Talk:Jessica Watson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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)

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)

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)