Talk:MY Ady Gil

Fair use rationale for Image:Earthrace.jpg

Image:Earthrace.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please pull a suitable image from Wikicommons for this page. Or give me a link that describes how to. --Lee Begg (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interest??

I don't understand the interest of this boat... Which new record did it set? It completed the circumnavigation in more than 60 days? What is it for a record? Bruno Peyron did much better in 2005, he completed the circumnavigation in just a bit more than 50 days with a sail-powered boat!!! Only with the force of the wind!!! Maybe the article might need a bit more of explanation on the interest of this boat and of the record... I personnaly don't understand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.30.180 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It is well spelled out now. however, we can't take away from the noteworthiness of the project or record completely so tried to not over power it.Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the recent interest in this boat stems from it's stated plan to join Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and potentially be on Whale Wars. --0nonanon0 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Animal fat

Many articles cite the animal fat to be the primary component of the biodiesel this ship uses. It should be included in the article. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed?Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicely TY--68.41.80.161 (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sinking

Retaliation? According to the Japanese fleet it was crossing in front of their ship towing prop-foulers. That statement is a bit premature at this point. 72.147.51.90 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Watch out for WP:RECENTISM and potentially incorrect sources at this point. We don't need to update the article to match every news report.Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but bias should always be avoided. 72.147.51.90 (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, Watson is on the record saying he spins the truth. Without a statement from the Japanese or independent review of the footage, any claims by the need to be worded carefully. The shooting and kidnapping incidents experienced similar problems. Lets just take it easy and make sure we aren't taking a side with the writing (that includes the Japanese).Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start reverting edits that are worded in line with Wikipeida's neutrally standards. I don't want to edit war so any comments are welcome. It appears that several edit summaries from different editors agree that "ramming" is not yet appropriate. It can be used but needs to be attributed.Cptnono (talk)

Follow-up: It looks like SemperDoctus beat me to it.Cptnono (talk)

There are a few claims which as of now seem to be incorrect or unverified. First and foremost the ship has not sunk and claims that the ship sinking and describing it in the past tense are all premature. Secondly, I agree that it should be called a collision. Thirdly, it was not broken in half. As the video clearly shows, the front part of it was broken off.Wikieditorpro (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the article to reflect the latest news that the ship has not sunk. http://www.news.com.au/world/protest-ship-rammed-by-whaler-vessel/story-e6frfkyi-1225816672484Wikieditorpro (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been claimed in some discussion that the Ady Gil was out of fuel (or very low I guess) - no idea where that was sourced from, I can't verify at all.Sycophant (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a video which should be added to the page for people to make up their own minds; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_5wEWaqe8 121.74.255.33 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't think it looks like SSCS's press release is accurate but that isn't for me to judge. Is the youtube video a copyright infringement? We can't use it if it is. We also need to be as careful linking to SSCS's enemy as much as linking to them due to potential POV concerns. Keep it in mind. Cptnono (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

YouTube video is sourced from ICR and attributed to them - per their requirements, so no copyright issue. There is also this video from Sea Shepherd's perspective as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rar9zxH1kts Sycophant (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've referenced the two main YouTube links (I realise YouTube is not a preferred source, but the ICR site is incredibly slow and Sea Shepherd's seems to be dead).Sycophant (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Should the YouTube video be added to the External Links section? It is a freely available file. 121.74.255.33 (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese video was removed due to a violation over at Youtube. We'll see what happens with SSCS's. They both show it at such different angles that this will never be resolved in the press (at least that is my assumption from the youtube comments). We will more than likely need a few good quotes and sources as it develops.

The YouTube video above is still up - it's accurately attributes ICR as the source per their website: "The ICR welcomes media organizations to reproduce photographs and other material from this website on the condition that all reproductions used for newspapers, television, websites and other visual products are attributed to the Institute." - I have also posted the same ICR video on my YouTube account with attribution (although that is not the one I have linked). Sycophant (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh it is! The one in the article history is gone. A bot might remove it but if they say it is OK then it should be OK. I hate linking to either but this might be a case where we link to both SSCS and ICR if they throw the videos up directly.Cptnono (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, who added bolds to all of the refs just recently? WP:MOSBOLD applies I believe.Cptnono (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

involved in a collision? You can see here that the Japanese ship has about 20° tilt to their left. The tilt is due to hard turn to the right. Fuzzy (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_5wEWaqe8) the device holding the rope used to entangle the propellors car be seen, because of the acceleration of the boat the rope taughtens (see 0:26). It's obvious they were trying to get in front of the ship to entangle it's propellers.82.26.176.79 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any information on the maneuverability of this boat? Some sources have said it can turn on a sixpence. Others that it is designed to go at high speed in a straight line. Can it go backwards? Does the growing wake behind mean that it was accelerating forward or is this how the motors work? One said that the wake would be unequal on one side if it was trying to turn. Kwenchin (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a split screen video of the collision on youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXWD_BAkpII --Zven (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop speculating - deciding who did what and who is to blame is not Wikipedia's task. Ingolfson (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ingolfson, I regard to your comment, I have not speculated about anything, All I have done is referenced a video which contains footage from both parties combined as evidence of a collision between vessels, this content is also contained within the article itself. If you can read anything into my sentence otherwise I would be very surprised. --Zven (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why take it so personal, Zven? I was talking about the discussion above, NOT your specific post. Ingolfson (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Are Ady Gil and Bob Barker same boats?

Can anyone explain me? Which boat collided? I just saw on Yahoo news and I wanted to add to the Bob Barker article until I found this one, Ady Gil article. AquilonianRanger (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Different vessels. From Sea Shepherd: "Ady Gil was severely damaged and almost sunk in a vicious and unprovoked attacked by a Japanese whaling harpoon vessel many times its size. The crew barely escaped with their lives and were rescued by our newest vessel the Bob Barker." —Pengo 02:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OF the two videos of the collision referenced above the Sea Shepherd's is taken from the Bob Barker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.176.79 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

those are outriggers, not sponsons

The article currently says that the boat is a trimaran that has sponsons. Here is a picture of the Ady Gil out of water [1]. The article should be reworded to say that it is a trimaran with two outrigger hulls; the word pontoon might apply, but no part of the boat meets the criterion of a sponson "at or below the waterline"; and the stability should not be presented twice as if it is a trimaran AND it has outriggers, that's wrong, it's just one thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.171.106 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sunk?

According to Captain Paul Watson on ABC's News Breakfast Australia (referenced on several blogs), the Ady Gil has sunk. Does anyone have a valid source for this? I couldn't find anything on ABC.au, and I don't want to reference the blogs. Double-J (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you're right - Watson confirmed as having said it sunk while under tow. Shame, a nice looking boat. Little grape (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Watson is not a Captain. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Official name?

Should we ask an admin to reverse the main article/redirect logic between "Ady Gil" and "Earthrace"? Her last name was Ady Gil, and I would have moved it, but I need an admin to do it as the redirect has history. Is there consensus for a name move? Ingolfson (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was PR no. For example, if they were just working under a lease like agreement and the registration was never changed I couldn't see changing the title. I don't know if PR and paint makes a name. If the owners (whether it was SSCS or not) agreed to the name change then I don't see a problem. I honestly could never tell from the press releases if it was a sale, lease, or whatever.Cptnono (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Times & dates

Can we please get some consistency in the article about times and dates. The article states that Ady Gil sank on the 8 January, yet I edited the List of shipwrecks in 2010 on the 7 January to add a reference to the fact that the ship had sunk. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The time and date issue originates from the original Sea Sheperd article. It names Jan. 8th as the day of the sinking (in Australian time) but the time is listed as 17:20 GMT. This is confusing as the correct date in GMT is Jan. 7th, or alternatively Jan 8th, 4:20 EDT (they are the same moment in time). We can avoid confusion by calling it the early morning hours of Jan. 8th, (Jan7th, 17:20 GMT) or sth. like that. As the date starts aging this will not make a big difference anyhow. --Wik! t (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict-Seems it can't be decided for absolute certain the darn thing has sunk or not! Earthrace currently has it abandoned, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society currently has it sunk! (after being sunk/abandoned/back to sunk over ≈6 hour) c/w references to 'prove' it! Who knows! Lots of POV here. Should probably give local and UTC times for clarity, if practical--220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. username 1 (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Earthrace → Ady Gil — It's the new name right? Or does popular usage apply here? — username 1 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Considering it just sank, this is the name its likely to live on with in popular memory/lore. I am equally not opposed to waiting a bit to see what names is more popular when some of the media from the incident dies down.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support As per Labattblueboy. (Actually I though it sank 8+ hours ago! Thats what Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has said for over 8 hours!)--220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Should have been done a while ago - the correct current name of the boat is Ady Gil, not Earthrace. Little grape (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm, not completely on board with this (heh heh) per my comment above. Its history as Earthrace was damn notable and I would support a move back if it is shown that Ady Gil was just a name painted on it by SSCS and not a registration change.Cptnono (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaker system technical inaccuracy

"and an array of speakers capable of producing 9000 watts.[25]" Regardless of a citation, this information is factually incorrect, and should be removed from the article, or modified in a way that describes the speaker system without stating factually incorrect information. A watt is a measure of power or work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt). Speakers do not produce power but are consumers of power. Speakers convert electrical power into sound waves. The output level, or sound pressure level, of sound waves is measured in decibels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel) or sone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sone), _NOT_ watts. Thus the statement in the article, quoted above, is factually incorrect. The correct way to phrase this part of the article would be:

"and an array of speakers powered by a bank of amplifiers with a combined power output of 9000 watts." Hardwarefreak (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwarefreak (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know the output of the amplifiers or the ratings of the speakers so the phrasing you've suggested is original research. For all we know, they may have plugged a bank of speakers rated at 9,000W into a 4W amplifier and think that they can now output 9,000W. And is that 9,000W peak or RMS? There are so many things we don't know that we can't suggest any phrasing other than what's there now. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that saying "capable of producing 9000 watts" is pretty much rubbish. I will rephrase the article to omit the 9000W figure for the time being. Sound is a wave, and waves usually involve the transference of energy. There is such a thing as sound power, though the sound power level is not going to be anywhere near 9000W. If you have a look at File:Ady Gil 1.jpg the system isn't anything more significant than a number of car/marine speakers. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of referenced material regarding collision with Shonan Maru 2

This referenced material was removed from the article. It should be restored: New video footage taken onboard the Ady Gil just before the collision seems to back up their claim that they were rammed by the Japanese vessel. cite_web|url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/new-footage-from-ady-gil-before-high-seas-smash-appears-to-back-sea-shepherd-claims/story-e6frf7jo-1225818006595%7Ctitle=New footage from Ady Gil before high-seas smash appears to back Sea Shepherd claims|publisher=HeraldSun|publication_date=January 11, 2010 Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. Weight. It is disputed and that source is given to much validity. The Japanese footage makes them look fine. The SSCS footage fails to show the actions just before the collision (crossing their bow). To controversial. Let the reader decide for themselves. Also, "new" footage is a no no. Write as if it is going to be read next year.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick follow-up: According to a piece in the xxxx, yada yada. Footage interpreted by other sources such as xxxx says blah blah. That is obnoxious though. This is a developing story so we need to be more cautious.Cptnono (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The reader cannot decide for themselves if material is removed from the article. I do agree that "new" can be removed from "new video footage". This is referenced material, a news article referring to a video of the incident that has been released to the public and the media. It is highly relevant to this section of the article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You are disregarding weight. I can find sources that say Hitler was a great guy. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Who is at fault is disputed. We can present the info without pushing one article saying it was the fault of the Japanese. There is no reason to push a view/assign blame while investigations are ongoing. Also, read WP:NPOV and WP:ENGVAR. Thank you for attempting discussion instead of edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not dated material or material based on opinions. The article referenced is not an editorial. The video discussed in the article will always exist. It backs the claim that the Ady Gil crew considered their day's work done and were not at battle stations trying to maneuver in front of the Shonan Maru 2.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the url of the YouTube video that is referenced in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfgPgnyX0akGhostofnemo (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is cherry picked. The boats actions before the collision, if the engine was running, and all sort of other variables are not addressed in the clip. Unless we are going to spell out every piece of analysis, then we can't do it. If you want to write something to counter the SSCS claim (a review of the Japanese footage or criticism of SSCS's) then it will be presented in a neutral context. We already have links to the videos. What isn't OK is finding and providing sources only to push a view point/verify one claim and not the other.Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the article? The article points out that the captain of the Ady Gil is overheard issuing orders to stop the engine. This is not a pro or anti article. It's a news article from the news media. I think you have deleted a referenced entry because of YOUR opinion about the incident, not because the news media is being biased.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see at the very top they refer to a source that takes the Japanese side as well.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I do think that the video needs to be linked to and the fact that it shows the skipper telling them to stop gives a unique view which none of the other videos have shown. I'm sure soon enough another media outlet will pick the video up and report on it and we can update it then, but not including it at this point would be doing the readers a disservice. Providing the story with an NPOV statement seems like the way wer should go.--Terrillja _talk 02:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just discovered there's already a link to the video higher up in this section of the article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the news article is safer than the video. The news article is a third party source and the video was released by the Sea Shepherd Society.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: "A video taken on board the Ady Gil just before the collision seems to support their version of events, that they were at rest in the water when the Shonan Maru 2 steered a course towards them." (link to article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofnemo (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That is just as bad. You need to present the dispute. You haven't done so with that edit. That single video with a single source is not sufficient without making note that the Japanese steering into them is disputed, the one video only shows a snippet, the full context. Furthermore, you take the possible accidental nature of the course change/waves with that edit. Provide sources you disagree with and you have neutrality.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you are free to add your information and references showing other possible interpretations.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ono|Cptnono]] (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have reinserted (essentially what you have done) without consensus. Tagging the section. The section has too much weight in one direction now. Your edit along with the mention that they would do anything to protect themselves (allusion to it being done on purpose) are my major concerns. \Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I went to great lengths to discuss this. It's unreasonable to say that referenced material must be removed unless balancing material is also included. I made a contribution and I referenced it. You are free to do the same. But do not remove other people's contributions unless you have a better reason than "it doesn't present all the possible interpretations".Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As the section stands at this point in time, it is not neutral. Discussing it and finding a more neuteral way to present the information are two different tings. You have also cherry picked sources.03:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What if there is no "balancing material" to be found? You are free to find them and add them if they are out there.Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tried to neutralize it some and just state the facts, the deck crew were not acting in opposition to whaling at the time, does not get into who said what or what the crew belowdecks were doing.--Terrillja _talk 03:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is opposition material. Instead of finding it and discussing how to include it we were arguing about your edit. Regardless of what could be added, you included a line with questionable neutrality. Terrillja seems to have saved the day so it is good enough for now. I'll remove that tag. It still needs clean up but that is always needed. I don't exactly love the recent edit (why were they even in proximity, is it true that there was an engine failure, what happened 25 seconds earlier in the video) but the ram thing was the big concern.Cptnono (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What engine failure? I didn't hear anything about it in the video, did I miss something?--Terrillja _talk 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That was one of many rumours I have heard. Obviousley NOT putting anything like that in until it was verified. There are so many different stories and interpretations (the possible wake of the boat is another example). Need more good sources!04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You two know more, and are more objective than the professional news media, obviously. I guess your personal opinions trump objective, professional sources.114.161.229.100 (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. One source is one source. I can't really feel bad for having concerns about its inclusion while disregarding the other side. Also, SSCS's media campaign worked well but we have to be able to see past it.Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous comment was me, sorry, forgot to sign in. Anyway, Terrillja obviously hasn't even read the article. It says in the news article, which was written by professional journalists, and published by a news organization that is not affiliated with any of the parties involved, that the captain is heard saying in the video to his crew to cut the engines, well before the collision. Please, my edit was carefully based on the reference, and it was even less assertive than the reference. The reference uses the word "rammed", which I omitted.Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)