Talk:Laura Dekker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Note that this article was previously deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Laura Dekker. However, new information has arisen which makes a stronger claim to notability, so this is not a case of WP:G4. If anyone wishes to re-nominate the page for deletion they are of course free to do so. Robofish (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Triple citizenship[edit]

Maybe I don't understand multiple nationality, but will she have to choose one citizenship when she becames adult? Do the three countries have agreements to allow multiple citizenship? Do they not care? --Error (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Morocco or Turkey for example does not allow people to denounce their citizenship. (I think New Zealand also gives NZ nationality to everybody born there without the option not to be a kiwi.) So not all laws allow the choice. Arnoutf (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Point of departure[edit]

I don't know enough about her initial plans and back-story to make relevant changes, but the press [1] [2] [3] has been saying that she was to depart from Portimão - not Lisbon as quoted on her website's plan and throughout this article - but ended up starting from Gibraltar due to legal restrictions. universalcosmos | talk 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sailing?[edit]

Does anybody know who this 'Henk' is who appears in Laura's blog quite regularly recently? I also ask myself: Is she really alone on this so called solo-trip?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.204.15.13 (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I read that with her sat navigation, auto pilot, telephone, internet, following helpers, and 24/7 support team, she's not so much sailing around the globe as being sailed. Some sailing blogs and magazines have made comparisons to navigators like Tania Aebi and Jessica Watson who did the same thing truly alone. Should this be added? 109.178.62.105 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be, depending on the sourcing and the claims. However, Jessica Watson also had sat navigation, auto pilot, telephone, internet and 24/7 support teams - I'm not sure if she was followed in places, but that may have been possible too, and I seem to recall that she was, at times, shadowed. To be honest, autopilot and GPS are pretty much essential for solo sailing now, and very much standard, (even my boat has an auto pilot for when we need it, and I don't know anyone without GPS if their boat is over about 20 feet), and a support team would be pretty typical for any record attempt. - Bilby (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Every solo sailor has an auto pilot. It is needed when sleeping and resting and when working. The telephone and the internet communication does not sail the boat. The telephone support is more for weather advice, and if there is trouble and for general talk. Her father can't instruct her in detail regarding sail setting etc. She must generally do that her self. She also knows the conditions best and has to decide this. Also there is no motorised sail adjustment mechanism, it is does by hand. By the way, where did you read that info? The same thing was written about Jessica and Abby by anonymous users as news article comments or on discussion fora. People seem to follow the rules: 1. Anyone can write what they like. 2. One does not need to know anything at all when making a comment, because of rule 1. --BIL (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
How could Watson have a support team if she sailed unassisted? Apart from phone calls they couldn't have done much. But anyway, I was referring to the team that'll meet and help Dekker on 14 stops along the route. I'm no sailing expert but after reading what Aebi and Watson did, I must admit Dekker's attempt looks comfy in comparison. I'll see if I can find some links. 109.178.62.105 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed for Jessica. The term unassisted means that no one helps her physically with repair. Telephone advice is accepted. This article ia about Laura Dekker who does not do it unassisted. She has already got help with repair. However she must sail alone, otherwise it is not solo. --BIL (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but I know what solo means ;-) Here's an example of what I meant earlier: http://sailingscuttlebutt.blogspot.com/2010/08/laura-dekkers-misstated-mission.html 109.178.62.105 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (And by the way, it's not nice to change/edit your messages when they've already been answered.[4])
Aebi herself doesn't seem to be very impressed either: "technically, she'd probably be okay, especially with all the technological advances that have been made. Emotionally, I don't know" ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112526831 ) 109.178.62.105 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an ongoing debate about the nature of unassisted. In Dekker's case, there is no claim that this is an unassisted circumnavigation, so while the level of assistance is of some interest, it isn't as significant as the debate about the level that technology assisted, for example, Jessica Watson's trip. (It would be a different matter if she receives more direct assistance in navigating the two canals). It's more of a general discussion that holds for all sailing rather than specific to her. - Bilby (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
If you read the interview with Tania Aebi ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112526831 ) better, she does not have anything against the technology, or against Laura, she just said that she herself had much less. Do you suggest that Laura should throw away the sat phone, the GPS and the electronic autopilot, for the very principle that it should be done like the old heroes, like Joshua Slocum and Robin Knox-Johnston? --BIL (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I said, BIL. Don't you start about reading things better and don't jump to conclusions. Thanks. You see, personally I don't care if she sinks or succeeds, I just noticed that in sailing circles not everybody is that impressed/enthusiastic about this trip and I wondered if that should be mentioned. As stated in my first message. 109.178.51.57 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Panama Canal with her father ?[edit]

User 91.54.176.253 ([5]) and 84.144.235.142 claim ([6]) that Laura met her father at the Panama Canal and she sailed through it together with him. What is the sources for that? She does not mention that in her blog (she was in Panama from 30 March to 16 April, so read that period in the blog). --BIL (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I also read the new source that 84.144.235.142 added: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=129715607107698&topic=91#topic_top which does not say that she met her father in Panama. --BIL (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

BOAT[edit]

I deleted the phrase "two-masted" from the boats section as it was made redundant with the use of the word "Ketch" which is the appropriate nautical term for a "two-masted" sailing vessel with the aft most mast is forward of the rudder post. For pedantry sake, yawls are sailing vessels with the aft most mast behind the rudder post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.86.81 (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I restored the word "two-masted" since this is not a nautical encyclopedia, it is a general encyclopedia where everyone are not supposed to know that a ketch is always two-masted. --BIL (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How about deleting the "ketch" phrase then? Per your own reasoning, the word is nautical term and is either confusing, or irrelevant to non-nautical interested people. Alternatively, since the idea of the encyclopedia is that you can look up unfamiliar terms, we could delete the 'two-masted' phrase, link to the definition of ketch, and allow them to explore wiki at their leisure... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.86.81 (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And schooners can also have two masts... I think the "ketch" phrase adds something for the informed reader ie that it is no yawl or schooner, and can give the interested reader furthers reading on subtle differences, while two masted is relevant to the uninformed reader. So in spite of the redundancy I would opt to keep both. Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for merging page histories[edit]

It has been requested that the page history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Laura Dekker be merged into the history of this article. Aside from both articles having the same name, I don't see the advantage to this, as the failed attempt to create the article "Laura Dekker" was originally rejected due to the fact that "subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia." I don't see anything in that stub from the Afc section that would add new and unique information to this article, which has already undergone numerous edits since its creation on 20 December 2009‎. The stub is someone's parallel attempt to create an article that already had the same subject on Wikipedia. I read it, and see nothing of value to add to this current article. Most of the information is out of date anyway.

However, if an administrator wishes to do the merge, there is no harm in that, as long as everyone is aware that the two articles are not connected in any way, except for the name "Laura Dekker". Hence, one is technically not the history of the other. The articles were on two separate paths from the beginning. The one that failed, which someone wants to merge, was probably the subject of the following discussion -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Dekker -- and there is no reason to consider that ill-timed attempt as part of the current article. I quote from the header of that discussion: "The result was delete. If sources are found so that the topic doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS, the article may be recreated to focus on the event. However, as it stands, consensus is that the article fails WP:BLP1E. NW (Talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)" --Skol fir (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Records[edit]

I think there may be a few issues in claiming records in the article now that Dekker has completed her circumnavigation. This isn't to say that I don't think we can state that she set an unofficial record, but we need to provide context - in particular, that neither Watson nor Dekker were able to set an official record, as no official record-keeping body was willing to recognise these attempts; and Watson continues to hold the unofficial record for youngest non-stop solo circumnavigation, while Decker's unofficial record is for youngest circumnavigation with stops. - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Simpson Bay Lagoon[edit]

Can we link (maybe with a pipe) to Simpson Bay Lagoon? Google maps shows that's where all the boats are. Or is that too much of an assumption? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic/National origin of Laura[edit]

The German origin of Laura (through her birth mother) should not be emphasized in the opening paragraph, according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. In WP:OPENPARAGRAPH we see this statement: "2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." For this reason, her country of birth (New Zealand) has not been mentioned in the lede, nor should the German origin be mentioned here. The German nationality has never played a role in Laura's life, besides the fact that she happens to have a German passport. The German flag was never flown on the entire voyage. Furthermore, her German mother was the person most opposed to Laura's solo attempt in the first place, and only now has shown any interest to join Laura, when she finally completed the circumnavigation in January 2012.

It is enough that we mention her mother's German origin in the section for Family and in the Infobox. --Skol fir (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That is probably enough. For factual correction, her mother visited her in the Canary Islands.--BIL (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose both notions here. It should be mentioned that she is Dutch-German simply because she is. This is in compliance with 2. Ethnicity or sexuality 'should not generally be emphasized in the opening' as Dutch-German would be her nationalities, not ethnicities. What her mother did or said is of no relevance and does not change the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.118.137.186 (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you would continue reading the quote that I provided from the Manual of Style, it also included this sentence -- "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." For the purposes of the opening sentence, both Laura's German and New Zealand nationalities are secondary to the Dutch nationality, as neither German nor New Zealand origins are relevant to her notability. That is why we simply say she is "Dutch" in the opening sentence of the article, as that is the most important one (she was living in Holland since she was a child, up to the date of departure for the sailing voyage; she was flying only the Dutch flag on departure). --Skol fir (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Plan[edit]

We should rewrite the part under the headline "Plans for a global circumnavigation". Reason: She has not followed the plan precisely, and therefore it is not relevant anymore. She has already been critisised by media of doing it too easy compared to Jessica Watson and Abby Sunderland, that Laura did not do longer legs than 3 weeks, because that was written in the plan, when she in fact did a 7 week leg and a 6 week leg. --BIL (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Or, maybe even better, add a comparision or evaluation with how the plan ended up. Reasons for the longer legs, reasons to start in St Martin. These (if sourced) are topics that can be in the encyclopedia. How does a plan develop in time. On the "easiness" compared to what Watson did - if sourced by RS in sailing, not a newspaper clip, and aseparated from the no-Guinness arguments. -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Some details of 2009 trip to England worked out from a reference...[edit]

Laura Dekker (July 2009), Translated by Thomas Weber & 45N73W, "Not a Crazy Action", Zeilen (7): 32–35, retrieved 2015-04-10 

This untangles the fact that she had two Hurley 700s named Guppy. (In addition to her Optimist and current Gin Fizz.) One had an absentee owner, and it was sailed frequently by her father. (People who are good at maintaining boats can often borrow boats on very liberal terms from boat owners in exchange for upkeep.) She got the owner's permission to sail it solo starting in 2006 (when she was 10). In the summer of 2007, she got permission to take it for a 6-week trip, and christened it Guppy.

This convinced her that she wanted her own. (Dutch law limits solo sailors under 16 to boats under 7 m, which the Hurley 700 is just under.) So after much hunting, she found one. She borrowed money from her father and had to work to pay it back. The next summer (2008), she sailed her own Guppy around the Netherlands. That fall and winter she starts her serious circumnavigation preparations, and her father tells her that she should sail to England first, hoping the famously nasty weather in the English channel will discourage her open-ocean ambitions

The chronology of the actual England trip is derived from the date of March 7 2009 when she starts preparing for a trip during the upcoming spring break "in eight weeks". Eight weeks after Saturday March 7 is Saturday May 2, 2009. So the account of the trip starts Friday, May 1.

  • Friday, May 1: Leave Maurik in the afternoon, don't get far due to lack of wind.
  • Saturday, May 2: Sail to Rotterdam in the morning. Pass through around noon. Nerve-racking bit whether her mast will fit under a bridge. (I'm not sure which of Rotterdam's four bridges. She talks about 10.6 m mast, and a bridge not much more. It's past the Van Brienenoordbrug, which she already mentions and has huge shipping clearance. The Erasmusbrug supposedly has 12.5 m clearance without the lift section open, but that might be at low tide. On this day, high tide in Rotterdam was 1.7 m at 12:01, so that would make 10.8 m, definitely close enough to be nervous. I can't find the figures for the nl:Willemsbrug (Rotterdam) or nl:Koninginnebrug (Rotterdam).) Anyway, she points the boat upstream and drifts backward with the engine ready in case she has to get away in a hurry, but it all works out. The day ends berthed at Maassluis.
  • Sunday, May 3: Start early, lousy weather: no wind, cold rain. Course keeping out of the shipping lanes, but slow progress. Hoists radar reflextor at 18:00 due to lousy visibility.
  • Monday, May 4: Wind. Unfortunately coming from straight ahead, but hey, the boat is already close. A couple of long tacks brings Guppy in to Lowestoft. A lot of interesting abandoned rusted port stuff on the way to the cheap marinas. She finds a computer in a local library and e-mails word of her arrival.
  • At this point, the story glosses over any run-in with the English authorities, and just explains that the latest she can leave is Monday (presumably May 11) since holidays end "on Thursday" (presumably May 14).
  • Monday, May 11: Leaves with a nice westerly wind, under spinnaker. As the day goes on, the wind gets progressively stronger and she changes to smaller sails: down comes the spinnaker, then Genoa is exchanged for a smaller jib, then she reefs the mainsail. In the middle of the night the wind picks up to force 7 (30 kt, 55 km/h). Dark and cold and lots of water over the boat.
  • Tuesday, May 12: Arrive at Hook of Holland fairly early; due to strong wind the trip back was much faster. In Rotterdam, she's hailed in English because of the Union Jack she's flying. Make it all the way home to Maurik by 21:30, "less than 40 hours after leaving Lowestoft". That would mean a departure after 05:30 Dutch time (CEST = UTC+2) or 04:30 BST, which isn't surprising.

71.41.210.146 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Marriage[edit]

Nothing about later news in personal life? Well - anonymity perhaps better :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.88.56 (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Laura Dekker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Laura Dekker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)