Talk:Abby Sunderland

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Sailing Unassessed

	Abby Sunderland is within the scope of the WikiProject Sailing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sailing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.SailingWikipedia:WikiProject SailingTemplate:WikiProject SailingSailing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Suggestions

I borrowed liberally from the Jessica Watson entry for additions to this article. I like the idea of having a parallel structure for Abby's entry, and the historic background information for both is much the same. There is lots more info that could fill out these sections. It might be nice to have something with the "Other record breaking attempts" section from the Zac Sunderland article duplicated across all of these entries. (SEC (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Journey

I am reverting the good faith change by BIL regarding the expected completion. The cited, and current, article states Sunderland will finish in July. Sunderland's website states she will complete in June. If you think that information to be incorrect, please cite a current reliable source. According to the guidelines, "Wikipedia does not publish original research." (SEC (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Anonymous IP edits to Planning and preparation section

I and others have reverted repeated anonymous edits to the "Planning and preparation" section of this article. Today, I requested temporary semi-protection of the article but was denied because "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection." The edits that have been made do not follow Wikipedia policies regarding circular citation of Wikipedia articles as sources, non-neutral point of view, and no original research. The repeated edits also use words to avoid such as "impressive," "passionately," and "fearsome."

I do not wish to engage in an edit war so I hope others will help to patrol this issue. I also hope that we can get semi-protection for the article.

— Diiscool (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks, Diiscool. The preparation and planning section could use additional information, but it needs to be researched, sourced, and appropriate. (SEC (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'd add that even as OR it seems inaccurate: while I'm not a fan of youth solo circumnavigation attempts, both sailors gained experience on coastal trips, both had a team that helped them prepare, and both gained qualifications. It would work better just to drop any comparisons and simply describe how she prepared for the attempt. - Bilby (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit strange that the anonymous editor is bent on comparing Sunderland to only Watson. Why not compare her to all of the other youth circumnavigators [rhetorical question]? Comparing like this—which adds very little usefulness to the article—is a slippery slope. By the way, thank you Bilby and Sec906 for your help on this. — Diiscool (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the additions fall squarely into the guidelines for BLP stated above: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. (SEC (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree completely. With the 20/20 show aired Friday night 6/4/2010 many questions are being asked about all the young circumnavigators. While Watson's qualifications are clearly listed, Sunderland's qualifications do not appear to be available or are nonexistent. If the latter is the case, then that needs to be stated. In either case, the Sunderlands or their representatives such as Scott Lurie http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showuser=43488 need to be given the opportunity to respond. Don't sweep this important factor under the rug just because you can't make the two girls "look the same" on their preparation. Send some emails rather than water it down. BTW, the word: "impressive," "passionately," and "fearsome." appear in the actual reference. Vtamal (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "send emails" because Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. If you can find a verifiable source that says Sunderland has no qualifications, please add it with appropriate citation. Don't just state it as such. No one is sweeping anything under any rug. In fact, Wikipedia is set up to be very transparent with all edit histories and discussions available for viewing by anyone. Welcome to the Wikipedia community, but please follow the established policies. As SEC alluded to above, we must tread very cautiously when dealing with biographies of living persons. — Diiscool (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vtamal, I agree completely that Sunderlands qualifications should be listed here, and I daresay that everyone else also agrees. But they need to be researched, documented, properly sourced, and presented in a neutral manner. We're simply trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm sure you could make a valuable contribution if you did too. Please do review the guidelines that several of us have referenced. (SEC (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Death?

Okay, I know she's allegedly missing or in distress, but why does it give a date of death on the infobox? Fixing that unless someone can verify they've found her dead. Thorns Among Our Leaves (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixed right now, but people have added it back several times. As you note, it is far too premature for such an entry. The article has been semi-protected, so perhaps we can stick to verified facts now.(SEC (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, SEC. Thorns Among Our Leaves (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kerguelen Islands

I searched on Google Earth and found the Kerguelen Islands located Southwest of Australia rather than Southeast. That should make the island easier to locate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FastJet920 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, thanks for the many good edits here, especially cleaning up some of mine. I wonder about one though, in which you removed my edit that the closest ship was 400 miles (644km) away with the comment "it was not the nearest ship at the time of the event, the Kerguelen islands are much closer)" SailWorld.com reports her position as lat 34.885931 S, long 74.53125 E, which is 1685km from the Kerguelen islands according to Google maps. (SEC (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I saw that, yes, given the coordinates, she would be much further from the Kerguelen islands than sailworld.com first reported. They had also reported that the nearest ship was "many hours" away. 400 miles would be about a day away, I've read news stories saying the nearest ship was almost two days away, and another in which, I believe, either a US or Australian rescue person said there were always at least some merchant ships in the area. Handle it as you think fit, though I think the press reports on that are still muddled (which they would be, this early on). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gwen. One other edit, you removed the statement on wind speed of 35kn with the comment "winds were higher" The 35kn speed I entered is reported in Abby's current blog entry "The wind had subsided to around 35 knots" and also in the ABC news article "Abby was in 20-25 foot waves at the time of last contact, with 35-knot winds". Where did you see that it was higher? (SEC (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Coordinate error

Coordinates in this article may need fixing. WikiProject Geographical coordinates and tools on Obtaining geographic coordinates may help. See Manual of Style on how to format coordinates.

Replace the {{geodata-check}} template with {{tlc|geodata-check}} when the request has been accepted or rejected.

The coordinates need the following fixes:

Write here

173.55.84.184 (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC) This position is about 300 miles NNW of her reported EPIRB position this morning at the time the EPIRB was activated (40.513s 74.457e) and one hour prior when she last reported her GPS position by radio. (40.50s 74.40e. She has been drifting at 1 knot toward the northwest for the past 12 hours.[reply]

Removed incorrect information

I removed the follow from the page:

Sail-World.com reported that the "latest word from Team Abby is that the boat is drifting backwards at around 1 knot. This indicates that no sails are active and that the yacht is not in an upright position."

This is incorrect in many ways. First, I checked Sail-World.com and could not find this quote, it may be there somewhere, but it is still incorrect. Second, it is absolutely impossible to know if the boat is not upright based on the EPIRB signals, visual contact will be the only way to determine this. Third, the only thing we know is the speed and direction of the EPIRBs, NOT of the boat, it is impossible to know if the beacons are on the boat or on a liferaft. Fourth, "backwards" makes no sense, if speed and direction of the EPIRBS are to be included, use a compass bearing, or general direction (ie towards africa, or SSW), "backwards" has little to know meaning. Russeasby (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]