Jump to content

Talk:Abby Sunderland/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Suggestions

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

Journey

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

Anonymous IP edits to Planning and preparation section

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

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

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

Agreed. Thanks, Diiscool. The preparation and planning section could use additional information, but it needs to be researched, sourced, and appropriate. (SEC (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC))
I'd add that even as OR it seems inaccurate: while I'm not a fan of youth solo circumnavigation attempts, both sailors gained experience on coastal trips, both had a team that helped them prepare, and both gained qualifications. It would work better just to drop any comparisons and simply describe how she prepared for the attempt. - Bilby (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I find it a bit strange that the anonymous editor is bent on comparing Sunderland to only Watson. Why not compare her to all of the other youth circumnavigators [rhetorical question]? Comparing like this—which adds very little usefulness to the article—is a slippery slope. By the way, thank you Bilby and Sec906 for your help on this. — Diiscool (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the additions fall squarely into the guidelines for BLP stated above: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. (SEC (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

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

We don't "send emails" because Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. If you can find a verifiable source that says Sunderland has no qualifications, please add it with appropriate citation. Don't just state it as such. No one is sweeping anything under any rug. In fact, Wikipedia is set up to be very transparent with all edit histories and discussions available for viewing by anyone. Welcome to the Wikipedia community, but please follow the established policies. As SEC alluded to above, we must tread very cautiously when dealing with biographies of living persons. — Diiscool (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Vtamal, I agree completely that Sunderlands qualifications should be listed here, and I daresay that everyone else also agrees. But they need to be researched, documented, properly sourced, and presented in a neutral manner. We're simply trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm sure you could make a valuable contribution if you did too. Please do review the guidelines that several of us have referenced. (SEC (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC))


Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

  • Write here

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

According to [1], it is roughly the same location as above, but a few degrees away from the sailworld reference, 40 48 South 74 58 East 118.208.34.247 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed incorrect information

I removed the follow from the page:

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

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

It is in current reference #32, the Sail-World.com article here, the fourth paragraph: "Latest word from Team Abby is that the boat is drifting backwards at around 1 knot. This indicates that no sails are active and that the yacht is not in an upright position, as it would be drifting at a faster rate in a normal sailing position without sails.." This is a quote of exactly what is stated by Sail-World.com, which is cited several times in the article, and is a reliable source. They state it is a position of Abby's support team. Your claims that it is impossible to know seem to fall under WP:OR. (SEC (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
Well add the reference if you plan to add the sentence back. My claim is not WP:OR, the Sail-World.com article is incorrect in its statement, but since it can be referenced and is accepted as a reliable source, then incorrect or not as it may be, you have every right to put it back in and I will not complain (please add the ref with it though). Russeasby (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The reference was there already. Both the last known location and this sentence (her movement) are together in the Sail-World article, and the reference followed. If your claim is not WP:OR then I'd sure like to know your source for it. (SEC (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
The problem is that they are only surmising - while it is true that Sail-World are saying that the bot has capsized, it's just an educated guess until there's a visual. Which might happen in another hour or so. It doesn't hurt mentioning it, given the source, but that's something that may well change as details come in. - Bilby (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


The reference was there already. Both the last known location and this sentence (her movement) are together in the Sail-World article, and the reference followed. If your claim is not WP:OR then I'd sure like to know your source for it. (SEC (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
I see now the next sentence had the ref, it was not obvious that it was the ref for the prior sentence. Reguardless, NO STATEMENT WHATEVER has been made by the Sunderland family, support team or any SAR organization that there is any indication that the yacht is capsized. That suggestion is PURE SPECULATION by the writer at Sail-World.com and nobody else. The Sunderland Family and support team have made it clear what they beleive the possible current situations are and in no way have they indicated that they know the boat is capsized(though it is one of many possabilities they list). I can give you sources for the family statements and interviews if you like. Anyway, its likely a moot point as the lastest statement from the family 30min ago is that the plane will fly over within a few hours, and such questions will be answered then. For now I suggest leaving Sail-World.com's personal speculation and opinion out of the article and stick to the facts. Russeasby (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well she was just found, UPRIGHT though sans mast. As I said, Sail-World.com was flat out incorrect and should have been remained removed. Russeasby (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They were straightforwardly reporting on speculation that the boat might not be upright. The wordings of any reporting during a breaking news story are almost always dodgy. On the web, I read a local Los Angeles report (KABC, I think) that said she was 500 miles off the coast of Antarctica (it's more like almost 2000). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This Australian news article quotes her father as saying "They've verified she's not injured. The boat is not upside down," which rather shows the family was indeed speculating that the boat was not upright, which sailworld.com reported and was then cited in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Australian Herald Sun: Swells of up to 5m and heavy winds continue to pound her yacht Wild Eyes, which remains upright despite earlier fears of her family that it had lost its keel and capsized, also Abby's father believed her boat was upside down from perthnow.com.au, which further show the earlier cited information in the article wasn't at all incorrect. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Kerguelen Islands

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

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

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

I saw that, yes, given the coordinates, she would be much further from the Kerguelen islands than sailworld.com first reported. They had also reported that the nearest ship was "many hours" away. 400 miles would be about a day away, I've read news stories saying the nearest ship was almost two days away, and another in which, I believe, either a US or Australian rescue person said there were always at least some merchant ships in the area. Handle it as you think fit, though I think the press reports on that are still muddled (which they would be, this early on). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The latest coordinates I've seen again show her much closer to the Kerguelen islands than to Réunion. This kind of muddle in early news reports, of any kind, happens almost all the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I saw 3 or 4 later articles that said she knew much higher waves were forecast and the text seemed to be slightly misleading. Again, please handle it as you see fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Youth solo sailing circumnavigations section

Is it really necessary to include this section into the biographical article? The majority of the content in this table has no direct relation to the subject of the article itself, and is therefor more suited for a separate page detailing young solo navigations. Equally i would point out that this table is included in every page mentioned in the table - if something has to be updated it must be done so in each and every table. At the very least it would seem sensible to store it on a separate page and transclude it instead. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that too and agree the table would be more helpful and easier to update in its own article. I don't see a need to then transclude it to every article it carries, but I guess it would be ok to do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It is currently being transcluded, but that confused me for a minute there too - because the section heading is being transcluded, clicking on edit takes you straight to the template. - Bilby (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
So now I remember having seen the transclusion code in the article last night, but then I forgot all about it. I had found it a bit odd that such a big table was being carried in the article, but now I guess the transcluded table looks ok to me, unless I'm missing something. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that the table's currently been removed, and I have to agree. It seemed bulky. I think finding a way to Wikilink it within the text for those who are curious would be more useful and increase readability of the article. Just my 2-cents. If you guys justify putting it back in, I won't complain. Great job so far.vernajast|is super serial 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mapmaker needed

Anyone wnat to have a go at copying or writing a F/U rationale for this? [2]. –Moondyne 06:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice job on the map, Moondyne. This adds a lot to the article. Now if we can get a picture of Abby... (SEC (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

Coordinate error2

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

  • Write here

According to Scott Lurie of ScottsMarineServices.com (SMSScott) a member of Team Abby See: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=102689&view=findpost&p=2879470 Abby's first reported EPIRB position from the USCG was: 40.513s 74.457e The position drifted 12 miles in the first 12 hours @ 64 degree true 72.150.140.133 (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Continuously–updated location should not be in the article at all per WP:EVENT. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for breaking news. Existence of article at all is questionable per this guideline. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I can say, it is highly unlikely this article would be deleted through an AfD. Editors may talk about changing the name of the article to something like Circumnavigation attempt of Abby Sunderland, but other editors are likely to assert that she has become quite notable as a teenaged sailor. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Gwen. Major news both for the attempt and the rescue underway. I also see this fiasco being cited extensively as a case-study on youth sailing records. –Moondyne 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks to me like the sources more support a notion that the planning was lacking (wrong kind of boat, dodgy equipment, very late start in the southern season and so on), rather than say, her age. I do agree that one way or another, this failed circumnavigation by a teen is going to be widely cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep. I can't see this article would be deleted. It's about more than just the current rescue event that has increased notability. (SEC (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
This isn't an official "Keep/Delete" vote, but I would vote keep. There are a number of reasons why this subject is notable, as mentioned above. Also, I agree that we should not constantly update the coordinates for Wild Eyes ' position. —Diiscool (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries y'all, as I tried to hint above, there is no way this article would be deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like it would be most useful to have in the article the coordinates for her position when the EPIRBs were activated, or as close as we can get. The article says "current position" which is going to keep changing. Does anyone have the coords for the EPIRB activation? —Diiscool (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think that is the position reported in the Sail-World article (see link and coordinates I put in section Kerguelen Islands above). (SEC (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
The closest/earliest I've seen are here, Latitude -34.885931, Longitude 74.53125 , (they match neither the map on that web page, nor the map in this article). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying my map is perfect but its closer than you think (consider its not mercatorial projection). Feel free to adjust it if you want. –Moondyne 16:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather whine :) Aside from that, yes, handling the projection is mostly why I'm wary of tackling it myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In hindsight i should have used File:Blank_map_world_gmt_(more_simplified2).svg. But I ain't going back there now. –Moondyne 16:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've only seen 2 published coords. one from Sail-world.com 34°53′09″S 74°31′53″E / 34.885931°S 74.53125°E / -34.885931; 74.53125 and one from AMSA 40°48′S 74°58′E / 40.800°S 74.967°E / -40.800; 74.967, which is what's currently displayed. The second is about 355 nm almost due south of the first, and I doubt she'd have drifted that far after losing the rig, so I guess sail-world either made a printing mistake or a bad approximation. Anyhoo, I don't see much likelihood of frequent updates happening from now. –Moondyne 16:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Youngest circumnavigator

I feel the transcluded table for the Youngest Circumnavigator should be left on this page. Clearly, Sunderland's entire attempt was to be included among this group of people. Though she was not successful, it is still very pertinent to her effort. I think most readers will be interested in this background information to her story, and including it here makes it easy for them. Other opinions? (SEC (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

I've put in a wlink to the template. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've got mixed thoughts on whether its either linked or transcluded. Leaning towards linked which is more defendable. –Moondyne 14:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking, moreover because she's not going to be in the table anytime soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. –Moondyne 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we should have a clear boundary between different subjects. The topic of this page is Abby Sunderland (and her own world record attempt), while the template deals with another subject: "Youngest circumnavigator". Though Abby is definitely related to that topic, there is no need to display the entire table as it contains mostly unrelated information. Instead, a link to that page allows people to view it, if they wish to see a page detailing the "Youngest Circumnavotor" subject. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Death or Missing

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

It is fixed right now, but people have added it back several times. As you note, it is far too premature for such an entry. The article has been semi-protected, so perhaps we can stick to verified facts now.(SEC (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC))
Thanks, SEC. Thorns Among Our Leaves (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Right now, Abby lost internet and phone connections a few hours ago. She has manually activated her EPIRB, so we can be almost certain she isn't fully incapacitated, just in some distress. With the EPIRB, we know exactly where she is likely to be. It might take a few days to reach there, but it is far too soon to consider her "missing" or worse. (SEC (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

I am writing about the sentence 'airborne searchers spotted her stranded boat.' 'Stranded' is an odd choice of words since it literally means 'beached' or 'run agrournd.' As the nearest land is several hundred miles away, I submit that she is not stranded. I suggest the word 'disabled' be substituted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesally (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

See the second definition (she is indeed stranded in the middle of the Indian Ocean), however, no worries here if someone wants another title for the section. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
"Stranded" has been bugging me too, but I thought it was just me. I think "stranded" has a bit different connotation implying more stationary. "Drifting" is closer, but not quite right either. I like "disabled" and "dismasted" is exactly descriptive. (SEC (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
Nevertheless, "dismasted" is exactly descriptive. (SEC (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC))
..."exactly descriptive" of how she became stranded, yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
She's stranded, drifting, dismasted, crippled and disabled in the IO. I'd think whatever what most editors are happy with will likely be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
And warm and well-fed.  :-) Sorry, I couldn't resist. (SEC (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
Something tells me she may not be eating much. By the way I'm reading that going by the photograph, there're thoughts the boat might be so badly damaged, they might sink it once they get her on the rescue ship (which in itself could be dangerous). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty common procedure; a drifting ship is a navigation hazard. (SEC (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
There was earlier talk about towing it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
S & R operations rarely tow. Mounting a private tow from that location this time of year would probably exceed the value of the boat, especially in its current condition. (SEC (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
Mike Voigt, the Canadian Coast Guard's superintendent of search and rescue, said the towing procedure was common... He said the coast guard tows up to 600 vessels a year... That would be almost two a day in Canada alone. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rescue

I suggest there be a separate section with more factual detail of the rescue now that most of that is known at least up to Abby's own blog update from on board the Ile De La Reunion. The complex co-ordination effort and detailed chronology is worthy of being permanently recorded rather than continually overwritten to show only the current status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pargy (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Likely so, but this is an encyclopedia article, not a non-fiction book on the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Gwen Gale. I imagine Abby will still write the book she has planned. This event might even make it more interesting. Wikipedia is just a short summary. (SEC (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC))
Right now the rescue details provide the most utility for this entry. In due course an abbreviation may be approriate for balance but I'd press for the inclusion of details at this stage.Pargy (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The article isn't meant for promotion of the kind Oz help given with the flyovers, Pargy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I'm seeking to achieve; I'm seeking to provide a rescue chronology that accurately records the steps that were taken. As Abby's parents' update to her blog shows, it was by no means confined to Australian contributions anyway.Pargy (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The article already does this. What do you think is missing? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The Dismasting and Rescue sections are muddled and overly concise in my submission. Speculation that Wild Eyes will be scuttled should be removed given that it has in fact been left to drift (an odd decision but that's for another discussion forum!).Pargy (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Not muddled, not overly concise but rather, pithy. Everything is thoroughly sourced, along with the statement about scuttling, which came from her father. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an argument with you, Gwen. The article is good and you are making it as accurate as you can from available material. There is plainly rescue matter under the dismasting heading which I think should be moved down accordingly. In my view the rescue sub-topic is of sufficient interest to expand it to include a more detailed chronology. I'm not going to die in a ditch over it and I guess this discussion is available for others to see. My only other suggestion would be to be more consistent with references to miles, nautical miles and kilometres, or to give equivalents each time.Pargy (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it Pargy, first you say it shows "only the current status" (which is not true), then that it's "overly concise," then that it needs "a more detailed chronology." Which is it? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
My last contribution to this section as I'm trying to making useful suggestions rather than irritate you - I would like to see under the Rescue heading a detailed chronology/timeline of the rescue effort from the time the EPIRBs were first activated to when Abby arrives in Reunion (or perhaps back in Thousand Oaks). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pargy (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done. The metric conversions you requested have been added to the article. — CIS (talk | stalk) 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Good job - thanks!--Pargy (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
She may not even be taken to Réunion. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename the page?

Having read trough the entire page i notice that most parts of this page detail the planning, equipment and voyage of this record attempt, with only a very minor part detailing Abby herself. I therefor wonder if the current title "Abby Sunderland" is the correct title for the page since it is not a biography about her, but rather a description of a world record attempt. Par BLP1E i would argue that the current page should be moved to a title that displays it is an event, such as "Abby Sunderland 2010 circumnavigation attempt" or a similar title (Feel free to suggest a good title, I'm not particularly good at creating them). The current Abby Sunderland title should just redirect to the event page itself, until she received significant coverage to pass 1E and warrant an own biographical article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this topic is already growing into a BLP of a notable person with ongoing coverage and I wouldn't support a rename at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. If it were to be renamed to anything, the new title would still need to reflect her name, so it's pointless. — CIS (talk | stalk) 15:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is any renaming, it should be to Abigail Sunderland, since that is her full name and the name by which her father has been referring to her in the media. --Crunch (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, no, Wikipedia:NAME#Common_names straightforwardly supports the title Abby Sunderland. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
No to "Abigail Sunderland". Make it a redirect, but not the article title. Her own website is abbysunderland.com, not abigailsunderland. If you want to to bury the article from anyone ever finding it, then name it Abigail. —Diiscool (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't making a formal proposal. This is not the way to do it. But in response to the two above posts, Wikipedia:NAME#Common_names does not necessarily support Abby over Abigail since she is called Abigail by her very own family. It's not like Bill Clinton (the case cited in Wikipedia:NAME#Common_names, who is never called "William" except when being sworn in as president. Secondly, if a redirect were made from Abby to Abigail, there would be no problem finding this page from searches for either Abigail or from Abby. That's exactly why right now when you search for "Abigail Sunderland" you find this page. --Crunch (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E violation

This article is a violation of BLP1E because Abby is known only for one event. However, Abby is in the news quite a bit, albeit only in the context of the failed journey. Abby is getting a lot of site visits on Wikipedia. It is reasonable from a logic standpoint (not a rules standpoint) to keep the Abby article.

This may show that the BLP1E policy is too strongly worded. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It may show that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to quote WP:BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." I propose to wait until she successfully complete some noteworthy feat before dedicating her an entire article. Until now she seems to be a would-be sailing celebrity, but the future has not arrived yet. Aldo L (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AFD awaits you, the outcome will be "keep." Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

youngest to sail solo around Cape Horn

The reference to "youngest to sail solo around Cape Horn" cites Abby's blog page, which appears to be posted by her parents, or blog editor, with no factual basis or verified info which would support the claim.2bsa1l1ng (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for all one knows, a 12 year old sailing only in the area of Tierra del Fuego may have done this 50 years ago, it needs independent verification. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yacht abandoned

This source [3] mentions the Australian maritime authorities have issued a warning about the boat so yes it's still adrift. In this ref [4] it says he father says the boat will likely be sunk. I know next to nothing about this sort of thing but even if her boat wasn't designed to be unsinkable I wonder whether sinking it is something a rescue from a commercial fishing boat would normally do anyway, it sounds something they may not be equiped or trained to do and therefore may not be able to do safely. P.S. As a completely OT aside when searching for Abby Sunderland boat I found that the 5th Google suggest for Abby Sunderland b is Abby Sunderland boyfriend... Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Her family has now added a section to her official website soliciting donations to "bring Wild Eyes home." So, presumably the boat is not sunk and is deemed recoverable if enough money is raised. --Crunch (talk)

Edit request from Vtamal, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This goes back to the lack of any evidence of training or experience... "She trained in ocean sailing with experienced sailors" (under 2010 circumnavigation attempt) is mere heresay Consider deletion or at minimum [citation needed] Vtamal (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done This is likely verifiable but a citation is needed (I believe I saw this in her blog so it likely came from there) and I've put in a tag asking for one. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad English?

"On June 10, 2010 while sailing in heavy seas and high winds" -- isn't it the other way around, i.e. "while sailing in high seas and heavy winds"? Consider fixing? Tomatensaft (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not bad English at all. I see (from your contribs) that English may not be your native language. High seas means International waters and although she was in IW, that's not the intended meaning here. Heavy seas means an area of ocean with big waves, often stormy. High winds means high speed winds. However, some readers will now and then stumble over sundry kinds of English idiom. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dismasting in the Indian Ocean

The assertion that 2,000 miles is almost the range limit of an Airbus A330-300 is wrong, as the Wikipedia entry itself shows. It would be more accurate to add something along the lines of (almost to the limit of its fuel range allowing for the need to conduct flyovers of the stricken vessel and return to Perth with a safe margin of fuel left).--Pargy (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Be wary of your own original research as to what is taken as a range limit: That text is cited to a source taken as reliable on en.WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "almost to the limit of its range" is not cited to any source. Footnote 32 is a reference to an article that neither mentions the aircraft range nor is authoritative on that point.--Pargy (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It's in one of the listed citations. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I think what Pargy is trying to say is that if the plane had to fly 2000 miles to get there and that was close to its limit, then it would have no way to get back. So the limit of 2000 miles must refer its limit for the one way part of a round trip. I clarified the statement. For An Angel (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, you said, "some early sources said an hour but there is a reliable Oz source here for 10 min" but the source you replaced it with was from the same day, and how is that source any more reliable than CBS News? For An Angel (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The earliest sources that day said one hour, this one, from Perth, where the search crew was based, came a few hours later and is hence more reliable. Early media reports on breaking news stories are often riddled with errors. I think the "one hour" mistake came from the plane having stayed in the search area for about an hour after they spotted Sunderland. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Oz is widely known slang/idiom for Australia. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

update

She's on a French patrol boat and meant to be in Réunion by tomorrow morning (AP). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian Taxpayers

I am troubled by the addition of "Australian taxpayers have been forced to pay for Sunderland's rescue." That's not quite what the cited sources are saying. None of the sources use the word "forced" WP:NPOV. They are saying that Australia won't be able to bill for it's portion of the rescue, and therefore taxpayers will foot the bill. And Australia isn't footing the entire bill, the actual rescue ship was sent from the French territory of La Reunion. I read the tone of the sources as more "Mr Albanese said the episode proved Australia was a world leader in search and rescue." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sec906 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, if the article was honest it would quote "A significant proportion of the public also resents risk takers who arrogantly expect the public to foot the bill." from http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-elementary-about-watson-20100518-vbjf.html. --Andreclos (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've put it in a new section and NPoVed the text. This section is likely to grow mightily, since there is a big, widely documented moral hazard to any adventure-hobby project gone awry and needing very expensive S&R services to save human lives. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Be aware the sources show French and even US taxpayers also pitched in (like it or not). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
What is the political implication of this discussion? Should we forbid private sailing? Should we have an age limit (which many have suggested)? Women forbidden? Is it cheaper to rescue middle-age men? --BIL (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
BIL points out the slippery-slope here. This article should contain a simple statement of fact, such as which countries helped pay for it. Discussion beyond that would be off-topic and should be in a different article. (SEC (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC))
Oh, the controversies can be briefly recapped if sourced and they'll show all kinds of outlooks. My own take is that age has aught to do with it and banning this kind of thing would have no root in natural rights, the only worry is that, in knowing big sums of money they'll never need pay back are likely to be spent in bailing them out of a life-threatening fix, some folks do take much higher risks than they otherwise would, even if they're not wholly aware of it. A few generations ago, a solo sailor stranded where she was would have been lucky to drift a month or two before happenstance landfall (if they didn't drift south to Antarctica) or running into a merchant ship. With all the electronics onboard and a more or less unsinkable boat built with e-glass and kevlar, along with today's S&R networks, one knows going in that death by stranding is much less likely. Only bringing up the kind of things that can be cited already, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Sums it up very well, Gwen, just what I tried to say much less eloquently in Unassisted sailing . --Andreclos (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we're heading down the slippery slope. It wasn't Sunderland's choice to send an air search, it was a choice made by the Australian government. Which, by the way, also mandates EPRIB use. If they weren't busy rescuing someone, they'd be practicing, still paying all the personnel and quipment costs anyway. I'm not intending to argue this, just pointing out that it may be very difficult to keep the issue focused on the topic of this article. (SEC (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC))
Regarding "mandates EPRIB (sic) use" above: it is mandatory to carry EPIRBs, not to use them. --Andreclos (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
She set off the distress beacons and her parents were on the phone straight off with their congressman, who got things going with the US state dept, Oz.gov and the French. I think it was indeed her (and her family's) choice that she be rescued by anyone who could muster a rescue, which is what happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Just asking: is this a debate that can be contained to the topic of the article? (SEC (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC))
A bit more, I think it's likely the sources will sooner or later show that the adventure was rather badly planned as to timing and gear: She had lots of equipment breakdowns, her sloop was built for speed in the s Indian ocean, not stability, whereas Jessica_Watson's boat was much more forgiving and easier for one young person to handle (it was even self-steering most of the time), but slower. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an issue on the speed and self-steering front: Watson's boat was slower, and thus could employ a wind-vane for self steering, and this drops the power consumption. Sunderland's boat was faster, so it was unable to employ a wind vane. Thus they had to go for a full-time autopilot instead, increasing their power consumption. And the power consumption proved to be a problem. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes and both of her finicky autopilots broke down, making her late in getting to the IO and she got rolled in an early winter storm which, from a planning outlook, was a mistake. Too much stuff which could go wrong... did, it's a hoary old tale which I've seen many times. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The boat choice was made long ago, right about the time Jessica Watson was beginning her trip. My opinion is that Sunderland wanted the speed in part to ensure that she finished at a younger age than Jessica Watson. Sunderland was also a couple of months late in her departure, which put her in the Indian Ocean at a bad time of the year. (SEC (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC))
Some sources have already said the boat choice was mistaken, not fit for her, never mind when it was made. The timing of when she got to the IO is the worst of it. Nobody has said she doesn't know how to sail, she took the risk in an unforgiving racing boat and got rolled by a wave the height of a 3 or 4 story building. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
A lot of it is the problem of trying to sail to a schedule, rather than to the conditions: almost every time I've tried cruising to a schedule we've hit problems that we had to sail through. It's much easier to pick your windows and sail to them, but that doesn't work when you're trying to break records, meet commitments or race. On the boat choice, I don't think it was a coincidence that Michael Perham used an Open 50 when sailing against Zac's cruising Islander 36, and that Abby used an Open 40 to sail against Watson's cruising S&S 34. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, they all played their gambits and fate reaped :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Timing is everything. A slower boat, a bit more delay, and then it would have been impossible for her to set the "youngest circumnavigator" record, which was the main goal of her voyage. (SEC (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC))
Not wanting to get too forumish about this, which this TP is not meant to be, yes and there were plans for a book deal. Risky business. The only controversy is, some of that risk fell back on taxpayers, who would not have shared in any financial proceeds. That's moral hazard. Most folks won't leave 16 year old girls stranded in the Indian Ocean if they can help it, yet it's indeed her life to spin as she pleases. Some say the answer is hefty, mandatory insurance premiums, but there is moral hazard in any mandatory insurance scheme, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we're hashing this out here rather than via edits to the main article; it is a controversial topic. I suggest that before editing the article, we propose and edit the Reaction section here on the TP to reach a consensus. (SEC (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

What's being hashed out? Any editor can add cited edits to that section as they please, so long as the wording is neutral and echoes the source. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

More additional images and videos

{{Helpme}} (Comment removed) --75.47.134.164 (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this template is only for requesting help with Wikipedia. You can put the {{reqphoto}} template at the top of the page if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Month Day Year date format and notice removal

On December 21, 2010, I added the {{Use mdy dates}} to this article and it has been removed twice by anonymous editors (probably one person) who seem to be very interested in single-handed sailors and who have the following IP addresses:

This article uses Month Day Year (for example, January 13, 2011) format and there is no reason to remove the notice. I would like to kindly ask that this template be left in the article. —Diiscool (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox photo

It seems that we're going through a lot of different ideas of the infobox photo. At the moment, the main frontrunners appear to be:

Option 1
File:Abigail Sunderland.jpg
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5

Along with a cropped version of Option 1. I admit to a preference for Option 4, but I think this needs to be settled, as at the moment we have three portrait shots in the article, and one picture with another person as the infobox pic. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The infobox picture should be of the person alone if possible, and that is clearly possible for this article. The image that is being used right now (Option 1 above) is not very good as most of Sunderland's face is in shadow.
Just because all of these images are available on Commons does not mean they need to be included in the article. I think there are too many images of Sunderland in the article as it is now. This is why we have "Media related to Abby Sunderland at Wikimedia Commons" in the External links section. I think Option 4 above is the best for the infobox. —Diiscool (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Either 3 or 4 should replace the current infobox photo. Smile looks a bit more natural on 3. Nevard (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I like the cropped version of option 1, which is File:Abby_Sunderland.jpg for this BLP, by far. I see no worries with the shadowing at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added that to the options above, as it wasn't available when I raised this. I like the pose. My only problem with it is the noise - because it is a very small portion of a large picture, and as the levels needed to be adjusted to remove the shadow, a lot of noise came through in the end. But the pose is the best of the options. - Bilby (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It's noisier but I've found that for the eyes and ears, so to speak, content can and does often trump technical quality. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
That's cool - I'm happy with whatever the consensus is. Personally I find the noise distracting, and so would go with a less noisy portrait, but I'm happy if we go that way as well. - Bilby (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to reduce the noise in that version. I tried when I cropped it but unfortunately the noise is already present in option 1. But I'll leave a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop in case someone knows a trick or two to fix that. Regards SoWhy 10:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I thought you did a great job - you were working with a noisy picture that needed levels lightened, and came out with something pretty good. :) Certainly much better than I would have produced. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I did some work on the fifth image and noticed this discussion. I was a bit surprised to see that the fourth image is not the one used in the infobox or even the article. It seems like an improvement over the current (fifth) one in almost every aspect – lighting, colors, composition, clarity – with the exception of being a few months older. Am I the only one thinking this? —Quibik (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to see #5 in the infobox and #4 gone from the article. It's nice to have high res and sharpness, but I would say the lighting in #4 along with the pose are lacking in sundry ways (which can easily happen in any snap, of technically high quality or otherwise). I like the overall outcome and look of #5 more and that trumps it for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Had a few minutes, looked closely again at #4, I find it more washed out (gamma too high, contrast too low) than I thought it was and perhaps taken from too high an angle for the pose, hence I'm not keen on the composition or the technical quality of #4. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Abigail Sunderland.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abigail Sunderland.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abby Sunderland. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Abby Sunderland. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abby Sunderland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"Official Website"

The domain abbysunderland.com as now been taken over by a shady Japanese balding cure. I'm going to remove it. - Entrybreak (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abby_Sunderland/Archive_1&oldid=1158454956"