Talk:Reid Stowe/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Extinct link

Reference #36 is an extinct link, aside from being redundant, as the same source (Associated Press) is already covered in Ref #37. I propose that we remove Ref#36. It was contained in the wiki code

<ref name="Phillyburbs">{{ Citation| last= Dobnick | first = Verena | publisher = Associated Press | title = Couple sets sail for 1,000-day, heart-shaped cruise | newspaper= Phillyburbs.com| date = April 21, 2007 | accessdate = 2007-09-02 | url = http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/104-04212007-1334327.html}}</ref>

--Skol fir (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good find. I went ahead and added the Wayback Machine archive link in case someone wants to read it. It'll take 5 to 10 minutes for the page to load. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the "archiving" expert! Now that you have allowed the article for Ref#36 to remain on board, through the Wayback link, I discovered that "Dobnik" was misspelled in our reference tag (mistakenly written as "Dobnick"). I will just go ahead and correct that now, as that is not bound to meet with much opposition. --Skol fir (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Green Cardomom, for linking to the Wayback Machine a second time and giving it credibility as a source. There's info there that says Reid was going to do research on Ozone depletion, foreign languages, oceanography, world history, 4 circumnavigations, Mars analogous stuff and more. I'm a huge advocate for citing the wayback machine as a good source, as it shows what Reid Stowe was selling to sponsors and donors to fund his trip as a scientific voyage before he left. We know he changed gears when the press didn't care about the Mars angle and it became the "love voyage". That change of mission should be included as a significant event. Yes?

Is the Wayback machine a reliable source? Reid's own website, according to Skol Fir, is infallible as a source. Reid's own website when he left is just as credible? What say you, Green Cardomom and Skol Fir? Zanthrop, want to chime in, in support of this?

We're making progress, here.

Regatta dog (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Rules were not made by me or you. I follow them and they support the use of material from the subject's own website. It has nothing to do with what you think is credible or not. In short, Wikipedia gives the subject of a BLP the benefit of the doubt, and he is innocent of fabrication until proven guilty by you or anyone else who was standing on deck with him at the time he made his observations. Are you playing God here? --Skol fir (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It would seem notable that mission goals were not achieved, if that's true. Perhaps we are still waiting for reports and memoir. It's typical for an expedition to take a few years to publish after returning, often there is a popular account, and a more scientific one. It might be premature to say what research he accomplished? Green Cardamom (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out, Green Cardamom, that the mission goals set forth before the subject left -- the goals he used to garner financial backing for his "voyage", were not attainable. Wayback Machine shows that he was selling goals and objectives that he had no way of realizing. Wayback machine shows the subject of the article promoted a "Mars Analogous" mission - a voyage of research.

Check out the brochure promoting the voyage, Green Cardamom. The one Reid used to secure funding. Read his own goals he used to sell the mission to sponsors and the American public with a Paypal button on his website. Pretty convenient to be able to change a scientific mission into a "love voyage" once he had the cash to go, because maybe he realized the media didn't really care about his scientific efforts for humanity?

If we have to wait for Reid Stowe to present his scientific papers of his voyage, we are in for a very long wait. Coffee is on. I don't drink it myself, but I certainly smell it.

Again -- I appreciate introducing the wayback machine as a reliable source. I look forward to Skol Fir and Zanthrop back peddling on the reliability of that, but arguing that the subject's current website is infallible truth. Regatta dog (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true he had scientific goals, but to say they were "not attainable" and he had "no way of realizing" them, using it as a ploy to get money after which he "changed it to a love voyage" is an extremely biased version of events. This is what we mean when we say you have WP:COI problems. You have a biased story of the expedition and believe it to be objective fact which is coloring your editing of the article and talk page discussions, per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Now, I assume good faith that you are not proposing adding this POV to the article(?), you just want to add material about the mission goals. That information is already in the article, it says "The scientific goals that had been outlined in the departure press release - the study of weather, water, atmospheric pollution and ozone depletion in little-documented regions of the world — has not been fully realized due to lack of proper equipment, as indicated by periodic entries in the voyage's log.[39]" ie. they didn't have enough money for the scientific goals. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct - I never suggested that any of what you cited above should be included in the article itself, just as I wouldn't assume any of the pro-Stowe editors would want included in the article that he did his time, paid his price and is sorry for his involvement in the drug situation. Or that the back child support issue is irrelevant because she grew up to be a successful attorney. I would expect other editors here to be held to the same high standard as me regarding COI accusations and inferences.

Not having enough money as the reason for not achieving the scientific goals is conjecture. What is important about that in particular, is that regardless of why they didn't have the proper equipment when they set out, their promotional material still claimed the goals.

Again, you are playing the morality judge. That is not our role as editors here. We state the facts as we know them to be true from reliable sources, and leave the conjecture as to what goals were met to other reliable sources, not to original research and interpretation by editors of Wikipedia. Why don't you contribute your brilliant ideas to a mainstream journal or magazine, which we could then quote for reference sake? You're not bold enough to put your real identity on the line? --Skol fir (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include Reid's own version of events for changing the purpose of the voyage. That would prevent any bias on anyone's part. I invite you to listen to Reid at about 19 minutes in a Q&A session shortly after his return. When asked what he's teaching us, he replies in part --

"I titled the voyage The Mars Ocean Odyssey, 1000 Days Non-Stop at Sea. After I decided I was no longer going to go 1000 days, I was going to go further. And after I realized, really, hardly anyone is really interested in 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 what I love doing is being here, and love is what sustains me."

His collision at sea has garnered a great deal of attention and he appears to refer to it every chance he gets since his return. Keeping in mind that he ran into a large freighter, perhaps we should update the status of the collision section to include Reid's future plans on what to do with the shipping company (about 1 hour into this video)

The ship didn't take responsibility, but the company that represents them started fighting us, and I'm in the process of trying to get them to help. I'm going to be approaching them and say "You know, don't you want to help? I did the longest sea voyage in history."

And if they don't, I'm just gonna say "Well geeze. You know, I've never had an accident in my life, but you would make a great story for my book. That you don't want to help a little guy that you crushed at the at the beginning of the longest sea voyage in history."

I hope to ask them first nicely to help me and if they don't, I'm going to say, "Well I'm just gonna tell the story in my book and my video and that won't look so good for major shipping."

I'm hoping they'll help me. I don't know if they will.

What word best describes what Reid's plans are to get "help" from the shipping company...I mean if asking nicely doesn't work? I won't even go there, but the implication is plain as day.

Mind you, it is clear from the CG report initially published on the subjects own website that he ran into the ship, not the other way around. If that's not good enough a source, maybe Stowe's own words in a short video entitled "Dangers at Sea" would be better source.

These cites may seem a bit overwhelming, but I think it is important to point out that there is more to this story and this man than some editors would have you Wiki readers know. Regatta dog (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to add more information about the collision. The article already says it all: "when the schooner ran into a container ship." That wording clearly indicates who was at fault, as the container ship always had the right of way. Nothing else needs to be added here. Trying to implicate Reid Stowe in a cover-up is just silly. --Skol fir (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a word that starts with "E" and ends with "N" that can't be spoken here at the alter of Reid Stowe. I get it, Skol Fir. I get it.

There's no attempt here to implicate Reid in a cover up at all. It is the subject of the BLP who made a statement about being "crushed" by a ship he ran in to and will put that in his book if the the deep pocket guys don't help him. BTW - The letters between E and I on a Scrabble board are xttrono. 03:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs)

I don't play scrabble but went to this site and still couldn't figure it out. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, as Regatta Dog presented the puzzle finally, it was not solvable. He made a mistake here by replacing an "I" with an "N" [1], as the puzzle before that last change was actually solvable to the word "extortion." How this relates to the "Reid Stowe altar" I do not know. Is someone here being extorted?—Def: ": to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power : wring; also : to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument"—I sure hope not (although for the latter part of the definition, it sounds like the result of a good debating technique)! --Skol fir (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an overt threat of extortion in the words of Reid Stowe above. If you don't help me, I'll make you look bad in my book and video. Is there a better word for that? Regatta dog (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Threatening bad press over a perceived wrong is not extortion, for the victim it as justice. Depends on your POV. Or is it extortion, Regatta Dog, when someone smears someone else with bad press? Green Cardamom (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Publishing "bad press" about a public figure is reporting. Threatening bad press in exchange for "help" is extortion, as per the definition --

"Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc."

That the person knows the accusations to be false, IMO, makes it even more noteworthy. Regatta dog (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Let us start an RFC

In case you have not been following it, a senior editor has suggested at the recent COIN that we take our most contentious issue, relating to Reid Stowe's past legal problems, to a Request for comment. I have already formulated an RFC for this purpose, and would like to have some feedback about the wording, before I submit it. I tried to remain as neutral as possible to encourage new input from additional editors. This might help to move this article forward.

Here is the RFC I have put together:

Title- Request for comment on outstanding issues

{{rfctag|bio}} This Reid Stowe biography at Wikipedia has been undergoing divisive editing extensive debate over certain contentious issues for over two years. The main issue is whether or not the subject's past legal problems should be included in this article. Due to edit warring arising out of these contentious issues, this article recently had to be locked under full protection for one month. Reid Stowe's past offences include:

• 1. Stowe served time in jail on a marijuana-related conviction.
  
• 2. Stowe at one time was in arrears with child support payments.
  

1) the subject's time served in prison 17 years ago (9 months for a marijuana-related conviction) (FACT);
2) a history of child support arrears predating accumulated prior to 1999, and resolved in 2008 (FACT).

So far, the main arguments against including these items in the biography have been "protection of personal privacy" in a BLP, and the reality that until now, these offences have not been widely reported in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia discourages the use of original research, as seen in WP:OR. The main argument in favor of including these legal issues in the article is to balance the article, since a lot of the information in the article favors Reid Stowe, as it originates from his own promotional website or other favorable sources.

The discussions on this Talk page or at the Archives: Talk:Reid_Stowe/Archive_1, Talk:Reid_Stowe/Archive_2, Talk:Reid_Stowe/Archive_3, Talk:Reid_Stowe/Archive_4, contain most of all the information pertaining relevant to these issues, up to the current time. If you have formulated an opinion, particularly on the issue of including the subject's past legal problems in this article, please add your comments below as a sub-section to this section, under a new Level 3 header such as "=== Joe's gems of wisdom ===". Each person must start a new sub-section and no one is to reply in another's person's section to avoid person-to-person arguments. You may reply to another person's opinion inside your own box. Also, the final decision must be arrived at by consensus the disputing parties will then factor in all those comments and try to arrive at a consensus or compromise. after taking into account all viewpoints expressed, including those one disagrees with.
End of "Request for comment"

^^^^^^^^^^^^
If there are no objections, I can submit this RFC. --Skol fir (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, Skol Fir. My feedback:

1) I would leave out the word divisive, as it may suggest one guilty party over another. I would replace the first sentence with -

"The regular contributors to this Reid Stowe biography have reached a major impasse after extensive debate."

2) I'm not comfortable using un-sourced claims in the RFC, as they convey more information to readers than is available on line, and may contain editor bias (ex - "arrears" is actually the appropriate term until the debt has been satisfied). I would suggest using Charlie Doane's comment about both -

- The subject of the biography served nine months in federal prison on a pot charge

- The subject was once about $11,000 in arrears on child support payments pertaining to his daughter

Charlie is a self proclaimed friend of the subject, but he's one of only a couple sources that has actually tried to show some level of balance in his reporting.

3) I would suggest removing the sentence "Wikipedia discourages the use of original research, as seen in WP:OR", as it suggests the research regarding the inclusion at present is based on OR.

4) I am not at all comfortable with the statement -

"Also, the final decision must be arrived at by consensus, after taking into account all viewpoints expressed, including those one disagrees with."

Consensus implies unanimity, which I doubt we will be able to achieve. I think that based on input from others, we might at least be able to come to a compromise based on the pros and cons.

The debate is likely to get into greater detail once posted, which is where we can expand on our different arguments and opinions.

Hope this helps, and I look forward to your comments. Regatta dog (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Skol. Green Cardamom (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the RFC, to accommodate another editor's input. You may view the current draft at the start of this section, with strikeouts and new inserts included. Please let's not argue over the facts. We are debating whether or not to include them in the article, not the facts themselves. The accuracy and sources of the actual charges against Reid Stowe have already been hotly debated over the past two months. I am reluctant to use Charles Doane's wording because he provided no references for those statements. The wording I have used was carefully chosen from all the evidence that we have already listed in our "extensive discussions."

We must leave in the bit about original research because we don't want editors thinking (as some have erroneously suggested in the past) that we just pop in the original court documents for Reid Stowe's offences. That is off the table, so to speak. It is also crucial to the issue of which "reliable source" is acceptable.

Arakunem has already suggested that "the disputing parties then factor in those comments and try to arrive at a consensus or compromise," so we can aim for a consensus, and barring that, arrive at a compromise.

--Skol fir (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Skol Fir - wow...we're actually compromising. I would still argue, however, that introducing what you've claimed as "FACTS" are based on "original research"? Where do we link for those not familiar with the situation? I can't accept what you've proposed as "Facts" unless you agree to allow additional "Facts" to be included - that Reid plead guilty for his role in the illegal importation of 15 tons of marijuana and that the State of NY had a warrant when he left on his trip for his back child support, and post departure said they could seize his boat. Those are "facts" too, Skol Fir. Put those in as a compromise?

Your desire to leave the OR statement in completely contradicts your use of OR in what you claim as "facts".

You write - "We are debating whether or not to include them in the article, not the facts themselves." What are we debating again? What do we expect other editors to base their comments on? The facts which are not to be considered facts for the article, but only to be considered facts in consideration of whether they can be mentioned in the article....but if based on the facts in the discussion it is determined that the facts are accurate, those facts can't be included in the article itself because the facts are based on OR?(read it again - it does make sense)

Doane didn't provide references? So what? He and Reid are friends in a COI kind of way! You're the guy who fights the words "alleged" and "claimed" when they are proposed before anything Reid himself says! This is seriously out of control, Skol Fir. If you want this to be an autobiography where everything comes straight from Stowe quotes, go for it. Might as well just delete all the text and put a link to his website. Or write the article whatever way you want, so long as at the end of each statement there's the following -- "Reid Stowe concurs".

The claim that evidence in our "extensive discussions" is relevant is fallacy. Where's your evidence that it is relevant? Cite please? Both pro and con have introduced info that isn't source-abled. I have no intention of introducing OR, do you?

If you leave it as is, with the strike-throughs, and without the balance I've suggested, you are loading the deck. That runs counter to what this next exercise is all about.

Comments? Regatta dog (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Glad to see this proceeding! Don't sweat the details on the question being posed though. The RFC regulars will be well versed at sorting through original research, dubious sourcing, and so on. Just get the basic wording down and let 'er rip! Arakunem^Talk 18:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I still have a problem with what is being presented as "FACT", as they are can not be confirmed as such through reliable sources and are presented to minimize the severity. See bold text -

1) the subject's time served in prison 17 years ago (9 months for a marijuana-related conviction) (FACT);

2) a history of child support arrears predating accumulated prior to 1999, and resolved in 2008 (FACT)

If we want to present facts, we should mention that the amount of marijuana was 15 tons. We should also mention that there was a warrant for the past due child support and that the amount was over $11,000.

I suggest we either include the details I just suggested or use the "facts" as presented by Doane (see above), which I think is the best compromise. Regatta dog (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does it end? You want to include additional facts that make it seem more severe, but one could counter that with even more facts that make it seem less severe, like the fact he was a mule between two boats and didn't actually transport it on his own boat, as Doane says, or that 9 months for 15 tons is a hand slap that suggests his guilt was minimal. Then we have a RFC that reads like an ongoing debate. Look, we are writing a short summary introduction for other Wikipedians who will be looking at all the facts, it is not the final word, you have endless limitless space in the RFC to make it seem more severe or less severe. Here is a compromise:

1. Stowe served time in jail on a marijuana-related conviction.

2. Stowe at one time was arrears in child support payments.

Then you can fill in all your pro and con "facts" in the RFC. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with your wording. I just wanted to make sure the summary wasn't skewed in one direction and that participants were able to determine for themselves the "facts" without them being presented as an undeniable premise. Thanks again for your patience. Regatta dog (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above wording by Green Cardamom. A small correction was the term "in arrears with," which is the standard use of this phrase. I see your point about skewing the premise in a direction favorable to the subject, and stand corrected. Also, I am willing to remove the sentence about the original research, as Arakunem reassured us that other experienced editors will know this rule. I have revised the version of the RFC above as requested, and will submit the same, unless someone has a further objection. New inserts are underlined. Thanks again for your input. --Skol fir (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The standard phrase outside the courtroom is "Deadbeat Dad". There's also "back child support", but I am willing to go with the legalese "in arrears with" ---- none of the sources use that term, so the folks who chime in can determine what is fact and whether someone's working a "spin".

This is, BTW, some crazy amount of time and effort trying to keep just a mention in a biography of the subject's own, verifiable, legal problems out of a Wiki article. Regatta dog (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The time and effort—excuse me, Regatta Dog—have been invested so that the likes of you are satisfied with the wording, or I could have just started the RFC process without any other input. This is just how things are done at Wikipedia. Why are you in such a hurry to have this process railroaded through the system?

Your use of the term "Deadbeat Dad" is prohibited here because it is too emotionally charged for a rational discussion. It presupposes guilt where maybe the subject has a good explanation for not paying up right away, and your insistence that this is a "standard phrase" indicates your strong personal hang-ups over this issue. Furthermore, how can legalese ever be considered "a spin" when that is the correct way to report anyone's misdeeds in a neutral setting? The spin comes from using emotionally charged words like "deadbeat."

Here is the clearest description of the term "deadbeat" I have seen yet (from [2]):

"Deadbeat dad" is the gender-specific slang term used to describe a father who willfully ignores and evades a court order to provide financial support for his children. Unlike typical slang terminology, deadbeat dad is a term that is used freely in and out of court.

...In all fairness, it is important to make note of the word “willfully,” or any word meaning the same, as it may appear in deadbeat dad definitions. Deadbeat dad exceptions do exist and might include, for example, a father who would like to pay child support but, for some oddly legitimate reason, can not hold down a job, or a doting dad who meekly makes weak but timely $100.00 US Dollars (USD) payments on a monthly $400.00 USD court order, or the weekend dad who, although he can’t scrape up those payments, always shows up on Friday for the kids. Certainly, this behavior is inexcusable and smacks with deadbeat familiarity, but it is, in all fairness, not befitting of the title. True deadbeat dads are notorious for more than their huge support arrearages. Stereotypically, they are devoid of any kind of emotional remorse or resolve, and they tend to maintain rather sociopathic excuses for the financial noncompliance. Deadbeat dads simply do not like the rules and many will move, remarry, change names, and work for cash to avoid any and all parental responsibility.

As you can see from the above, the term "deadbeat" can quickly be whipped into a frenzied argument over semantics, and we don't need that here. Furthermore, as the payments have been satisfied by Reid Stowe, he did not "avoid any and all parental responsibility," but rather complied. Who are we to judge whether or not he was a good father to his daughter? It seems from all reports that she was not complaining, and met him with a hug on his arrival in New York. So using the term "deadbeat" now has absolutely no justification.

--Skol fir (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Deadbeat is not going into the article ever. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand- "Deadbeat Dad" will not be in the article ever because Off2riorob declares it so. When the legal issues are entered into the article, "arrears" will not be the description, because there is no reliable source that claims arrears and because we don't want people to have law degrees to understand what we're talking about. Plain English suggests the term will have be "back child support".

I don't know what makes either of you think that at this point I want to include the term "Deadbeat Dad" in the article, but there are plenty of other terms and phrases in the article which we could also debate such as "expedition".

When ids this going onto the RFC page? Regatta dog (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unless someone has any further arguments to make on the wording of the RFC, I can submit this RFC into the system without delay. Then we can continue our commentary in our own individual boxes as required. --Skol fir (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this poor man didn't pay some child support is never going in the article either, it is a personal minor issue. This has been discussed at length, at multiple locations and multiple times, you just seem unable understand and don't seem to hear anything, tiresome in the extreme. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Off2riorob, on this issue, in addition to leaving "deadbeat" out of the article. That just makes good sense, given that now there is a new child in the picture and Reid Stowe needs everyone's encouragement to be a good father to him, if you have any respect for the integrity of a potential family unit. Wikipedia has no reason to pointlessly flog somebody over a minor past personal issue, especially when such callous finger-pointing has the potential of causing harm to his new family, and hence to the subject. --Skol fir (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the fact that the arrearages hadn't been paid for an extended length of time and the fact the debt was paid ONLY after the State of New York expressed some interest in seizing the schooner to satisfy the debt is far from a "personal minor issue". When MC stated that Stowe's financial situation hadn't improved in thirty years is noteworthy as well. IF your financial situation hasn't improved in 30 years, obviously you've made some incredibly poor career choices IMHO. Aloha27 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Non payment of his child allowance is not a noteworty encyclopedic addition and never will be. Ow, he nearly got his schooner seized because he didn't pay his child payments, but he didn't in the end. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Stowe is probably not the first BLP on Wikipedia where the question of reporting on back child support payments has come up. Some searching of talk page space may find precedent that could be helpful in the RFC. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As I have seen regarding the disputed issues that have been previousely discussed and rejected, they are not worthy of insertion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cites please? Rejected by 3 out of 5? "not worthy of insertion" is not a fact, it is simply your opinion. Do you own Wikipedia? Regatta dog (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just to reiterate my response above—unless someone has any further arguments to make on the wording of the RFC—I can submit the revised RFC at the start of this section into the system without delay. Then we can continue our commentary in our own individual boxes as required. --Skol fir (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The content as you have it is not correct for an RFC, if you want to include some content open an RFC it you don't want to add content then don't open an RFC. If you want to open an RFC to add some content then write the content and present your citations and people can comment about the desired addition. As a vague shall we add something about this and something about that, is much to broad to discuss in a RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that sound advice, Off2riorob. Since I don't intend on adding any such content as described in the RFC, we can leave it to someone else to "write the content" and take it from there. --Skol fir (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll put something together for an RFC and take into account the discussion here. I'll try and make it as neutral as possible. Regatta dog (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the initial RFC is simply in principle: do we include the two listed facts in the article, or not? The primary issues of concern here are: WP:COI, WP:NOTABLE and WP:BLP. The exact wording is the last step, after we resolve the issues of concern in the RFC. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

COI is not the issue here Green Cardamom. This is a content issue. COI has it's own place here at Wikipedia. Regatta dog (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"now there is a new child in the picture and Reid Stowe needs everyone's encouragement to be a good father to him." I don't even know how to respond. Is this Wikipedia or Dr. Phil's website? Is Wikipedia now a place where boosting the subject of an article's self esteem and trying to influence his parenting skills is the goal rather than presenting facts? Wikipedia is a reference tool. Who's got a COI here?

I may not honor limiting responses to "own individual boxes" when there are other editors involved. I appreciate structure, but debating conflicting ideas is most effective when it is direct communication -- back and forth. This is NOT a venue where an advocate of either side makes the rules. Regatta dog (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, a RFC is not to answer broad questions , if someone want to add some content that some people object to in the article, they simply write the content and the citations and start the RFC. Lets have a look at what the desired addition is with the supporting citations, that is the question not shall we add something about this and something about that, we will be here for another month. Off2riorob (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If we "have a look at what the desired addition" is? Amazing. I'll toss something on the RFC without consultation here. It'll be more neutral than what has been proposed above. I'll post here prior to my post of the RFC and let everyone know when it is going up. I'm sailing this weekend, so it might not be until Monday.

BTW, Off2riorob, why did you play along with this exercise as long as you did and then change the rules? Just curious. Is this how an impartial editor earns credibility? Regatta dog (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't play along with anything. I have said repeatedly, your continued circular I didn't hear that at this talk page combined with your off wiki activism against this living person create a clear situation were you should not be editing this article at all. Off2riorob (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Skol Fir's August 17 Edits

I didn't see much in the way of agreement on the editorial changes you made, Particularly the rewrite of the introduction and your comments from Jon Sanders. I have undone them until consensus can be reached.

I'd like to discuss those here and gain consensus before editing. In the intro - simply dismissing the major scientific goals of the mission as "other goals" does not give them the appropriate weight they deserve. Had Reid simply stated that he wanted to go to sea for 1000 days, that would have been fine, but he promoted the scientific aspects of the voyage, none of which (as far as I can tell) have been realized. There's also a lot of info there without references.

Jon Sanders references. I think that in honor of Jon's truly remarkable achievements in sailing, we should remove all references to him, especially the quotes - both pro and con. They cancel each other out and therefore are not noteworthy.

I'll come up with more specifics later when I have the time, but I really think that consensus is important here. Consensus wasn't reached. I am surprised by this action, as making changes without consensus has been termed vandalism by Skol Fir himself. Regatta dog (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Hello Regatta Dog! So you finally noticed my edits! I was trying to get some kind of response from other editors for my changes, as you can see from the note above on Aug. 14, 2010, next to the green checkmark. However, as no one seemed to be around for discussion, I continued to make some updates on the article, and I thought I was doing everyone a favor by addressing the issue of purported goals vs. actual achievements. I even went to the trouble of documenting a reference using the Wayback Machine from Apr. 29, 2007 which shows that the original brochure stated "4 times" around the globe, not just once.

Why do you object to edits that address your concerns? It seems like you are not serious about getting to the truth. Note that I also inserted the statement about not being always "under full sail." This gets to the point of contention between racing sailors and cruisers, although I have not found a reliable reference to insert that issue in full. I am willing to work with you on these and other improvements, but let's not start another edit war, please. I am trying to work with your sensibilities on the topic of Reid Stowe, but with the constant awareness that this is an encyclopedia entry, and not an opinion column. Let's keep the process going. I have no preconceptions about where this article should go, as long as it is fair to Reid Stowe, and to his critics. After all, this is "America" and we should be able to reach a peaceful compromise, without raising hackles.

As for Jon Sanders, since when did Sanders choose you to be his spokesperson? As far as I can tell, his interactions with Reid Stowe have been only supportive, and I have never seen any evidence that Sanders has corresponded with you in person? Maybe I am wrong- enlighten me as to why you need to remove all mention of him from this article. I am puzzled...

Also, if you do plan to edit something, please don't use a chopping block, that removes necessary Wiki codes, because it just looks messy and the edit won't last long. -Skol fir (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Skol Fir - Not being "under full sail" is a lot different from being bare poles for 6 months. Can we be specific about that? "Other Goals" were the scientific goals he sold to the media, donors, sponsors etc. He accomplished maybe 5% of those goals? Should we delve into that? Changing the mission from a Mars analogous scientific voyage to the "Love Voyage" because no one really cared about the Mars angle? OK, Skol Fir. Let's tell the story using nothing but quotes from the subject himself. He's a much better judge, right? The contradictions would make for a great article.

Either you are bluffing or your sailing knowledge leaves a lot to be desired. Just because Reid Stowe said in one daily log that he had not had his mainsail up for 6 months, does not mean he was "under bare poles"—and it might help to get your terminology right next time—because a schooner typically has a sail-plan that includes at minimum a jib, a staysail, a foresail and a mainsail, if not gaff topsails. Any or all of these other sails could have been used to keep the boat moving, unless it happened to be in the doldrums. ...and you talk about "truth." No wonder you don't understand ocean sailing, let alone the type of person required to carry it out properly. -- Skol fir (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Skol fir, what you have suggested could NOT be more dangerous or foolish.

On a sailing vessel "the mainsail is the main attraction". Why? Glad you asked.

On a well-designed sailing vessel, the CE (centre of effort of the sails) SHOULD be midship or slightly abaft the mainmast because, if the vessel becomes overpowered in a blow, the tendency will be to bring the bow into the wind ("weather helm" or "round up") and luff, which gives the skipper the opportunity to reef (reduce sail area).

IF, as you have suggested, the vessel was flying sails OTHER than the main and the wind piped up, the vessel would continue the tendency to fall off the wind ("lee helm"), with NO WAY of getting sail down (because they're still trying to work) with the resulting uncontrolled gybes presenting a very real danger to the boat and her rig. Secondly, the standing rigging depends on the "damping effect" of the sails to negate the pumping effect of ocean swells. Having said that, one possible reason for the turnbuckle pins to wear 75% through was that the sails weren't up for an extended period of time (six months would certainly do it) and allowed the rig to bang/slat with the result that we've seen in the picture of the turnbuckle.

Therefore, it would be more than safe to assume that Stowe was, indeed, under bare poles for that six months. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid, Aloha27, that again you are "blowing in the wind" with your claptrap about "centre of effort", etc. Please take the time to study what a schooner can do, and then come back to me. In particular, see this page Why a schooner?, where you will find this quote: "3) Flexible sail plan: With three sails there are many ways to reduce sail area. You can sail with all three sails, main and jib only, fore-sail only, fore-sail and jib only, or any combination with reefed main or fore-sail."

Furthermore, the above quote practically nullifies your vague assumption that "it would be more than safe to assume that Stowe was, indeed, under bare poles for that six months." I beg to differ, given the fact that other combinations without the mainsail are possible on a schooner. -- Skol fir (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Centre of Effort (CE) is physics, pure and simple and is NOT negotiable. IF you apply more sail area ahead of midship, it moves the CE forward of midship. BTW, we DO have a pretty good record here in Nova Scotia designing and constructing schooners. Check out the back of your dime sometime. RegardsAloha27 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Aloha27, here is where practice trumps theory: "To show the sail variations possible on a two-masted schooner-yacht having two jibs, let us imagine the following trip. At the start there is enough wind to make the carrying of all sails possible. It breezes up a little and the maintopsail is taken in. The wind growing in force, the mainsail is reefed and one jib doused. The next step to reduce the area is to get the foresail off entirely. You now have one jib and a reefed main. Each of these combinations has been such that the, balance of the sails in respect to the center of lateral resistance is practically unchanged. If the wind keeps increasing in force, you can set the foresail, reefed if necessary, and take in the remaining jib and the mainsail. With the one sail set, a schooner will live through anything. One often sees fishing schooners off the coast with one man on deck and simply the foresail set. The rest of the crew are off with the dories. In light weather the vessels do not sail at great speed with the single sail up, but the idea is to simply jog along with an eye out on the surrounding small boats." --Taken from The Sailboat Manual - The Schooner. -- Skol fir (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that I have been corrected here. It's easy to imagine a fleet of small dories out fishing from a schooner in a near gale or worse (see Beaufort Scale) with winds of 30 knots or more with seas of more than 15 feet. The little story to which you refer obviously took place in benign conditions. As far as "with the one sail set, a schooner will live through anything" statement, I would say to you the sheer numbers of lives that have been lost to the sea over the years while fishing, (10,000 Gloucestermen alone) would contradict that. As a matter of fact, the Galveston hurricane of 1900 absloutely decimated the schooner fleet fishing the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Aloha27, the main point I was trying to make was that it is possible to sail a schooner at slow speed with only a foresail, and you now appear to agree with that. Yes, the dories were out in fair weather. As for the hurricane, that would be a no-brainer, and I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that schooners will not likely survive such a wind force. Wasn't it the 1927 Nova Scotia hurricane you were referring to? The Galveston hurricane was too far south (it made landfall at Galveston, TX) to cause much of a stir up in the Maritimes of Canada. -- Skol fir (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Check the article and track of the Galveston hurricane of 1900. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quotes after his return where he admits that this voyage meant more to him than his family. Quotes where he admitted that he needed an angle because no one sponsors a spiritual voyage.

I agree, Skol Fir. Truth in his own words. If they contradict, so be it.

One thing I hope we can agree on. Let us please extract Jon Sanders from this. He's a great guy that obviously wants no part of this and his exploitation is tedious and cheep. Reid couldn't reach his coat tails with an extension ladder, IMO.

What a hypocrite you are! (def: "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"). You are a fine one to talk about "exploitation", when the very person who first inserted a quote from Jon Sanders into the Reid Stowe article was YOU (masquerading like a masked bandit as IP address 75.16.167.77 from CT). See here: Revision as of 14:39, 26 February 2008. On top of that "tedious and cheep" "exploitation," you quoted only the part of the Jon Sanders interview that backed up your twisted point of view. I call that deceptive at best. -- Skol fir (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If YOU plan to edit something, don't do it unilaterally and please don't make it so a simple "Undo" won't work. Hitting a green check-mark isn't a go, if you do it yourself.

The green check-mark, if you would care to know, is a common template used NOT to denote a "Green Light," but simply as an eye-catcher to show where an edit was completed according to the statement either preceding or following this template. It is not a value judgment as to the opinions of others with regard to this edit. ...and I did nothing unilaterally, since I consulted you all about it. Whether editors choose to pipe in at this time is not my call. -- Skol fir (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As for your comment about my edits impacting wiki codes -- If someone vandalizes a wall, I'm much more concerned about covering up the crap than editing it. Regatta dog (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to remain as an editor here on Wikipedia, I suggest you change your attitude. This is not a venue for mud-slinging. If you are not interested in the details of how to make a proper edit that meets the Wiki code, you do not belong here at all. Those editors who remain here to edit numerous articles in various fields are well-versed in the policies and methods of Wikipedia, and are eager to dip into the font of knowledge at the Help:Contents. If you don't have the time to do that then you, Regatta Dog, should get out, and let more willing people contribute to this article. Your only concern here appears to be disruption to make the subject look as bad as possible, according to your deranged and disgusting nonsense spewed out at the SA (Silly Apes) and other sites, where your sordid types hang out to trash people who don't have your high and mighty values, which no one in his right mind would want to emulate. The less we see of you here, the better.

Furthermore, you have the annoying habit of using the word "cite", when the very same sentence has the cite you are asking for, but you have not taken the time to read it. This is a sure sign of ignorance, not intelligence. -Skol fir (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Skol fir- You MIGHT wish to strike or completely remove your comment about SA (http://www.sailinganarchy.com) as there are at least seven articles in Wikipedia that use SA as a reference. In addition, you have resorted to the level of personal attack when dealing with another editor. Such behavior could easily be construed as fanaticism and result in your being banned from editing this article or Wikipedia itself. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Aloha on the insult thing. Your history of getting personal, Skol Fir, with another editor, speaks volumes about your bias towards the subject, in my opinion. You don't help your own argument in favor of Reid Stowe by tossing another editor under the bus with personal insults.

I'd love to have more willing people contribute to this article who were truly neutral, but you obviously can't be the judge of neutrality. I think I provide a good balance to your bias, but without the vitriol.

The voyage is over. What changes need to be made to this article until the subject does something new and worthy of note? You have argued for including positive press since his return. Should we use his own words in interviews since his arrival to rewrite the entire article? We could. He changed horses mid stream -- Mars science to Love Voyage. That's a seriously significant event. What say you, Skol Fir?

Let us know if you are interested in the truth, or just continuing to promote a non-event.

Regatta dog (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)