Talk:Jessica Watson

Let's cut the hype and make this a better article

The lead says "She is currently the youngest individual to sail non-stop and unassisted around the world."

That is an ambiguous statement. Somewhere, documented around the time of Kay Cottee's circumnavigation, there were three conditions laid down for "circumnavigation": 1. Pass through all meridians of longitude; 2. Travel some distance through both hemispheres; 3. Pass through two antipodean points. Kay Cottee fulfilled only the first two, and it now appears that Jessica Watson has done the same. Thus she has not fulfilled *all three* conditions and that should be in the statement. If you include all three the statement is wrong, if the first two only it is right. Krenon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the record is a major controversy. Records for youngest are no longer recognised both in international sailing, and by other bodies such as the Guinness Book of Records. This is for the obvious reason of not wanting to encourage attempts by people far too young to do it safely. She also did not travel far enough to satisfy formal requirements for around the word. The circumference of the earth is around 40,000km. She travelled around 26,000km. Someone has suggested that her trip might more accurately (albeit outrageously) be described as circumnavigating Antarctica.

Accurate and very demeaning. She did a lot more than circumnavigate Antarctica. As I see it, quoting the three conditions above and saying that she fulfilled the first two only is the most accurate way that I can think of. Krenon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The source for that lead statement quickly addresses those issues. The lead must be softened to reflect them.

Those wanting to publicise how well she has done should record her actual achievements, distance, age, time, etc, but, because of the obvious doubts, stop insisting that it is a record. That is simply reflecting media hype and obvious POV. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What if it is the majority POV? --Andreclos (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur that reference to a record should not be there. Krenon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

But really amongst the knowledgeable sailors this isn't a record. She herself said as much during the interview yesterday saying "it was never about that", her grandfather admitted it on 7 news a few nights ago and most of the daily papers are reporting it as "no record". Officially it isn't a record, unofficially she failed to meet the requirments. As far as I can see the only people reporting it as a record are PR types and some media.

saying she is the youngest to sail around the world is wrong. Jesse Martin holds the only recognised record, and the fact that Jessica sailed less than 21 600nm also disqualifies her. The last section on youth circumnavigators should say Jesse Martin.

I disagree. There are other definitions for circumnavigation than all three conditions I mentioned above, eg just taking the first two. Kay Cottee did well with just those two. So long as the word "circumnavigation" is qualified I see no problem in using it. Krenon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what was reported in the media yesterday regarding the voyage ninemsn

""When Jessica Watson sails into Sydney Harbour after her round-the-world sea voyage this month, she won't be breaking any world records.""

That depends on the definition of "record". She has done something that nobody as young as she is has done. That could qualify as a record although not an "official" record. Krenon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The SMH after the trip smh may 16

"A world record as youngest to circumnavigate the globe? It's now well established that she didn't achieve that, according to the strict guidelines laid down by the World Sailing Speed Record Council."

It seems to me it is now well known she didn't quite meet the rules.

She met two of the three "rules" and as such she should be accorded that achievement. True, the WSSRC and the Guinness Book of Records don't want to know that she's the youngest to do that but others might. Krenon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.30.217 (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry i forgot to log in when I made this and one below - my sig Jeremlurker (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry one more - have a look here article maps Martin / Watson for a sail world article that shows the routes each took. Martin sailed a hell of a lot further. As Kothe said the other day - it is like running 85m and claiming the world 100m record. 114.73.30.217 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a misconception that organisations commonly regarded as being the "official" determinants of records can control what the majority of a population believe. The media currently is reporting popular opinion, and that is that a record of some sort has been set. Since remarkably few - no wait, zero, in fact - other 16 year old girls have completed any comparable voyage, then it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a "de jure" record, and very few people really care at present what the WSSRC or other sailors think - they do not dictate what people are allowed to think. --Andreclos (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The truth is not determined by majority public opinion. About 55% of US Citizens believe in creationism. Does that mean it should be reported on wikipedia as a fact? --pke81885 — Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of this has already been discussed. Please read above in this talk page. There is ample NPOV documentation in the article about the controversy regarding these issues. What aspect of your point is not already addressed in the body of this article? (SEC (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

My problem is with the change in the youth circumnavigation section. It is saying Jessica Watson is now the youngest. However she herself doesn't claim that, the major news reporters are reporting "no record", the only sailing authority is not recognising it - so it only tabloid media and some popularity opinion - which is not fact. the wiki article is now reporting a fact that is not a fact. That is my issue. Maybe the article should acknowledge the popular veiw, but also state the fact that she hasn't met the requirements so Martin is still the person who sailed around the world. - ooops sorry realised I hadn't logged in. Hope it is Ok to change sig after ?? Jeremlurker (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedias aren't about what the masses think. They are about facts, or in Wikipedia's case, what reliable sources say the facts are. The article from Reuters' the reliable source used to justify the record claim, tells us about the concerns in it's 3rd and 4th paragraphs. What the lead says is not even an accurate reflection of what that source says.

In that paragraph I've ignored the actual achievement and whether it's a record, in my opinion (which, of course, shouldn't matter, but others here think their's does). It's a great achievment, but if we keep changing the rules about records every time a good looking kid does something clever, we will never know what's what. I suspect some here haven't even read what I initially posted. How can it be around the world when she only travelled a distance equal to two thirds of the earth's circumference? When does staying a long way south NOT mean around the world and simply become circumnavigating Antarctica? HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And who determines what "facts" are when it comes to what the majority think? Wikipedia is not some sort of bureacracy for the mindless publication of other "official" bureacracies. WSSRC holds some weight among sailors, but little weight in the wider audience. Thus I believe there is little dispute that she is not recognised by the WSSRC as holding any record, but that still leaves plenty of scope for her being justifiably described as the youngest person to sail around the world. Please try and keep the pedantry to a minimum. --Andreclos (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This point is already documented in the "Circumnavigation scrutiny" section of the article.

But to respond more directly, the source headline is "An Australian teen-ager sailed into Sydney Harbor...to complete a solo circumnavigation of the globe that will take her into the history books" and the controversy is discussed later in the source article. Isn't that exactly parallel to how it is handled in this article? Also, I think your original research of "...two thirds..." is in error. I suspect you are confusing nautical mile with statute mile. (SEC (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

To SEC - I didn't mention miles.

However Sec is correct in that she went much further than 2/3rds of the circumference. Approx 19000 and a bit nm. 21 600nm is the *assumed* circumference of the earth for these pruposes. I do agree that the article should report the facts. So I am happy for the top part, but the "official" youth circumnavigation section at the bottom should still recognise Martin rather than Watson. For me the rest of the article - whilst maybe needing some editing for clarity - is in essence OK. In that bit I sort of agree with the comment about pedantry below. Certainly report the opionin etc - but encyclopedies are about the facts not public opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremlurker (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To Andreclos - Pedantry is precisely what an encyclopaedia is for. Wikipedia is not for tabloid journalism. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that she is widely regarded as having set a record. It is pedantic to ignore that simply because some sailing club does not agree. --Andreclos (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

On re reading the article is doesn't gel well. The bottom part on youth circumnavigation is clumsy, and the top part is inaccurate.

For the top "She is currently the youngest" -- "She is unoffically the youngest"  ???? Or maybe "With some controversy she is the youngest ... ??? In any case both sections need some minor adjustment to reflect both the fatcs and the public opinion. I quite like the term "is being hailed as" - but the following words were clumsy. Jeremlurker (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the circumnavigation & scrutiny sections have been done really well, in terms of bias and facts presented. But many more people will look up this page and not get far past the first line of the article. While it says she "sailed around the world" rather than "circumnavigated", few people would realise this was used to indicate a technical difference - I didn't until I went through the talk page and I am a sailor who has been following the story. What about adding '(although she has not completed a technical circumnavigation)' or something like that. That doesn't sound too harsh on her but lets the casual browser of the page have a more complete picture. Josie164 (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the initial paragrapgh needs a slight adjustment to reflect the facts and lay person opinion. The Youth Circumnaviagtion section - that reads "a) fell short of the record by some 2,500 miles [47]" is I think very clumsy. She didn't fall short of the record by a distance (sounds like a long jump) she didn't meet the record requirements because she fell short of the distance requirement. So maybe something like"a) fell short of the distance requirement of 21 600nm". Thought to tell you the truth the a) b) c) style is a bit grating -- I find.

From Josie -- ""What about adding '(although she has not completed a technical circumnavigation)' or something like that."" I would put in something like. While technically not a round the world voyage she is being hailed as the youngest.... Jeremlurker (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumnavigation section, someone please get rid of "However there is still disagreement..." and just put simply that she didn't fulfil WSSRC requirements for orthordromic distance. It's a fact, not an opinion, so I don't see why the article should be sitting on the fence over it. What is a matter of opinion is whether or not the WSSRC requirements count. I would change it myself, but for some stupid reason the article is protected. So much for Wikipedia's openness. 118.208.209.143 (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted 'WSSRC' from the sentence which causes concern to User 118.208.209.143. The para 'Circumnavigation scrutiny' seems to be a good summary of the CONTINUING controversy. Boatman (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the "disagreement" tag is wrong. There isn't disagreement over the distance issue, it is well documented what the requirement is and nobody seems to be actually disputing that. I shall change it -- as it seems people agree with this -- no?Jeremlurker (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

While it may belong further back in the discussion, the 2 passages about her parents flying overhead and what she ate are irrelevant to the page and reek of sentimentalism. Therefore, I would ask that they be deleted. Teckel (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have purposely not edited to let the hype die down. I think the first sentence needs adjusting. There is little doubt she has not met the full reuirements for any of the common definitions of "around the world sailing voyage". For an enclopedia to say so simple doesn't reflect the facts. however there is a need to not detract from the achievement. I think "hailed as", or less accurately using the words like "unofficially" is a better way.

I shall leave this comment for a time before making any editing to see what others say Jeremlurker (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What is a global circumnavigation?

I would like to direct Miss Watson's supporters to the article on circumnavigation on this very website. The previous contributor suggested that it is sufficient "to cross all longitudes and the equator and return to a place visited before the circumnavigation".

It is not.

I could, for example, leave the East coast of Hawaii, circle Antarctica in a clockwise direction, sail back up to the West coast of Hawaii, go around the top, then back to where I started. I will have met the above criteria, but clearly not sailed around the world. Miss Watson did more than this, but not nearly enough.

It is actually quite difficult to define what exactly constitutes a global circumnavigation. There are a number of criteria. One is that you must travel 21,600 nautical miles. If you haven't sailed that far, then you haven't sailed around the world. Miss Watson did not sail that far. Not even close. End of story.--29 January 2015‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pke81885 (talk • contribs)

A minimum requirement is to cross all longitudes and return to a place visited before cross all longitudes. Normally the requirement to cross the equator is added to avoid including crossing all longitudes at polar latitudes. Actually Jessica Watson did sail at least 21,600 nautical miles, measured as sum of daily distances. But in record attempts usually a theoretical line is used. User:Pke81885 claimed it to be unfair to other sailors to include her. But the WSSRC claimed that their rules were not needed, since this was no official record attempt. It is media (and User:Pke81885) who has criticised the route, (based on a sail magazine article, since most journalists don't know the WSSRC rules) afterwards. But no one did criticised it before the adventure, even if media published the planned route. That was unfair to Jessica, to dismiss her on grounds that were accepted before.--BIL (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the phrasing as it currently stands reflects the reliable sources used in the article. The controversy about the definition of circumnavigation is also explained early in the lead, so both sides of the debate are covered. That strikes the right balance imo. As an additional observation, I would suggest that per our core policy on civility editors should not be described as Miss Watson's cheer squad since such description constitutes an ad hominem comment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

--17 February 2015

There is no controversy about the definition of circumnavigation! Miss Watson’s route clearly does not meet it, no matter how much some of her followers may wish to deny this.

I shall amend my above route to do a bunch of pointless zig-zags so the sailed distance adds up to 21,600 nmi. Have I sailed around the world now?

That aside, there is a particular claim coming from Miss Watson's supporters that is particularly worthy or ridicule. This is the logic that says "since Miss Watson was not attempting a record, the rules that define circumnavigation do not apply, therefore she sailed around the world."

Huh?!

Then why get in a boat at all? Why not just crush a beer can on your forehead and say "I was not attempting a solo circumnavigation record ... therefore I sailed around the world"? Damnit, this morning I rode a unicycle past the cheese shop. I may be well beyond my teens, but since I was not attempting a WSSRC record it won't matter. Hooray for me! I am the youngest person to sail solo, non-stop and unassisted around the world on a unicycle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pke81885 (talk • contribs)

Calling opposing editors "supporters" of Watson is still in breach of the policies on civility and assuming good faith. I hope this is the last comment about compliance with key policies that I have to make. As far as the rest of the sarcasm, I can only remark that we go by reliable sources and not by personal analysis which is original reseatch and is not allowed. If the reliable sources call it circumnavigation, then the article has to reflect that. Finally, please sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Comments should not be altered when they have been replied to. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdem is not sarcasm. There is no sarcasm other than "Hooray for Me". I trust this does not breach editorial policy? Please retract the allegation.Pke81885 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Heavy-handed, second-person, ad-hominem comments like Why not just crush a beer can on your forehead... etc. don't remotely qualify as an intellectual exercise such as reductio ad absurdum and they in fact constitute personal attacks. I suggest you stop your continuing violations of our civility and no personal attacks policy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

--17 February 2015

I encourage Dr.K. to read this website's article on Reductio ad Absurdum and kindly advise how comparing my reference to crushing a beer can on your forehead does not constitute reductio ad absurdem. I would also like to know how it is heavy handed, how it constitutes a personal attack, how it violates anyone's civility, exactly which wikipedia policy it breaches and how it can in any way be described as ad hominem.

It is indeed difficult to come up with an analogy that matches the absurdity of some of the reasoning cited to support the above claims. To repeat it: Miss Watson did not claim a WSSRC record, therefore the WSSRC rules don't apply, therefore she sailed around the world. Where is the comparison to any standard that comprises a circumnavigation? Where exactly do you draw the line between the voyage of Miss Watson and crushing a beer can on your forehead? To put it another way: exactly how much less could she have done and still claim to have sailed around the world?

If another user wants to proceed with criticising my tone or my method of argument then I can't and won't stop you. But please do the courtesy of addressing the questions I have raised.Pke81885 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I will. You're arguing repeatedly for a position which has no support in reliable sources. Got any reliable sources which claim she didn't circumnavigate? All I see above is a whole bunch of original research. We have many sources which say she did. Therefore, that's what the article will say until sufficient sources of appropriate quantity and quality contradict them. Continuing to argue to a futile point is frowned upon. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've have a closer look at the sources used to support the circumnavigation claims. There is little more than newspaper articles describing the voyage as around the world, and nothing providing an authoritative description of sailing around the world and explaining how Miss Watson's voyage meets those criteria. The circumnavigation case therefore relies on a line of reasoning known in the legal world as "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". If there are better sources than the ones I am about to list please point me to them, but here are the three main sources used to support the circumnavigation case:

[1] Daniel Munoz. This is a contemporaneous Reuter's article on the arrival which is careful to point out that there are doubts about the route. [2] Australia Times. Again, only a news article, but what on earth is the Australia Times? Is a reliable source to be defined as nothing other than a source that Andrew Fraser agrees with? [11] WSSRC: This link is dead and only partially quotes the source by conveniently omitting "The shortest orthodromic track of the vessel must be at least 21,600 nautical miles in length calculated based on a 'perfect sphere'." To be blunt, the quote provided in this footnote is deceptive.

I urge those in favour of the circumnavigation case to read ALL of the footnotes supplied in the article. There are several explanations of what constitutes a circumnavigation by sailing bodies and experienced sailors. There is no credible definition of a circumnavigation which would accommodate Miss Watson's voyage. I also request the circumnavigation casers to check footnote 43 which compares the Jesse Martin route to Miss Watson's route, and think of the dangers Mr Martin faced in sailing as far North as Spain to meet the circumnavigation criteria. Miss Watson didn't need to go that far: she only had to meet the lesser criterion of 21,600 nmi, but she didn't even do that. Frankly, I'm surprised Jesse Martin hasn't sued Jessica Watson, or at least her publicity team. He must be some kind of saint.Pke81885 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Contemporaneous or not, the source says "she sailed non-stop, solo and unassisted around the world at the age of 16". Google "Jessica watson around the world" and you'll find several non-contemporanoeus and reliable sources using the similar phraseology. Dr.K.'s comment "I think the phrasing as it currently stands reflects the reliable sources used in the article. The controversy about the definition of circumnavigation is also explained early in the lead, so both sides of the debate are covered" is spot on. Pke, you're flogging a dead horse mate—there is no consensus to change, nor have you presented any evidence to convince me otherwise. Moondyne (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Show me the reliable sources. I.e. something authoritative. If we are going to rely on news articles, I will show you ten for every one you can dig up. But news articles are not reliable, and certainly not authoritative. As for "The controversy about the definition of circumnavigation is also explained early in the lead, so both sides of the debate are covered." This is a tactic used by global warming and evolution deniers. There is no controversy. There cannot be a controversy about a fact. Andrew Fraser conceded she did not sail 21,600 nmi. As long as this fantastical version of the events is allowed oxygen on Wikipedia this horse is certainly not dead. And I am not your mate.

As I research this issue I am forming the opinion that the article ought to be deleted. If there is a a story here it is in the clever publicity machine that has kept the mythology alive, and how it led to a Young Australian of the Year award for ... well, for What exactly? Sailing a long way for no purpose? Beats me.

A word from Jesse Martin would end this. He is forbearance personified.Pke81885 (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPV states "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I think we are meeting this criteria. SEC (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not archive sections of this discussion

Other users recently attempted to archive almost all of this discussion. This may or may not have been done in good faith, but I have undone the archive to avoid any allegation that the archiving was done to remove a number of concessions made by a some users that are relevant to the current debate.

I am working on a compromise solution to the Around the World debate that I hope will be acceptable to all parties. The discussion history will be relevant when I put my suggestion forward, so please leave it in place at least until the debate has been resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pke81885 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You can link to the archived discussions and you can even copy parts you need to quote. But please do not unarchive three to five-year-old discussions which have not been replied to in years. Also, one more time, do not insinuate bad faith against other editors. Archiving is a normal process and keeping talkpages archived is a project-wide practice which has nothing to do with your uncivil suspicions. And leave the attacking edit-summaries. Nothing is being deleted. Archiving is not deleting. You can link to and from the archives. See also Talk:Jessica Watson/Archive 1 and Talk:Jessica Watson/Archive 2. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I dread to think that a reader might suspect Δρ.Κ. of archiving the discussion because it contained statements by Δρ.Κ. and other "round the world" proponents that are inconvenient to their more recent arguments. I would sincerely like to prevent users from forming such unfounded conclusions, and urge that the discussion be unarchived.

In the least, I encourage readers to refer to the archived section of this discussion using the links in Δρ.Κ.'s post above.Pke81885 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, finding the archived material is as easy as clicking the archive links I provided. Instead of scrolling for ages on a long page now you can choose the more convenient alternative of clicking on the linked archives. Alternatively you can copy and paste any archived sections, which seem of importance to you, instead of requiring your interlocutors to blindly scroll through miles of ancient text from 2010. This is not the Lord of the Rings. No need for fear, dread or drama. Nothing has been erased. Everything is still here, albeit in a neat archival form. Good luck in your future endeavours and may AGF be with you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Any progress on those questions I asked above, Δρ.Κ.? Or does asking questions, in your view, breach Wikipedia's editorial policy? Seriously, I need some answers for my revision, particularly "how much less could she have done and still claim to have sailed around the world?" I also want to see specific clauses of the policy I have allegedly breached, because I can't find them. All that has been provided so far is a policy title. When I look closer there is nothing there to support the allegations. The truth may seem to an independent reader that the basis lies in the hypersensitive interpretations of readers who are offended by comments and content they disagree with. I would hate for people to form that conclusion.

By the way, some of the archived content had been commented on in the last few days.Pke81885 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)