol fir (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the collaboration. It's disturbingly rare how often those on the talk page of a full protected article actually discuss teh issues and get them resolved. If you need anything to be added once consensus forms, give me a ping, or just add the template. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unconfirmed record

Why does the article include this? Maybe wait until there are citations for "confirmed" material? --Tom (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom, your question is a valid one. Nevertheless, if you have been "out of the country" for the last month, you need to be informed that after Reid Stowe arrived, all news reports listed the number of days for the voyage as 1152, and mentioned a record. Therefore, unless that number is contradicted in print, we stick with what is in the references. Let's not confuse the Wiki readers with a contradiction to all current reports. The term "unconfirmed" is a compromise reached with the Reid Stowe skeptics. Until the number is changed by Guinness or another agency, we need to be consistent with the current references and await confirmation.

There has already been an extensive discussion about this at Problem with intro wording and dates. It has also been mentioned further down in the article itself, under Significant_events.

--Skol fir (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about being out of the country, but whatever. I read the dicusion about the days at sea, ect. Including unconfirmed material seems very weak, and unecyclopediatic, thats all. This article is already in pretty ruff shape. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Out of the country," means that you may not have been following the local news outlets. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom said "This article is already in pretty ruff shape." You should have seen it 6 months ago! :-) --Skol fir (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No kidding! I hope we can get it finalized through consensus before his next journey. Regatta dog (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change "unconfirmed record" to "pending record"? That might avoid confusion with the word "confirmed" in the wikipedia lack of sources sense that has tripped up two editors so far. Or say "pending unofficial record" to make it complicated but complete. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"pending record" assumes it is a record simply awaiting confirmation. The record is being reviewed by Guinness, who Reid and his shore team readily admit they couldn't afford to pay up front to make it official. His log entries addressing the subject imply his desire for official recognition by an accredited authority. I think we should wait for official confirmation. Regatta dog (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest it be reworded as: "The total voyage was reported as 1,152 days, a possible record for the longest continuous sea voyage without resupply or stepping on land, barring any evidence to the contrary." It is certainly possible, which in other words means it is not impossible! Yikes! --Skol fir (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine the way it is. I think the onus of proof is on the one claiming the record, not on someone else proving it is not a record. I don't know how long Guinness will take to review, but I expect they'll rule it as a record and clear up any confusion. Hopefully they will include the word "duration" in their ruling. "longest sea voyage" may be interpreted as distance, and there's no record there.Regatta dog (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

False Accusations of Non-Neutrality Against Certain Editors

I first stumbled upon Reid Stowe in Sept. 2007, while reading an issue of "Wired News," as I happen to be fond of computing and infotech. I never heard of him before then. I have an interest in sailing, since I personally visited the "Gypsy Moth IV" while it was berthed at Greenwich near London, right after Sir Francis Chichester completed his famous circumnavigation in 1967 (with one stop in Sydney). I sail myself, so what Reid Stowe is doing fascinates me. I care nothing about his personal life, as I am by nature a tolerant person, allowing people whom I know, including my friends, to have their foibles and faults. That is why my friends last through thick and thin. I first got involved with the Reid Stowe article at Wiki because of obvious inaccuracies (in fact my first edit was to spell "Darshen" correctly).

I am not a member of Stowe's team, and have no wish to be so. I never met any of Stowe's team. You just can't accept my extensive knowledge about Stowe, because you (Regatta Dog) are too wrapped up in your mission to destroy him, which blinds you to the facts as laid out in all the documents available on the internet. I don't need to know Stowe personally to read what's available. All my conclusions are based on what I have read on forums, comment sections, articles and web pages on the internet.

My involvement with Wikipedia began as a way to learn about HTML and web page construction. My ID on Wikipedia has always been the same: Skol_fir. My first project on Wikipedia was to fix up the Shreveport Symphony Orchestra page, because it was originally an exact copy of the orchestra's own promotional site. I balanced it out big time, and I am proud of that page. You just can't accept the fact that an ignorant Canadian can also read, write and do arithmetic. Welcome to the modern age!

As for your claims against Stowe, they were libelous precisely because you falsified his misdemeanors beyond what the documents actually show. In my COI submission, I linked to the discussion pages where I explained your factual errors. You pretend we have not backed up our claims against you. Obviously you have not bothered to read the sections I presented as evidence for your false statements. Maybe you can't read English. That is too bad, if you need me, a lowly Canadian, to correct and educate you. If you think that there are any reliable sources on Reid Stowe's ancient misdoings, you kid yourself. You were the source of the original documents, and you never updated your misinterpretation of those documents, despite being informed of your errors in these Talk Pages and in commentary from others. As any other reference to Reid Stowe's legal problems go back to you as the primary source (no one else has obtained those original court and state documents), any mention of these charges are unusable, due to your conflict of interest in blackening a fellow's name. I have lost any respect for you and your ilk who continue this harmful campaign with no regard for a person's basic rights. Shame on you!

As for the Weekend America comment section, I did not even know about Reid Stowe until Sept. 2007, and the last comment on that page was dated 05/17/2009. I started learning more about Reid Stowe, the more I researched and not until April of 2010 did I feel knowledgeable enough to contribute to the article here. --Skol fir (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try at changing the subject. Would you PLEASE try to focus on the topics here? Please??? He's back. Let's get this article right and over with. You have a COI complaint. Fine. Take your bogus accusations about me there. Regatta dog (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote - "As for your claims against Stowe, they were libelous precisely because you falsified his misdemeanors beyond what the documents actually show". Please, back up that statement about my actions. I beg you! If you can not, you have LIED about me, which I really don't appreciate and which is a very poor reflection on you. I am a pacifist, by nature, and can tolerate a great deal. What I can not tolerate is someone besmirching my character. Specifics, please, or an apology. Regatta dog (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

...specifics at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_43#Regatta_dog. Scroll to my first submission of 18 June 2010, and the discussion thereafter. --Skol fir (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a pacifist. You run a dedicated anti-Stowe website that basically amounts to cyber-bullying, a single-purpose account on Wikipedia devoted to introducing negative material about him, you've been on his case for years. Who knows what else. Why do you spend so much of your life going after this guy? I've never seen anything like it except in politics, but this is sailing! Stowe isn't even that famous or well known. I just don't get it. My assumptStowe did something to you and your out for revenge, or your the point man for a group of people who dislike Stowe for one reason or another. I may be completely wrong, it's not a personal attack, just telling you how it looks to us on the "outside" trying to understand your motives. We are all up front about who we are and why we edit here. Any clarity about your background and motives would be helpful, you somehow have to square with us your activities outside of Wikipedia to make us comfortable your not biased and have a COI problem. This is all spelled out in WP:COI. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not run an anti-Stowe website. I created a blog that has put to bed many rumors about the man. I have presented facts on that blog and invited anyone to challenge them. No one has challenged the facts.

I have not met Reid Stowe. I'm sure he is a very nice person, and as I've said before, I'd love to buy him as beer and shoot the shit with him. I heard great things about him when I attended Soanya's homecoming party and talked to his friends. He's got very dedicated friends, and I'm sure he sounds like a very personable guy.

"but this is about sailing". No it is not. Stowe spent more time drifting than sailing. At one point he admits he put up a sail for the first time in 6 months! I am an avid sailor all my life. I have cruising and racing experience. I've been on then Eastern Shore in late October anchored and listening to the Canadian Geese landing at 2:00 in the morning while the kerosene heater blazed away. I'm also a bowman, for over 30 years of competitive racing. I've raced around the buoys on Wednesday nights and also been on the bow at national events back when J35s were a hot OD OS class. Now I'm on a sport boat that jumps up on a plane and goes 15+ knots. I'm a sailor, and loving it every frick'n day.

I am also a father. Divorced and have a great relationship with my ex wife, who I love dearly. Have a great relationship with my kids too. Crazy concept - have kids and take responsibility emotionally and financially? My kids and I are cool. My daughter calls me when she's getting shit from boys on Facebook and I put those young men in their places. My son still hugs me when he walks off the football field covered in snowy mud.

So.....What has Reid done for humanity? Tried to make a quick buck smuggling pot, abandoned responsibility as a father (his daughter and new son) all in the name of doing the greater good for humanity? I'm not buying it.

This is a poignant quote, from Reid, when asked "What is it that you are teaching us?" -

"I titled the voyage the "Mars Ocean Odyssey - 1000 Days at Sea" After I decided I was no longer going to go for 1000 days, I was going to go further. And after I realized, really, hardly anyone's into the Mars Voyage, but I was getting a lot of love. So I said, you know, I'm changing it to the "Love Voyage", 'Cause it's loving is being here.

And love is what sustains me. So a lot of my message is family love, and if you love under every circumstance in your life, then you can help the world and help yourself the most, and that whatever dream you have, you're inspired to do it through the power of love and by turning in to our greater powers, so that people can help the world and help themselves.

This is something every one can do. So that is sort of my message."

Should we alter the article to reflect that the Mars thing didn't get enough interest in the press, and it became the "Love Voyage"? Not good. The truth show's the subject changing the mission because no one really cared about the original purpose, even though he spent 20 years selling the Mars angle.

So --- Can we get back to the real discussions here, or is this article going to be a big billboard for a guy who needs donations?

PM me, Green Cardomom. I'll send you my address so you can send me checks once a month to cover my child support payments. My financial obligations to my kids are interfering with my dreams. Regatta dog (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately a lot of your comments above just support the COI problem. The truth is at Wikipedia if you have connection to a subject you really shouldn't be editing the article. You run a website (blog) about the subject of the article, it's sort of the opposite of a fan site, it's a roast site, as anyone who reads it can see. You "attended Soanya's homecoming party and talked to his friends," you are personally involved in his world. You have a certain biased story to tell -- that Stowe fooled people with a "science mission" to raise money so that he could spend a year drifting around with his girlfriend making babies on a "love voyage". That he is a dead beat dad, that he is a drug dealer. Well, write a book, write a magazine article, tell the story as you see it. It's not the place of Wikipedia to push a minority POV, in particular a negative one about a living subject, in particular by an editor with COI problems. We can debate about specific facts, specific sources, but your overall editing in the article and on the talk page is Tendentious editing and that is causing conflict with a number of editors. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that I am not the only editor of this article who might fall under the "tendentious editor" category. I accept that, regarding this article, I am a minority, but I am not a tiny minority. I have tried many times to do as you have said - debate specific facts and specific sources - and I believe I have been fairly successful in doing so. I have minimized any actual editing of the article since the editors involved have decided to hash out differences here. I invite you to review the personal insults, lies and unfounded assumptions about me throughout the discussions here. It would be nice if all editors could discuss facts, sources and consider other points of view without resorting to personal attacks.

From the COI guidelines -

Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair.

also -

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.

It seams that quite often, when there are no substantive arguments which counter my own, certain editors have resorted to the COI accusation. I invite you to review the COI discussion about me on the COI page.

Conflict with other editors is a positive thing, IMO. It ensures that the article is not only well cited but balanced. Without my input on this article, and your timely arrival to oversee the disputes, I can only imagine what the end result would be. My minority POV is not a tiny minority - there is at least one other editor who appears to support a more balanced article.

I am in no way trying to hide where I'm coming from and have been forthright in my discussions here. I did meet Soanya and many of Reid's supporters and afterward reported back to the SA thread covering the subject that they were all very nice people and very good friends to Reid. I was very positive, as I was in the one interview where I was quoted as saying everyone was happy that Soanya was OK". Does that sound like I hate Reid or his associates?

Again - the COI accusations are drowning out the important discussions here. Topic changed again. Regatta dog (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Mission status" section

Someone identified as "Half-Mad" has decided to add a paragraph today to the Mission Status section without any reference, and without consulting us! We could keep that sentence, but I would change it to "Reid Stowe saw his son for the first time, after landing his 70-foot schooner 'Anne' in New York and reuniting with girlfriend Soanya Ahmad on Thursday, June 17, 2010. The couple hadn't seen each other since Soanya had to leave the voyage, due to her pregnancy. --<ref name="voyage">{{cite web|url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gBK03pb5zkwg0FzN4YGL1CgAsyHwD9GDAANG0|title=NYC man returns from 3-year sea voyageNPR, June 17, 2010[[Associated Press]]-via Google|accessdate=June 22, 2010}}</ref>-- The son's name and age should be avoided as he is not the subject. Once is enough (in the header and its references).

On the other hand, this whole section on "Mission status" has become irrelevant since Reid returned to New York. What do you think? --Skol fir (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed the section title could be renamed "Mission conclusion" or something .. or simply delete it entirely and move the last paragraph into the section preceding it. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well. Aloha27 (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we rename the last section to "Completion of the voyage," as a Level 4 header (under the Level 3 = "The 1000-day voyage"). The full raw text, taking into account the change in tense, would be as follows:

==== Completion of the voyage ====

Throughout the journey, Stowe maintained contact with the New York City–based support team via an intermittent GPS satellite monitoring system, with voice communications to the New York City base via an Iridium phone. Stowe employed a VHF marine transceiver maritime VHF transceivers for ship-to-ship communications. Volunteers maintained a web site so that the general public could follow the progress of the voyage. The web site featured daily tracking of the schooner's position using the GPS system.

Until the computers broke down in December, 2009, there were also almost daily logs—with a photo—sent as email via the satellite telephone. These missives were originally contributed by Soanya and Reid, until Soanya's departure from the schooner, when Reid took over the role of sole communicator with the outside world.

Reid Stowe saw his son for the first time, after landing his 70-foot schooner 'Anne' in New York and reuniting with girlfriend Soanya Ahmad on Thursday, June 17, 2010. The couple hadn't seen each other since Soanya had to leave the voyage in February, 2008.

On a technical note, GPS systems do not allow you to keep in touch with anyone. It is a one way system that tells you where you are and nothing more. Simply remove this text -- "an intermittent GPS satellite monitoring system, with voice communications to the New York City base via".

Isn't the Iridium phone communication covered earlier in the article?

I also would edit out -- "with the outside world". Seems a bit dramatic.

Just the facts Ma'am. Regatta dog (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree (with these two modifications by Regatta Dog).

The Iridium phone was not mentioned anywhere else in the article. BTW, The actual quote, if you are referring to Jack Webb's 'Sgt. Joe Friday' character from 'Dragnet', was "All we want are the facts, ma'am" (and sometimes "All we know are the facts ma'am") when he was questioning women in the course of police investigations. I happen not to be a woman, as far as I know, and I am not currently involved in a police investigation. :-x

--Skol fir (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. (Perhaps instead of "maritime", we could use marine VHF?) Although I reside in one of the Maritime Provinces of Canada, I believe the correct term to be marine VHF. Aloha27 (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction made above to "a VHF marine transceiver" (singular). --Skol fir (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done as of recommendations above, additional changes submit below. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the intro wording and dates

The intro to the article contradicts the last section by presenting the record as fact without any qualification. It also has the number of days incorrect. The record part of the voyage ended when Reid dropped anchor off of Sandy Hook at day 1149, landing at a port. Unless we want to get into changing Reid's claimed solo time and over complicate the article, I suggest the following wording --

"On June 14th, 2010, after 1,149 days at sea, Reid Stowe dropped anchor at Sandy Hook at the mouth of the Hudson, claiming a record for the longest continuous sea voyage, without resupply or landing at a port. Three days later, Reid Stowe sailed the schooner Anne up the Hudson River and docked in New York. Upon landing at Pier 81 in Manhattan, he was met by family and friends, by his girlfriend Soanya Ahmad and their infant son, and by the press." Regatta dog (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't support this, alterations appear pointy and valueless' Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

RE - presenting record as fact - Seems consistent with the agreed to approach above for dealing with the last sentence in significant events. Otherwise, it contradicts. Shall we enter into the same arguments about the same exact topic and expect a different result?

RE - 1,149 vs. 1152 days -- Fine - Remove "or landing at port" and I can live with it. Facts are facts.

Substantive argument instead of out of hand dismissal would be appreciated here. Accuracy and consistency are my goals here. Regatta dog (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see you issue. What are you disputing the record claim? 1149 days or 1152 days? When you dispute something please provide the disputed comment and supporting citation and the citations that support your claims. Thanks. 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Disputing the number of days in the record claim. If we are going to use the phrase "or landing at port", that event occurred when he dropped anchor off Sandy Hook. Otherwise anyone who wanted to break the record could sail for 1,152 days without landing and claim the record. Or, someone could sail for 1,152 days anchoring in port every week and claim the landing record. Follow me? Hope I'm making sense here.

Also trying to remain consistent with the whole claimed record issue. Regatta dog (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole issue with the number of days has already been hashed out at Talk:Reid_Stowe/Archive_3#Number_of_days. Please note that by exact calculation, Day 1152 falls on June 16, 2010, which I understand was the day Stowe anchored at Sandy Hook. I don't know where you got June 14, 2010. Besides he never got resupplied or landed at a port until he reached New York. Anchoring at Sandy Hook does not compromise the continuity of the voyage, because he had already come within sight of land near Australia. What's the difference between sight of land at 300 meters or 11 miles? It is still within sight of land. Reid Stowe stayed on board the schooner until he reached Manhattan, which is what counts. If you are willing to quibble over that, it is clear your intentions are biased against a perfectly sound record and you are picking at straws again. What else is to be expected from you, given your past behavior here? --Skol fir (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you straightening this out for me, I hadn't paid too close attention to that particular discussion topic. I do not appreciate your last remark, however. Please head over to the COI page and respond to my request you provide specific examples of the actions you have falsely accused me of.

Acknowledging my error with the day count, I still think that it is important to point out where he was when his voyage hit the 1,152 mark. As Green Cardamom mentions above, we should be concerned with who, what, where, when and why. For this particular event, the "where" is misrepresented. There is, however a huge difference between sight of land and landing. Anchoring at Sandy Hook is landing, in nautical terms. Besides which, Sandy Hook is also where his solo voyage ended.

Your grasp of the English language is puerile. Definition of landing - "the act of coming to land after a voyage" -- Related words= "disembarkment - the act of passengers and crew getting off of a ship or aircraft; going ashore - debarkation from a boat or ship." (Based on WordNet 3.0, Princeton University, Farlex Inc.) Please don't wrap yourself in the term "nautical," since you appear to be misinformed. For example, look at the Marine & Ports Authority (berthing & anchoring) Regulations, 1967:

Keeping clear when not landing or embarking passengers--

7. The master or person in charge of any ship or boat not engaged in landing or embarking passengers at any landing-place in the ports of Bermuda reserved by the Authority as a public landing-place for passengers, shall keep such ship or boat clear of any such landing-place and at such distance therefrom as will permit the free and unrestricted use of the landing-place by any other ship or boat engaged in landing or embarking passengers thereat.

Most interesting.

--Skol fir (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't anchoring at Sandy Hook be "coming to land after a voyage", as per the 1967 Laws of Bermuda you referenced above? Also, landing passengers as defined by Bermuda Law is fine with me, as long as it is spelled out as that. Regatta dog (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Regatta Dog, your arguments about landing are just silly. Landing and disembarkation are one and the same, meaning one lands in order to disembark. Anchoring must be by definition far enough offshore not to interfere with landing or embarking—equivalent to boarding—passengers by Bermuda Law. --Skol fir (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Skol fir - I really could care less as long as the dates and places are accurate and not confusing to the readers. The journey ended when he anchored at Sandy Hook. The trip up the river was not the end of the journey. Using that logic, the journey is still going on. I do think it is important to identify correctly the place where it started and the place where it ended. If you want to argue that after spending a night anchored at Sandy Hook, the voyage continued the next day fine, but I hope that the paperwork submitted to Guinness is more forthright, including mention that Reid was not solo for the last leg of his journey up the Hudson.

This is an argument about semantics and not clearing it up makes it very confusing or misleading to anyone not following the voyage, and I don't want Wiki readers to be misled. Regatta dog (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The couple of days difference, say between June 15 and June 17, the time during which Reid Stowe was apparently anchored near Sandy Hook, really does not matter a great deal when you are talking about 1150+ days of a continuous voyage. I don't think that anyone has insisted that the voyage continued in the same vein after Sandy Hook, just that it continued in one form or another (with the help of Charles Doane as second mate, judging from this article entitled A Daysail With Reid Stowe). In that sense, the solo voyage was definitely over on June 15, according to Doane himself: "Twas about 6 a.m. yesterday–meaning June 17 (Ed. note)–when we aboard the good ship Avocation arrived at Sandy Hook and found Reid Stowe aboard the schooner Anne getting ready to hoist anchor and head up the bay to Manhattan for his big homecoming. The wind had been southerly when Reid first anchored two days earlier, but now it was westerly, blowing about 15 knots and building."

The 1152-day mark falls on June 16, by exact calculation, as I noted above. So the solo voyage ended on Day 1151, and subtracting the 306 days with Soanya, leaves 845 days solo, a nice round number. The 1152 days for the entire voyage is still fine by definition because it really did end when Reid Stowe landed in Manhattan. For the total accumulated time at sea for the Anne it is immaterial who accompanied Reid during that time -- Soanya for 306 days, Sanders for a few minutes while chatting with Reid during the transfer of Soanya (a video documents this brief visit by Sanders -- start viewing at 7:05 -- Africa to Australia - 1000 Days Non Stop at Sea), and Charles Doane for the last leg of the voyage up the Hudson. The 1152 days (+22 hours to be exact) would apply to how long the Anne was away from land and without resupply. I don't know how Guinness is going to view this last part of the journey, but I am sure they have researchers who can do as well as we have, uncovering the facts.

--Skol fir (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up the time-line, Skol fir, but I would hate to present that confusing explanation to readers. I think my approach is much more accurate and simpler. It is important to be precise about the number of days at sea and solo. We should spell it out to the readers in a simple and concise way that doesn't make it sound like an SAT math question. It should be presented as point A to point B followed by a trip up the Hudson. Also, by using Sandy Hook, we eliminate any issues with visitors at Sandy Hook and Charles Doane sailing up to NYC with him. Regatta dog (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The SAT-type wording above was for your benefit. :-) Obviously for the readers it would be simply "The voyage began and ended in New York Harbor (starting in Hoboken, NJ and ending in New York City, NY), lasting a total of 1152 days." Adding Sandy Hook to the picture would only confuse the reader even more. Why add an unnecessary red herring? --Skol fir (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

How is this confusing to the reader? Is it because it doesn't walk hand with the subject's press releases and what he and his team have been telling the press? They can say whatever they want, Wiki should get the story straight. The evidence is there, the references are there and that is where the truth is. Also, there is nothing at all confusing about my proposed change. It is simple, straight forward and accurate. Regatta dog (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand by 100% consistency of claimed record vs. record. Regatta dog (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Regatta dog, 1152 days is what everyone is reporting. If Guinness or some other body comes out with an official number, we will change it. Until then, we should not engage in semantics and Maritime law to calculate the number of days, it is original research. We should report what the sources say, even if we disagree with the sources. This is Wikipedia. The official number will come out soon enough. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I tend to agree with Regatta dog that any anchorage within X miles of a port would logically constitute the start/end of the voyage for official purposes, but none of our sources are saying that, and it's speculation on my and Regatta dog's part. It may not be "anchorage", but "dockage" that constitutes the start/end of the voyage. Or "landing" (ie. Stowe touches land). We need to wait for an official ruling, until then stick with the most commonly reported number 1152. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Green Cardamon, with all due respect, you did not take the SAT test above. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No I did, maybe I misunderstood the question seems to be how to define the start/end of the voyage, and I think ultimately Guinness or whomever will do it by anchorage, not by docking/landing. The reason being, anyone could anchor and wait and beat the record, it has to be a "cruise", moving, so the Sandy Hook anchorage will probably be the official end of the voyage. But it's speculation, we'll have to wait to see how it's ruled. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Green Cadamom for your adult supervision. Anyone could anchor for 1,152 days without resupply at Sandy Hook and claim the record. The key here, IMO, is start and finish and records claimed. When did he "land" is key. Also important here is how long Reid claims for solo record. He had people on the boat at Sandy Hook. The KISS principle favors ending the records part of the trip at Sandy Hook. As you can see from my suggested edit to the article at the beginning of this discussion, I tried to present the facts in a neutral way. I didn't try and remove Reid's docking in NY.

I have to wonder why it is so important to skew the few days in favor of a NY "landing". There's nothing wrong with stopping at Sandy Hook on the way. I guess I don't get what the problem is with Sandy Hook being the end of the claimed records part of the voyage. Reid himself was very specific in his log entries (counting up to and away from records) and his shore team was very particular about them in press releases. Check Skol firs post above where he/she breaks it down to hours. Skol fir, indirectly, has weighed in on the importance of preciseness ("and 22 hours"), but appears to be content with a sloppy and confusing entry to the article. Get it right -- who, what, where, when, how. Facts. Regatta dog (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I like to be precise. That is the essence of the truth. I may be the only person who has actually taken the time (pardon the pun) to use the tool(s) available on the internet to calculate exactly how many days transpired between event A and event B. Be that as it may, I have no problems with changing any days here in this article, as long as they are correct. What I was trying to explain in my SAT question, was that the solo voyage ends on Day 1151 by all accounts, while the full extent of the voyage rests on the decision to consider anchoring as equivalent to landing, which is total nonsense, because the English term for anchoring is exclusive of landing. If one wishes to disembark from a ship that is anchored offshore, one has to use a dinghy to get to shore, or swim! It is therefore by definition not a landing until the sailor leaves his ship! Do I make myself clear? :-) --Skol fir (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Going by your definition, then, anyone could anchor off Sandy Hook or travel the world anchoring every week. As long as he/she does not step ashore for 1,152 days, he/she could claim the record. I don't think we'd be doing Reid any favors by lowering the bar like that. I still don't see what is wrong with my original text. It is accurate and positive about the subject.

RE - Green Cardamom's statement - "We should report what the sources say, even if we disagree with the sources." Selectively or only in this case? A number of reliable sources (NYDN for one) have been labeled "libelous" by editors here. I hope I can count on your support in the future when I reintroduce arguments for a more balanced article.Regatta dog (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: On what day did Stowe first claim the record for the longest voyage? Your proposed text says he claimed the record on day 1149 when he anchored off Sandy Hook. Is that true, or did he wait until docking ("landing") to claim the record? Green Cardamom (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think this article relies too much on Reid Stowe as a source. He has proven unreliable and contradictory on many occasions - meeting Moitessier, the 180 degree capsize, and claiming Jon Sanders' record for longest solo journey when he was 300 days shy. I'm comfortable with changing the wording from "claiming" to "setting an unconfirmed". Does that work?

We should also consider some other claims some of which have not been presented for inclusion in this article - Smallest boat to sail across the Atlantic (see wiki article for debunking), no one else had gone to Antarctica (Over 70 private boats were there before him), recent claim that he was "crushed" by a freighter (when the CG report clearly states Reid hit the freighter), that he hasn't ejaculated in 25 years (though he's got a toddler), and that he doesn't talk about God or Buddhism (read his log entries).

He's not a reliable source, even on himself. I have no problems with his opinions, but I'm very uncomfortable presenting things he says as facts unless they can be confirmed.Regatta dog (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: in the lead section change the sentence as follows (changes in italics):

"The total voyage time was approximately 1,152 days, an unconfirmed record for the longest continuous sea voyage, without resupply or landing at a port."

Green Cardamom (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Compromise wording is OK by me. Either that or change the wording to say -

The total voyage was 1,152 days, an unconfirmed record for the longest continuous sea voyage without resupply or stepping on land.

Either is acceptable. Regatta dog (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Green Cardamom (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Last Sentence in Significant Events

Currently reads --

"As of the voyages end, all of the records are self-claimed by Stowe and none have been recognized by an official body, such as the World Sailing Speed Record Council or Guinness World Records, which is currently investigating."

There's a typo and an un-sourced claim. "voyages" should be "voyage's". There is no reputable source I can find that confirms Guinness is currently investigating.

Suggest the following --

"As of the voyage's end, all of the records are self-claimed by Stowe and none have been recognized by an official body, such as the World Sailing Speed Record Council or Guinness World Records." Regatta dog (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the typo, it is normal for Guinness to investigate and it can take a long time, has the record claim been reported to the awarding body? Perhaps the claim has been registered is better and easier cited. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the Guinness is investigating claim or that a record claim has been submitted? It is my understanding, from Stowe's own website, that Guinness record applications are only accepted prior to attempting to break the record - "I contacted the record keepers for the sailing section of the Guinness Book and they wanted $2,500 before we left to ratify our proposed records. In our desperate money situation we had to forgo that. " Reid Stowe

I think we need to be careful about an un-sourced claim involving a third party. Regatta dog (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We already have a good source in the current article as Ref #50. Check it out. Also the reference from the BBC, US sailor returns after record-breaking 1,152 day trip. There you go, two references! Satisfied?

--Skol fir (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Skol Fir! I am satisfied! Can we add a link to the NPR article at the end of the last sentence after "...which is currently investigating"? Regatta dog (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The links added there would be (1) <ref name="man returns">, which is actually reference #50, and (2) the BBC reference. I could add them both as inline citations to the last sentence of that paragraph you mentioned, if no one objects. --Skol fir (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Total agreement here. Regatta dog (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done as per discussion above.--Skol fir (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

NY Daily News as Source

Just a heads up before the long weekend that I plan on arguing that the NYDN is a reputable source. I did a little checking of BLPs of New Yorkers outside the political arena and found very quickly that the NYDN is an acceptable source. Please check out the BLPs of Donald Trump, Joan Rivers, Don Imus and Howard Stern. The NYDN is not challenged.

I have also done additional reading on Wiki rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and Identifying Reliable Sources. Regatta dog (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You can argue all you like, the paper has had a negative campaign against the subject and we don't need to use citaston fgrom there we have pleanty of other more neutral reports to cite. Off2riorob (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of 11 articles written about Stowe (Stowe Articles in NYDN), only 2 can be considered what you would call "negative". That hardly amounts to a campaign. Please check the link and the 11 Stowe stories published in the NYDN. You will find that the 2 stories that do not promote the voyage are very well sourced with interviews that back up any claims made. The NYDN fits the wiki definition of a reputable source. See Wiki rules on Verifiability - "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The NYDN meets those criteria and, as referenced above, the NYDN is widely accepted as a reliable source for other articles within Wikipedia. If anyone wants to assert that the paper is reliable for any Wiki article except this one, I'd like to see your arguments to support that.

I agree that there are other sources to cite, however none of the other sources provide as much in-depth information about the back child support. I am not suggesting here that we delve into every detail of the child support issue in the article, but I do think we should reference the NYDN so that those who want specifics can find them. Regatta dog (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Worthy of note in this discussion is that the front page of subject's own website contains a prominent link to a NYDN article announcing his arrival in NY. The article linked from the subject's front page also touches on his back child support issue. They may remove it once they read this or an impartial editor reports back to them, but I've got a screen capture just in case. A couple of editors here have put great faith in the integrity of the subject's own website. I hope those editors will concur with me and the subject himself that the NYDN is a reputable source. Regatta dog (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Drug Conviction and Child Support

After reviewing the same Wiki rules (Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and Identifying Reliable Sources) I will reintroduce that the drug conviction and child support deserve a mention, in a neutral way. They have been covered by additional reputable sources over the past few months. I will provide links to reputable sources and specreputabler ific Wiki rules that support their inclusion, unless it can be shown they fall outside Wiki rules/policies - which I am confident they do not, they must be included in the BLP. Regatta dog (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We have been over this here and at noticeboards, there is not support for the inclusion of the trivia of child support and for minor involvement in a crime from ten years ago, Off2riorob (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Wiki rules, it needs to be included. At tops, it appears there are 3 editors that want to sanitize the article and 2 editors who want it included. This is not a "Tiny Minority View". It was covered in depth in a variety of reputable sources. Pick one -- NY Daily News, SF Examiner, Boating on the Hudson, or Charlie Doane. I'm good with verbiage from any of the sources. Regatta dog (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Invalid Links/References

I will summarize agreement on the discussion above regarding links and references, focusing particularly on what is/isn't an acceptable source based on the Wiki rules. There are only a couple links/references still in dispute. Regatta dog (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Soanya's Pregnancy - When She Knew

Reading the SF Examiner article, I came across this --

By Day 289, on Feb. 6, 2008, she knew pregnancy was causing this seasickness — and her fluctuating mood.

I think this is an important date to include in the article in the part about Soanya's departure. Thoughts? Regatta dog (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Who cares when she thought she was pregnant? You are the most disgustingly nosy person I have ever met. It is deplorable, and somewhat worrisome, to see such low-minded behavior from someone who expects to get the respect of other editors here. --Skol fir (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Let us look at the behavior and contradictions of the subject of the article who wished to gain the respect of the general population. He has made repeated claims since his return that he didn't know she was pregnant until after she left the voyage on day 305. The SF Examiner article claims she new pregnancy was causing her illness on day 289, 2 weeks before leaving the voyage. It is important to the article as it points out yet another, and critical, inconsistency in their story. Not being nosy, here, just following the press coverage and pointing out important inconsistencies. Regatta dog (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you are so inane! Ever heard of "he said, she said?" There is no inconsistency if one person thinks something else than another. That is called difference of opinion. Ever thought of the possibility that Soanya did not want to tell Reid until she was sure, so as not to rock the boat, so to speak? You are so clued out, it is not even funny. --Skol fir (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a source that says Soanya knew but kept it to herself or that Reid hasn't read the SF article? I seem to recall him recently saying something along the lines of "we didn't know". You have, yet again, given weight to your own speculation over an article from a reliable source. Regatta dog (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)