Talk:Dean Barker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents

[edit] Outmanoeuvred?

  • Ref the recent addition:- "
Barker was clearly outmanoeuvred by Butterworth in all of the five races won by Alinghi. [1] Thus a series that many experts believed should have been won by Emirates Team New Zealand, ended up being markedly one-sided. Barker was criticised by some New Zealand fans for a "lack of coolness under pressure."
How can a tactician (Butterworth) outmanoeuvre a helmsman (Barker)? Tacticians outmanoevre tacticians and helmsman outmanoevre helmsman. After the start the helmsman plays a much reduced role in the decision making relating to where to position the boat on the race course. Barker was not out-manoevred by Butterworth and the ETNZ after-guard was not outmanoevred by the Alinghi after-guard. Each team made mistakes.
The series was not one-sided. Experts and commentators view the 2007 America's Cup as the closest and most exciting since Australia II won 25 years ago. Why exciting? Because in 5 of the races the lead changed hands during the course race. This is possibly unique in the entire history of the America's Cup. Why the closest? The average winning margin across all races was 24 seconds (each race lasting for over 90 minutes) and 1 race was won by 1 second. 5-2 in isolation looks one-sided but the racing was definitely not one-sided This article does not have a balanced view and needs modification. Boatman 07:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ref above, the text has been rmoved from the article by user 131.111.151.217. Boatman 09:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


  • When you lose 4 races in a row, no matter how close each race was, the overall outcome is still a trouncing. If the boats and crew were evenly actually matched 50-50 and the results came down purely to chance, and not boat design and skill of the crew, the probability of losing 4 in a row is ½ * ½ * ½ * ½ = 1/16. So that means that there is a 15/16 (94%) chance that Team New Zealand were actually a team of no-hopers vs a 6% chance that it was all just bad luck.
Out of 12 Americas Cup races Barker has won just TWO. That abysmal record speaks for itself. His celebrity (married to Mandy Smith) and wealth should not make him immune from criticism. And in fact Many experts do attribute his throwing away early leads in at least two of the races to poor decision making on the part of Barker. Barker is definitely no Butterworth and definitely no Coutts.
  • I have not analysed in detail Barker's AC performance but a couple of obvious comments are, was he responsible for the mast falling down, was he responsible for the boat taking on excessive weight of water? Also decision making is done by the afterguard of 4 people. ETNZ 2007 is a team of 120+ people. Not sure why you single out Barker as responsible for the defeat. We will never know for example if tactician Terry Hutchinson said to Dean Barker "Tack now" and it was subsequently a bad call that observers then put down to a decision by Barker. One of the many key factors in winning the America's Cup is afterguard interaction. Read Dalton's interview regarding the pain he put Barker through to see if he was strong enough for an AC campaign after the previous disater. Coutts gave Barker the helm in a previous race. If he was so bad why did Dalton not choose the triple Olympic medal winner and match race winner available on the ETNZ team for 2007? Barker may not be the best match racer on the planet but he cannot fairly be portrayed as the man who lost the AC for New Zealand. Boatman 07:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Boatman: you are being ridiculous. Barker was in charge. He takes the responsibility.Even if it transpires that Terry Hutchinson made some bad calls - why then did not Barker request that he be replaced? The result is 5:2 down. That is a thrashing. When the All Blacks lost to Australia, McCaws captaincy was rightly called into question. Why not the same for Barker? If Barker had a shred of decency he would fall on his sword; not put his hand out for more hard-earned tax-payers dollars to waste.
  • Do you mean Barker or Dalton in your most recent comments? I did not realize Barker had worked with the NZL government to secure interim funding, I thought Dalton was responsible for securing funding. Boatman 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lgask to Boatman

  • ..that is not the point whether it is Barker or Dalton who directly works for funding.
No, the point here is that Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia. If there is a proof point that Barker put proposals to the NZ Government for interim funding to keep the team together then fantastic please include in the article. If there is a proof point that Barker met Ms Clarke in the pub with tears in his eyes and went on bended knee to ask for some money to get over a cash crisis then great include it in the article. If there is a proof point that it was Dalton then fantastic and please start and include in a Grant Dalton article. If the NZ goverment did it unprompted then fantastic, lets include. The point is Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of facts.Boatman 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously Barker wants the funding,
Yes he does. Boatman 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • .... will pocket it happily if TNZ gets it and will most certainly benefit from it.
Yes he will if he remains associated with ETNZ. Boatman 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are you so averse to any sort of negative reference to Mr Barker.
Wikepedia requires facts with proof points. eg One year Barker did not qualify for the Olypmics - FACT from published results of the trials. eg Another time Barker did qualify for the Olympic Games - FACT from the ISAF. Barker went cap in hand for more money - where is the proof point and then include in the article. I am totally neutral re Barker, I have never met him, never heard him speak or interviewed and not knowingly read anything that he has written. Boatman 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I gather you are English. If the English soccer team lost four matches in a row at say the World Cup or European Championships, how do you think the English press and the English themselves would react?
The English press would react extremely badly, the Scottish press would jump for joy, I would go down to the pub with my mates and bad mouth most of the team and the manager (this all happens far too often nowadays!) but Wikipedia is an unemotional encyclopedia and would record the facts. Boatman 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I have protected the page to encourage discussion and compromise. Please attempt to find a consensus that will end the disruptive edit-warring and allow productive editing to continue. When you feel you have reached that point, you can ask for the page to be unprotected by leaving a message on my Talk Page or at WP:RPP.

--Richard 00:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content dispute

I have looked at the edits provided on WP:ANI by User:Limegreen and have formed an opinion. Of course, it is not the job of an admin to resolve content disputes so please take what follows as just the opinion of an uninvolved outsider. The fact that I am an admin gives me no extra clout in a content dispute. I readily admit that I know nothing about yachting so take what follows with the appropriate grains of salt.

Lgask wrote:

Barker has had mixed success in the sport of competitive yachting. Of twelve America's Cup races he has helmed, he has won only two.

It is my impression that Lgask is too harsh on Dean Barker. I think it is reasonable to say that Barker has had "mixed success". That's pretty charitable considering he's only won twice out of twelve competitions. On the other hand, one has to ask what the records of other skippers are. Is it typical for other America's Cup skippers to have significantly better win/loss ratios?

  • There have only been 5 America's Cup Cometitions in the last 20 years. There have only been 8 (approx) different helmsman in the 5 competitions over 20 years. Therefore to state that 'had mixed success in the sport of competitive yachting" based on America's Cup performance is a huge jump. (To go even further - In the 156 year history of the America's Cup only 4 challenger helmsman have a better record!!) Boatman 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading the source provided by Lgask, it appears that Barker may have been outmanoeuvered by Alinghi but the article does not offer the same harsh criticism that Lgask does. Reading the article, it looks like it was a fairly even competition (Barker even nailed the Swiss with the "sambuka" maneuver) that the Swiss happened to win, perhaps through superior sailing, perhaps through better luck. There's no indication in the article that Barker was incompetent or "out of his league".

Lgask wrote:

In the 2007 Americas Cup series in Valencia, Spain, Barker clearly showed he was not at the top level of international yachtsmen. Emirates Team New Zealand, of which he was the skipper, went down decisively 5-2 to the Swiss boat Alinghi. Barker was clearly outmanoeuvred by the Swiss boat in all of the five races won by Alinghi.[1]

It seems reasonable to mention that TNZ lost to Alinghi by 5-2. I think more sources are needed to establish that Barker was "not at the top level of international yachtsmen". Right now, it looks like the personal opinion of Lgask and thus qualifies as unacceptable OR. If you want to criticize someone, put it in the mouth of a reliable source.

Lgask wrote:

Childhood friend Hamish Pepper said of Barker; "the biggest thing he probably had over me was financial support. He could study, and sail at the same level as myself, while I had to work to earn it. I wouldn't say it's an advantage he had - it's been a bit of a luxury."

Well, it's sourced and it's not really libellous. The problem, IMO, is that it's unencyclopedic petty trash-talking. Yes, Barker was a rich kid. Perhaps other America's Cup skippers are too? This isn't the sports page or a gossip column. I don't see what this tidbit of juicy gossip-mongering adds to the article. I would take it out.

Hope that helps.

--Richard 00:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the constructive intervention. I have added a comment above. Lets see what Lgask comes back with. Thanks Boatman 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

LGask: Barkers has won 2 out of 12 races at Americas cup events. Surely the term 'mixed success' is appropriate. He is most certainly not 'successful'. 'Mixed success' simply means that although he did not reclaim the trophy for NZ, he did put in, according to some anyway, a creditable performance (this is not my own opinion, but I have moderated my language in deference to Boatman).

  • Hi LGask, If 'mixed success' becomes 'mixed success in the America's Cup' you have the basis for a fair statement suitable for an encyclopedia. rgds, Boatman 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgask (talk • contribs)

It would be better if you could put the assessment of Barker's skill in the mouth of a reliable source. The NZ Herald article says nothing in this regard. What do other reliable sources say? It may well be that there is some disagreement as to how good a yachtsman Barker is. If so, then cite all POVs without giving undue weight to any of them.
At the end of the day, it is not our job to assess Barker's skill as a yachtsman. Wikipedia readers don't care what Boatman, Lgask or Richardshusr think of Barker's skill. Wikipedia readers want to know what reliable sources think of Barker's skill. As reasonable as it may sound, the leap from "2 out of 12" to "mixed success" is still arguably original research. Far better to put it in the mouth of a reliable source.
--Richard 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we retain Hamish Pepper's comment. Barkers background is pertinent to understanding what he has achieved thusfar. The quote is from an impeccable source - the New Zealand Herald - certainly not a tabloid paper. The NZ Herald is NZs largest circulation daily newspaper. The Herald included the quote in its own article about Barker. Obviously the author of the original Herlad article felt mentioning the background of Barker and obtaining the opinion of his childhood friend and fellow yachtsman was important in understanding Barker the man. Nothing 'gossipy' about the quote whatsoever.

The article as it currently stands is fair to Barker, accurately describes events in his life and informs the reader as to some of the reasons for Barker's success as a sailor.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgask (talk • contribs)

I continue to disagree. Just because something is published in a newspaper article doesn't make it encyclopedic. Entire Wikipedia articles are deleted routinely even though they are based on something reported in the newspapers. The NZ Herald is a reliable source about what Pepper said. What make Pepper a reliable source about the basis of Barker's skill as a yachtsman? Is Hamish Pepper notable as a yachtsman or a commentator on yachting? Seems to me that he is just a school chum that the reporter dug up for a juicy quote with which to whack Barker.
Can you provide reliable sources that suggest that Barker's success is due solely or even primarily to his affluent origins? Is it the case that many or even most successful yachtsmen are rich? Or can it be shown that a significant percentage come from humbler backgrounds?
Your attempt to introduce this quote opens up a huge debate which cannot be settled solely on a single quote from a school chum. If there is, indeed, a larger debate about the role of wealth in the sport of yachting, then perhaps the Pepper comment about Barker can be included within the context of the larger debate. If not, then this smacks of sour grapes from a less-advantaged and less successful school chum (I wouldn't use the word "friend" to describe Pepper).
--Richard 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "not at the top level"

I have removed "Barker clearly showed he was not at the top level of international yachtsmen" as being arguably a violation of WP:BLP. I don't think it really is a violation of WP:BLP. Really, the problem is that, without a reliable source, it is original research. I think the text could be re-inserted if it was cited to a reliable source. The other point would be to maintain a NPOV stance.

It would be good if we could collect quotes from multiple sources characterizing Barker's skill as a yachtsman.

--Richard 18:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

On balance, I suspect that it might be. First up, Lgask is wrong about Barker's cup record. He also won a race in 2000, making his record 3 of 13 by my count. Of the 5 races in the 2003 America's Cup, Team New Zealand had gear failures in 3 (including a broken mast), and lost the other 2 races by 23 and 7 seconds, which I would consider tight margins. I'm not a yachting expert, but I don't see these type of gear failures as the fault of the skipper. The 2007 America's Cup margins seem closer than the 5-2 scoreline would imply (including a 1 sec loss). It is also worth noting the role of boat speed: Of the last 7 America's Cup, all bar 2 have been whitewashes, so for the loosing team to win any races is doing well. I think "decisively" is quite POV. My reading of the media was more in line with my opinion that the regatta was much more even than the scoreline would imply. A selection of quotes from the herald [1]:
  • In what will go down as one of the closest America's Cups in history
  • Like every race this morning's was an arm wrestle around the entire course.
  • Following the disappointing 2003 defence where they were cleaned out by Alinghi 5-0, Dean Barker and his men have come back and shown why New Zealand have been in every America's Cup match since 1995.
Further, to challenge for the America's Cup, Team New Zealand had to win the 2007 Louis Vuitton Cup, which is evidence of Barker being at the top level, I think.
And as to the comments by Hamish Pepper. I note in one of the article's about Barker given as a reference, Pepper only has positive things to say about Barker (e.g., "he’s a born leader. He’s very smart and he knows how to get the best out of the guys."[2]). They obviously do know each other quite well, having been to school together, lived and sailed in Europe together. Barker has been Pepper's coach, and Pepper was, it seems, at one time involved in Team New Zealand. I'm not sure what to make of the apparent change in opinion.
--Limegreen 22:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outmanoeuvred?

I can't access the page added to reference the "Barker was clearly outmanoeuvred by the Swiss boat in all of the five races won by Alinghi", but it doesn't seem to match the race descriptions at 2007 America's Cup. Also, I think it is interesting to contrast Lgask's additions to the lead section with the description of Barker's America's Cup record in the America's Cup section.--Limegreen 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lgask 02:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
LGask: Barker would certainly himself describe his own record as less than exemplary. Grant Dalton said that anything short of returning the Americas Cup trophy to New Zealand would be a failure in his and indeed the whole of Team NZs eyes. There are only a few yachtsman in the world who have the opportunity to take part in these bit regattas. Those who are at the top of their game, currently and historically would obviously be Russell Coutts (the greatest of them all), Dennis Connor, Brad Butterworth, Peter Blake. Dean Barker has not achieved enough yet to enter this top echelon.
Someone said Barker had a victory in 2000 - come on - that was when Russell Coutts handed over to him in the dying moments of the final race that had already been won.
  • Hi Lgask, I thought Coutts stayed on shore and Barker helmed the entire race. The official records credit the race (and a total of three wins) to Barker. If 'Russell Coutts handed over to him in the dying moments of the final race that had already been won' then as always lets have the proof point and then the article should state Barker's official record is 3-10 with a qualifying note pointing out that 'the first win was credited to Barker because Russell Coutts handed over the helm to Barker in the dying moments of the final race that had already been won' Boatman 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone said:
I'm not a yachting expert, but I don't see these type of gear failures as the fault of the skipper.
That is not the point. Whether or not someone is considered at the top of their game is based on their record of success vs failures, and nothing else. You may be most naturally gifted footballer in the world - suffer a debilitating injury and put out to pasture. You cannot then say that you should receive the accolades for what you could have or would have achieved had you been able to continue on with your career. And Richie McCaw (captain of the All Blacks) will have to bear full responsibility if the All Blacks fail to take out the RWC. He won't be able to blame his forward pack, the lack of a good centre, the toss of the coin etc. In fact success in any field is a combination of talent, opportunity to nurture that talent, and luck, all three in equal measure.
So don't for a moment say Barker's record is not 'mixed' simply because he may have done better if there had been no gear failure. And by the way Alinghi also had gear failure in the final Valencia race but still held on to win.
Barker's record is certainly mixed. You obviously have an extremely high standards for both giving out praise, and for taking responsibility. Barker's record is certainly mixed, but I don't see how you come back from a broken mast. There are some levels of gear failure that aren't recoverable. If the mast had broken because of some violent gyb, then I might blame Barker, but otherwise not.
As for McCaw and the RWC, I certainly wouldn't expect McCaw to take full responsibility. I don't expect the ABs to win, and I think there is someone else who is responsible for that.
This isn't about putting Barker on some pedestal. There is room for some balanced criticism, but there is no reason to leave knives in his back.--Limegreen 06:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Limegreen highlights the key point in this discussion ie "balanced criticism" is a requirement for an encyclopedia Boatman 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged WP:BLP violations

Well, there have been complaints by User:Proabivouac and User:John254 about my having protected the "wrong" version of the page, leaving in what they claim are WP:BLP violations. Believe me, if I thought that there were true WP:BLP violations, I would have corrected those first before protecting the page.

However, I'm not interested in getting into a long dispute about whether or not the text in question is a WP:BLP violation or just, as I see it, unencyclopedic text that smacks of original research. Some of it appears to be unbalanced minority POV (i.e. not necessarily false, just undue weight). In my opinion, the advisability and encyclopedicity of the text is marginal and debatable but I'm not willing to get into a dispute to try and defend it.

I am deleting the text in question on the premise that it can always be re-added if a consensus forms to re-insert it and if adequate sourcing is found.

--Richard 04:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard, "wrong version" is not a joke where BLP is concerned. Do you have a profession? Imagine you're out of work and are looking for a job in your profession, but can't find any. Now you come across wikipedia, and discover there is an article about you. It says that Richard [your real name] is famously inept, having bungled task after professional task and let all his sponsors (employers, clients) down. Then someone has tracked down someone you knew as a kid who says the only reason you ever got anywhere in life was because of your dad, accompanied by, "Some believe that …" All this in the lead. How would you feel about Wikipedia? What would you do?
You are quite wrong if you don't believe these are violations of BLP. "Unencyclopedic text that smacks of original research" and is "unbalanced" is a violation. The time to remove it isn't tomorrow or next week, it's today, right now.Proabivouac 09:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)