Talk:Reid Stowe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Article status The period of time from 1978 to 1997 is not documented yet. Mr. Stowe conducted a five month voyage to Antartica with a crew of eight; originating from New Zealand Added summary information about the Antarctic trip, 1986 - 1987. As for the rest of the time, he seemed below the radar screens insofar as published information is concerned. — Gosgood 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC) coverage of the actual start of the 1000 Days at Sea, commencing April 21, 2007, not in place yet. Added today — Gosgood 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC) references are a bit thin; text has overdependence on an interview between Stowe and Hudson Channer: old (04-Aug-2003), and the interviewer only asked softball questions There is a later Stowe/Channer interview that aired on 01-Apr-2005: have not reviewed it yet. — Gosgood 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Reid Stowe is something of a media darling at http:goodnewsbroadcast.com; the material there may be of some use, but I found it to be light on content and long on good feelings. Coverage of his activities from 2003 to 2007 is spotty; the New York Times seems to have lost interest in him. I haven't tracked down real basic stuff yet: such as his exact date of birth. surmised from the project blog. The Jan 08 2007 blog entry notes his birthday party on the previous day. I've found few sources critical of Stowe; this causes me to raise one eyebrow. Good strong print references are presently hard to come by; Mr. Stowe is a bit of a media darling, and available material reflects that. Gosgood 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Update: Nothing in the article on his career as a fine artist. The project blog does make reference to sold paintings, but I don't have references yet documenting whether a gallery represents him or who has purchased his work recently. http://www.reidstowe.netfirms.com/ pesumably has some information, but is usually beyond its delivery capacity. In 2005, Reid Stowe made a CD with S B, Reid and Suzanna The Bloodlines Some detils at CDBaby and International Herald Daily News. According to the first link, S.B. considered being a part of Mr. Stowe's crew, but decided against it for greatly differing "philosophy’s and basic moral standards." Gosgood 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Removed from the main article by Gosgood 12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Contents 1 Prison 2 Refernces 3 Divorce 4 WP:BLP reminder 5 Incidents at sea 6 Unsourced Material 7 External reference #7 8 Removal of Autobiography, Disputed, Notability templates. 9 See also and youtube cite 10 Quote 11 Retain neutral content 11.1 Regarding January 29, 2008 edits 12 Talk page notes 13 Sailing Anarchy external link 14 Link to 1000daysofhell 15 Regatta Dog March 2nd edits 15.1 March 02 edits [edit] Prison Reid was arrested in Manhattan and extradited to Maine in 1991. Reid's trial is public record via Docket #91-2365. His release from federal prison is documented via the Federal Bureau of Prisons website, but no details are given.[1] I do not claim that this is false, but I have reason to doubt that it is about the Reid Stowe of this article. Mr Stowe of this article was born January 7, 1952; he would have been in his early forties at the time of this release, not 55. Unless (and until) this can be documented unambiguously, WP:BLP compels its removal. To quote: we must get it right. This addition is not sufficiently documented for me to conclude that with confidence. Gosgood 12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC) If you read the documentation on the Bureau of Prisons web site, the age refers to the prisoners current age; not the age when he was released. 65.60.211.107 20:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Granted, anon, the record is certainly about Reid Stowe. But what sort of story does this record support? The Bureau of Prisons itself asks us to note that an entry in the BOP locator database does not necessarily mean the person has been sentenced and is serving time; it may be that "a person was detained pre-trial but criminal charges were dismissed, held as a material witness, [or] held for civil contempt." So this record in and of it self does not support "ex-con" allegations that various anonymous editors were inserting into the article last September 27th. Mmoes says he looked up the docket number and, in conjunction with the BOP data, comes away with a story that, to my mind, is of pretty limited scope; Reid Stowe was held for a year or so until his testimony concerning the trafficking of marijuana, supporting charges against David Munsell and James Twombley was secured. Now I happen to be reading this from Mmoes Wikipedia talk page, not the court papers, and Wikipedia talk pages are absolutely unreliable sources. However, for sake of discussion, let us suppose that Mmoes is accurately reproducing court papers, even the plea-bargain part. What is the story these papers support? Certainly not that Stowe was involved in drug trafficking: he wasn't charged with anything. It seems he was held as a 'material witness' (my interpretation, not necessarily factual). Taking again for sake of discussion that these court papers are accurately reproduced, does this source now warrant the inclusion of the 'Prison section' in the main article? Absolutely not. Court papers, though public records, are primary sources. They are 'raw stuff' that goes into the analysis, synthesis, and interpretation furnished by an author/journalist composing a secondary source: a newspaper or magazine article, or a book. When a tertiary work like Wikipedia looks for foundation references for its articles, it turns mainly to secondary sources because, by and large, wikipedia editors are not competent to apply analysis, synthessis, and interpretation "to make sense" of raw primary sources: to do so would be to engage in original research. This material on Mmnos talk page furnishes a working example: we interpret all kinds of dark and nasty things about Reid Stowe. Thoughts that the guy was just as guilty as the rest of 'em, but plea-bargained his way out of a near-certain conviction, automatically leaps to mind to all but the most innocent naif and is just the sort of on-the-fly "synthesis" that Wikipedia absolutely wants to avoid, because to allow such synthesis to occur in connection with a biography of a living person opens Wikipedia up to charges of libel. I'm not here to defend Reid Stowe's innocence because I'm credulous, I'm here to defend Wikipedia from libel, and I do so absolutely out of self-interest: it's a useful resource; I donate money to keep it running, and I'd rather see my money used to buy server storage and pay for electricity, than have it line the pockets of defense lawyers because Reid Stowe finds the basis for a libel suit in his Wikipedia biography and he needs money to fix the bow sprit. Now you may be cut from different cloth, whoever you are, and think that this Reid Stowe character is just about pulling the wool over the eyes of everyone on the planet, save for a few clear-headed types such as yourself. So be it. While I'm making all kinds of assumptions for sake of discussion, I'll make the assumption that you are a journalist of no small calibre. Then you know the deal: take the bits and pieces you have on Stowe to an editor of a reputable journal and do the story pitch. If you pull it off, you'll get some money up front (not a lot, but maybe enough to avoid the 9-to-5 gigs for awhile), a byline, and and some time to put The Truth all together. Once it's published, meaning that an editor is willing to stake his or her publication's reputation on your work, then Wikipedia has a decent secondary source on the dark side of Reid Stowe, a framework in which to cite these court papers, and a basis for changing the article. Short of that, find the journalist who has already put together the article. Short of that — well if entails bits and pieces of primary sources that engender interpretive guess work, then you've just plowed up against my pig-headed self-interest, which, at times, makes me something of an exclusionist. Have fun. Gosgood 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Regatta dog has posted facsimiles and transcripts of Reid Stowe's sentencing hearing at 1000 Days of Hell blog; the editor had obtained the documents via the Freedom of Information Act. Reid Stowe had pleaded guilty to importing 30,000 pounds of marijuana into the State of Maine. The sentencing hearing was held January 22, 1993 concerning criminal importation of marijuana into Maine in 1987; Stowe was sentenced to a one year term of imprisonment. It was a light sentence; Stowe was a minor figure in a larger importation scheme, according to the sentencing transcript. In this matter, I believe Biography of Living Persons, Presumption in favor of privacy rules. He did it. He regrets it. He pleaded guilty. He served his time. The sentence he received does not entail wearing a scarlet letter for the rest of his born days. It has little bearing on the article. Enough said. Gosgood (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC) [edit] Refernces ^ Federal Bureau of Prisons (1993). Inmate Locator (English). Federal Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved on September 27, 2007. (edit)

An entry from Reid Stowe appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 May 2007.

This has got to be an autobiography, this guy links directly to this wiki from his website. Definately POV bias. Evensen1982 13:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reid Stowe did not write this; I'm one of the principle contributors and I like it enough on dry land to convince me that I'm not Reid Stowe. The lack of critical commentary is a concern I share; see Biography specific remarks. He appears to have his detractors among professional mariners. Judging from comments posted to the 1,000 Days at Sea blog, at the time of the May collision, many professed being alarmed by what they regarded as insufficient planning, and the wisdom of taking as a first mate, an individual with practically no open ocean sailing experience. However, none of those blog posters identified themselves, or pointed to a good secondary source with well-reasoned, decently researched material, by an author willing to use a real name in print, so the criticism, at present, is so much blog-babble. With the absence of published, critical commentary, this article IS unbalanced, which is why it is marked 'Start' — "The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas... One could prod it for deletion, I suppose, but personally I find that dissatisfying. What establishes Wikipedia's utility is that it does, indeed, have information on material that is probably obscure to 99 and 44/100 percent of the readership, but which some editor in the 66/100 percentile thought was worth the effort to scrape together enough information for a partial (incomplete, unbalanced, and not entirely accurate) answer that, at least, gives a hint to the other 99 44/100 percent of humanity, and therefore is better than no answer at all. In that spirit I invite you to invest some effort to proactively do something about the POV bias. Scan the nautical literature. Uncover critical review. Find supporting references. To the best of my knowledge, the professional mariner, behaviorist, or survivalist who thinks Reid Stowe is Looney Tunes has yet to put his or her reputation on the line in a reasoned, published article with his or her byline. It's up to you (and others like you) to show that the best of my knowledge is not good enough: find that article (or two or three) that takes Reid Stowe to task and address the unbalance with your new material. Remember: WP:BLP calls on us to be careful with our reference work. Have fun; looking forward to your contributions. — Gosgood 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce

When did he divorce Guillem? --84.20.17.84 09:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP reminder

Reminder to editors that adding unsourced, defamatory or controversial information is not allowed, per the biographies of living persons policy. While the reference for the "Prison" section is a page that shows he was indeed, in jail, it does not give any reason why, and thus, until a reference that can verify this was a DEA involved arrest, those comments are hidden. Any additions that are disparaging, or negative, need to be backed up by a reliable, third-party source. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Mr. Osgood and the missive he sent me regarding verifiability of sources, it would appear that much of the information provided by Mr. Stowe apparently cannot be verified independently. I'm also a little confused as to why Mr. Osgood would send me a link to the '1000 Days of Hell' site. 68.34.160.253 21:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For this particular article, Mr. Stowe has provided no information whatsoever. In light of that, I don't think that it is apt to question the verifiability of 'his' information versus that furnished by anyone else; he is not playing in this sandbox. You are welcome to question the verifiability of information that I have provided in this article. Such questioning is the normal mode of operation for Wikipedia. In that narrow focus then, how well verified is the information in this article? I claim 'pretty well.' But I also think that the article has large omissions and hope that other editors can address them, so long as standards of verifiability are understood by all participants.

Information in this article stems mainly from sources that I found published around May, 2007 when, upon hearing of Stowe's endeavor, was surprised to find that Wikipedia had no article on him. Since I value Wikipedia for its ability to furnish information on every inquiry imaginable, I took it upon myself to fill the gap. In this endeavor, I tried to govern my effort in accordance with policy on biography of living persons, neutrality of viewpoint, no original research, and verifiability. I like to think that I've done a decent job with respect to these four policies, but that may just be my hubris. I've made liberal use of the {{Citation}} template embedded in <ref>...</ref> tags so readers can find the references I've cited and judge for themselves if they adequately back up the prose I've written. I welcome — indeed, implore — any reader to don the editorial hat, audit the references and cross-check my efforts. Grounding an article on verifiable sources happens to be tiresome, error-prone work and, in the interest of quality, should be performed by as many editors as possible.

On the flip side, I hold all other editors' contribution to the same standards to which I hold myself. I go through that tiresome, error-prone business of finding backing references and, quite frankly, expect other editors to shape the same course. Nor am I alone in this expectation. There is a very active Wikipedia project called the Recent Changes Patrol that monitors articles which suddenly undergo major changes. The editor that pulled many of the sub-par edits last month, ArielGold, is a participant of that project and became aware of significant changes to this article by monitoring the Recent changes stream, requesting that the page be put under semi-protection. This editor has no particular interest in Reid Stowe but is interested in ensuring that the information in articles adhere to certain standards of verifiability. I expect that when this article undergoes its next assault (not 'if', 'when'), recent change patrollers will sniff the smoke again and attempt to put out the fire. That, too, is dull, dull work, sad in that it saps Wikipedia resources, but necessary because there are many readers of Wikipedia who passionately believe that Wikipedia is hiding, avoiding, or supressing the truth, especially in biographical articles, where all kinds of 'criminal behavior' are masked by 'politically correct' prose. Hundreds of articles are changed daily by editors who are passionately motivated to get the 'truth' out, and, to their astounded outrage, find their edits reverted in minutes, if not seconds.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter, I think: 'truth.' You may have concerns about the 'truth' of Reid Stowe not being represented in this article, and perhaps you hold the opinion that Wikipedia is engaging in a conspiracy to 'hide' all manner of truths about him from the public. Wikipedia does not deal directly in truth. It cannot. Necesarily, then, it deals with truth's proxy, verifiability. It must follow this indirection because its contributors, by and large, are anonymous or choose not to disclose themselves beyond what they say about themselves on their user pages under wikipedia 'identities.' The few who do furnish their 'true' identities cannot be trusted: Recall the whole Essjay controversy. Since contributors can't be trusted, how can their contributions be made trustworthy? it is not directly through the writing of its contributors, but through the diligence of its contributors in furnishing verifiable references. It is through no other connection than this that Wikipedia can claim to be authoritative on anything. This is not a perfect connection, or even a good one, but I think it is the best game in town. Similarly, Wikipedia's connection to the body of information surrounding Reid Stowe is indirect, through noncritical human interest stories that surfaced during his various attempts at getting his voyage under weigh. If there seems to be 'hiding of information' about Reid Stowe in this article, then it is a manifestation that these human interest articles are collectively incomplete.

Should something be done about this 'missing information'? Absolutely, but the effort is not trivial, nor should it be trivialized. There are holes in this 'biography' of Reid Stowe: big ones, That is why this article has a start rating and is presently worthy of no better one. But filling these holes have got to be done responsibly, which WP:BLP spells out.

Many would-be contributors to Wikipedia think that the encyclopedia is absolutely frustrating in this regard, finding the citations to WP-this, and WP-that maddening when they discover that their edits have been deleted. I appreciate this feeling, having experienced it, but do not sympathize with it. There is a craft to anything: sailing a small boat; contributing to an encyclopedia. Mature people figure out what the applicable skills are and strive to master them. Those who do master them find that their edits stick; they gain respect among Wikipedians and they possibly even improve the encyclopedia. All others simply cause process friction to varying degrees, and Wikipedia has developed mechanisms to deal with them. Sadly, maintaining those mechanisms sap effort from directly working on articles. Such is the cost of doing business.

I mentioned the 1,000 Days of Hell blog site only because there are other venues and other wikipedias with different editorial standards. If you do feel compelled to get the truth out, whatever that is, you may wish to investigate one of them and publish there. The thought had crossed my mind that you may very well be one of the contributors to the 1,000 Days of Hell blog, but I have no way of knowing that; to me you are a bunch of fingers behind an IP address that makes letters appear inside of Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions — written with absolutely no intent of sarcasm whatsover — and take care. Gosgood 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents at sea

There is no evidence, other than Stowe's blog, that Stowe did have a collision with a Maersk freighter. Unless this claim can be supported through third party documents, I think that reference to this incident should be removed, as it portrays Maersk in a poor light. Evidence such as an accident report from the freighter, insurance documentation, or a report from the Coast Guard would validate this claim. NautiGirl 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the first "incident" as well since it is not sourced. Cheers, --Tom 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Material

Large amounts of the material in this article seems to have been directly supplied by Reid Stowe or supporters of Reid Stowe. Much of the information from the main stream media seems to have simply been taken from press releases by Reid Stowe or from interviews with Reid Stowe. There also seems to be a large amount of information that has been posted here via "sock puppets" edit: sorry actually "meat puppets" Mmoes 20:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

One site in particular is bothersome -- "though Stowe maintains personal contacts with a number of present and former NASA personnel.[2]" That site is from an interview more than 4 years ago and is solely Reid's statement without any collaboration from current or former NASA personnel. Due to the lack of collaboration and that the statement was made more than 4 years ago, that line should be stricken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Regatta dog is correct that the reference to the alleged association with NASA be stricken, but in the interim, I have changed just a couple of words to avoid misleading the reader. I have removed the word "presently" from the line "...there is presently no formal connection between Stowe's project and the major space agencys' research on humans coping..." as it implies that there may have once been a connection or might yet possibly be a connection -- of which neither idea has any source.

Further, I have changed "though Stowe maintains personal contacts with a number of present and former NASA personnel" to "though Stowe claims to maintain personal contacts with a number of present and former NASA personnel" as it more accurately reflects the source -- an interview with Stowe, himself. Oldgoatroper 04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting my first edit "there is presently no formal connection" ... I've also removed the word "formal" as the article cited does not, in fact, intimate ANY kind of connection whatsoever, casual, formal, or otherwise. Oldgoatroper 05:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External reference #7

I'm seriously wondering if external link #7 should be removed. (^ a b Reid Stowe (2007-04-21). 1000 Days at Sea. Press release. Retrieved on 13 May 2007.) Says that NASA as well as the Smithsonian Institution have interest in the endeavour. Aloha27 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I will remove it. --Tom 19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Autobiography, Disputed, Notability templates.

I removed these templates for reasons stated here.

• There is no basis for using the {{Autobiography}} template simply because it seems plausible. One has to confirm that a meat puppet is in play. Simply saying so doesn't make it so.
• There can be a basis for the {{Dispute}} template. I gather, because of inexperience, the editor did not set a topic of discussion, which the template documentation requests. I trust an editor with a less than perfect admiration for Reid Stowe can repost the tag with a particular matter that is in dispute, so the discussion can move from procedural to substantive areas.
• I removed the {{Notability}} template. It seems that Stowe has an entire blog site nipping at his heels, establishing some kind of notariety (negative notability?), and his feat, act of foolishness or not, seem on par with a number of other minor notables who have undertaken one or two interesting things in the past few decades.

I think these templates have been inexpertly used, and in my humble opinion are generally overused as a substitute for actually editing articles and furnishing references that make a case. I concur with editors that the article is unbalanced, but hope that new editors will bring new material to the table, not hearsay, or personal guesswork, but material, critical of Stowe that has appeared in verifiable sources. I've made that case more fully elsewhere and won't repeat it here. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also and youtube cite

Hey Gosgood, I removed the see also per WP:GTL. If you can work those other folks into the article, ok I guess. Also, youtube is not an appropriate cite for this project. Anyways, cheers, --Tom (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not appropriate? How So? There is no blanket ban on rich media, especially when the same is a supporting reference, for reasons that I've gone into on your talk page. The concept of citing video media is certainly supported in Wikipedia's citation scheme. See {{cite video}}.

• • (Next morning...) Forgive me. Sometimes I'm a bit slow on the uptake. Are the grounds of your objections to the inclusion of this reference is that it is a direct citation of YouTube? Please review the citation that you pulled, and the care and feeding of the {{cite video}} template. I'm citing Manhattan Neighborhood Network, a publisher of video media works, which runs a series called "Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer" The particular program being cited aired on August 04, 2003. YouTube functions here simply as a digital repository, similar in function to New York Times Select for accessing digitized copies of the New York Times or Google Books for accessing digitized copies of printed books. In the latter two cases, one doesn't cite the repositories, but the underlying material in the repository.
  • One can (and should) inquire whether the repository has a legitimate copy of the work. The user who posted this calls himself 'haroldchanner' and following his user link shows a picture that appears to be the interviewer himself. One can split hairs here, but I'm satisfied that Harold Channer, as representative of Manhattan Neighborhood Network, is permitting this content to be accessed and cited. In light of this, what is your particular objection to this source? _{(Forgot to sign. Datestamp is late. See 'Next morning...' below for when this was written)} Gosgood (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Section 6.3 See Also in the Guide to Layout does not ban 'See Also' sections. They are common in articles that have earned both WP:GA and WP:FA ratings. Indeed, the featured article for today (November 25) has a 'See also' section. And as near as I can determine, the Feature article review raised no issue with that section being present in the article.
• What this GTL section prefers editors to do is, as they develop articles, to supplant internal links with a few sentences about how the internal topic relates to the article at hand, a useful development technique to move a particular article toward self-sufficiency. In light of that preference then, the 'See also' section serves its purpose as an intermediary structure, a useful aid to readers until the editors do more integration work. That guidance does not, in any fashion, deprecate 'See Also' sections. Nor does it implore editors to remove them wherever they appear. As recognized by any number of featured article reviews, 'See Also' sections serve general readers as intermediary navigational aids, and they are present even in the very best Wikipedia articles.

I think it would be useful to read what other editors think, so I plan to take no immediate action and see what other comments occur in this thread. However, after a week, in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, I will restore the reference and the 'See Also' section, because, at present, I don't think you've made your case either in regard to the Guide to Layout or what constitutes an appropriate citation. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• • (Next morning...) I've no right to set deadlines here. I withdraw it. If we disagree, after a week or so, we should really do a Request for comment on the article. One of us will have to write a 'neutral statement' (hee, hee,). Take care. Gosgood (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gosgood, actually, I have no problem with that week deadline. Most editors usually allow about 3 minutes before reverting :). I personally don't like See also sections and youtube links. Thats just one editor's opinion. Could we/you find other reliable sources in place of that? Can the See also folks be incorporated into the article? This is not a biggie for me so I will try not to revert again. Anyways, good luck and cheers! --Tom (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• 'See Also' sections are crutches. But if you are missing limbs, love 'em, hate 'em, it won't matter – you'll be using crutches. This is a broken article. It is missing aspects of the man's life, so it needs to link to other biographies for themes that aren't developed here yet. I've been looking at what you do over the last month: link cleaning. Good work; not too many editors notice when their articles become redundantly linked, and I've noted that in cases where you've purged other articles of their 'See also' sections and nobody notices or complains, then I take this as their implicit agreement that it was time to kick the crutches. The article has grown enough legs to stand on its own. But if I were doing what you do (and I don't I have the tenacity for that) and I got push-back, Like here at this article, or over here where Andyvphil pushed back over the [[Ketuanan Melayu]] link, then I think I'd defer to the judgement of the other editor and leave things be, especially if the editor shows up in the article's edit history frequently. I think you do this anyway: you don't unconditionally remove 'See also' sections; from time to time you just prune them, as you did here. Even top-rated, featured articles like the United States Senate has them. Heck, even the Guide to Layout, has one. Wikipedia isn't finished. ninety-nine percent and plus articles are incomplete. 'See also' sections compensate for their incompleteness by funishing links to related, and necessarily supporting, articles. I think when editors ask that 'See also' should be kept, they should be kept.
• I guess you and I disagree on YouTube, but to me there appears to be no ban on referencing material from there on Wikipedia – there is even a {{YouTube}} template to facilitate external links to the site, and citations to material on YouTube arise in {{cite video}} usage. As I noted above, I'm really using YouTube as a repository. I'm referencing a show that ran on Manhattan Neighborhood Network because the producer put it there. Regardless of its format, it is a key reference. To my knowledge, Reid Stowe does not have a published autobiography or biography. Without the Channer show in the reference list, large chunks of his biography are now unreferenced, and readers of the article cannot follow up on Reid Stowe's claim to having navigated a small boat twice across the Atlantic. You and I probably disagree on this, but to my mind, YouTube is just another repository of references. One does have to take care not to cite stolen material, or material that embeds copyright violations. That's a cautionary which is not unique to YouTube. On this ground: key reference with unique material, I wish most emphatically to restore the reference. It is an important to this article and that it happens to be housed on YouTube is an incidental not worth kicking about. If you want to do an RFC on this, let's do it. Otherwise, in the absence of other commentary I really, really would like to restore it. Soon. Thanks! take care. Gosgood (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gosgood, you have rightly determined that alot of my edits are "clean-up", style issues, ect. I wouldn't bring this to RFC since this is pretty low radar stuff and you have made your points well. Feel free to be BOLD and I will not revert this article but will comment here. Cheers again! --Tom (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)ps, I just reverted myself on the article page, --Tom (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

The quotes that have been removed were taken directly from the 1000Days.net site, which is authored by Reid Stowe. I see no reason why they should not accompany this article, and why they were moved. I would like to see this quotes restored in their original form. NautiGirl 13:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Bold, Revert, Discuss (Discuss, (Discuss...(Discuss...))) Game. See something you don't like? Be bold and change it. Dislike a revert? Be bold and revert it back. But before falling into change->revert cycles, take round two to the talk page and hammer it out with whoever thinks the edits should go the other way.

My humble opinion. These quotes belong in Wikiquote. See remark three: When not to use quotations. As for the citations to these quotes? Slovenly done. I know editors who have been working on this encyclopedia for awhile are not supposed to bite the newcomers, but we can ask newcomers to study how citations are done so that general readers of the articles can find references quickly, in their original form, or study the contexts of quotes. Much of that study involves learning the care and feeding of the Citation templates, the norm for this article. An unlinked string of text in the main article space is amateurish and practically useless and begs the accusation that the quote is really made up and is being attributed to Reid Stowe. Mentioning here, in an entirely different place, that the quotes were taken from 1000Days.net is hardly any better; that site gushes words; we are asking readers to go search for strings. Some readers, like 75.5.202.81, might just decide that it is easier to edit/delete than it is to go find quotes that some editor did not cite well in the first place and they are in their rights to do so. Please use {{cite web}} and do the due diligence research to fill out what the template asks for. Done correctly, the template furnishes a link that brings the reader directly to the web page where the quote resides; the reader can then look at the quote in context and decide if it is apt or not. Failing this, these quotes are fair game for any deletionist in a housecleaning mood. Take care Gosgood 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retain neutral content

I removed Donald Crowhurst reference as it is an inflammatory redirect and I removed full section of QUOTES as I agree with Gosgood that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. Catdreams (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

--I believe the quotes are an important insight into the psyche of Stowe and have restored them, as well as the reference to Donald Crowhurst and the Bumfuzzles, given the similarities that they are/were persons with little offshore sailing experience. Audio God™ (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Audio God, née Aloha27, I removed the quotes again because they make their point poorly, if at all. They sit there, without explanation, or without aiding the general reader of the article. They function in the realm of vague innuendo. Encyclopedia articles are not well served by vague innuendo. They are better served by clear, unambiguous prose that summarizes information gleaned from reliable, outside sources. Particular points follow.

1. If the purpose of these quotes is to bring balance to the article, and by 'balance,' I mean some viewpoint that runs counter to how Reid Stowe has been popularized in the press, how he represents himself on his web site, or how this article represents him, then there is a far better way: (1) find published critical analysis on either the Mars Ocean Odyssey or Reid Stowe's seamanship, written under an author's byine. (2) write the synopsis of the author's analysis here, integrated within the body of the article, and (3) cite the author's work as a supporting reference. Such a contribution would be worthwhile because it would bring balance via explicit and unambiguously written prose, prose that would make the case far more clearly than this accumulating mass of unsynthesized quotes.
2. The sheer mass of quotes makes the article look like a page from Wikiquote. This is an encyclopedia article, not a place to list sundry quotations from Stowe's blog site. Dragging quotes over from his web site from time to time, without integrating the material into the article is just a lazy way to add content, a bad substitute for keen, critical writing. See the opening paragraphs of the Wikipedia quotation guidelines for further remarks on the excessive use of quotes.
3. Quotes are best integrated into the body of the article In what way, precisely,does a quote illustrate an 'insight into the psyche' of Reid Stowe? A conscientious editor would map the topic of a particular quote to a point on the arc of the article's narrative so that the quote and the article work together to reinforce one another. In the present case the quotes sit entirely outside of the article, sans any explanation whatsoever. This is slovenly work at best: it selfishly expects the reader to reconstruct whatever insight the quote is supposed to illustrate.
4. The {{Cquote}} template is being used improperly. It is intended for pull quotes, a journalistic device to lead readers into a key topic. Here they are applying graphical emphasis to nine separate quotes. With all these quotes receiving graphical emphasis of a key topic, none are being emphasized. As they are all equally competing for eyeball attention, it makes for a confusing page that does not serve the reader.

Please regard these quotes as a contested edit: Over the past month 141.149.82.5, Catdreams and myself have raised objections to these quotes. Please do not subject readers to unnecessary and unwelcome article volatility by unilaterally restoring them. Instead, please discuss here and establish consensus. If that fails to materialize, then let us take the matter to a wider audience via an article request for comment. Thank you. Gosgood (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Audio God, née Aloha27 on both your points you fail to address the actual issue for why these entries are being deleted. [1] Encyclopedia article should not contain QUOTES that function in the realm of vague innuendo. [2] Links to Donald Crowhurst and the Bumfuzzles are inflammatory. Your reasoning of including them as "similarities... little offshore sailing experience" is flawed. The article already clearly describes earlier voyages of Reid: 1973 North Atlantic to Holland, solo voyage to Africa, a second Atlantic crossing, a trip to Brazil and the Amazon, five months sailing the waters around the Antarctic Peninsula and the South Shetland Islands. That does not equate to "little offshore sailing experience". 64.131.181.89 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Little offshore sailing experience is exactly, in my opinion what Stowe and crew have. According to your logic, since my father played 16 years (some 450 points) in the National Hockey League and myself one game (0 points), between us we have amassed 450 professional points in the NHL. Ridiculous!

Patti and I have 13,000 logged miles cruising on our yacht and STILL consider ourselves intermediate cruisers at best. However, you put our vessel/crew/experience/preparedness vs. Stowe's and he comes out a very, very poor second indeed. Aloha27 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but so what? No one knows who you really are, Aloha27, which is why your, mine, 64.131.181.89, 141.149.82.5, Catdreams, or any other Wikipedia editor's opinions have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia articles. See your talk page for a fuller discussion. We are all inherently anonymous agents and our competencies cannot be established, so what does it matter what we think? What has a bearing on this or any other Wikipedia article are only just contributions substantiated by writers who publish under bylines in publications with editorial oversight. These writers furnish us the secondary sources upon which to ground Wikipedia's authority to publish. To the heart of the matter: you have opined on my talk page that "rotting sails, foul hull and questionable seamanship capabilities" mark Reid Stowe's expedition. state your sources. If they meet Wikipedia's not especially stringent standards of reliability, then your contributions to the article constitute 'signal.' Otherwise, it's 'noise'. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding January 29, 2008 edits

Should (75.12.148.224) recent contributions be considered vandalizing? I don't see value in Revision 02:42 30 Jan 2008 edit. Catdreams (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia has an intentionally narrow definition of vandalism, given the all-too-human failing of labeling anything contradictory to one's cherished point of view as disruptive behavior. These edits are not obscene; they do not constitute examples of crude humor, and they are not obvious nonsense. No portion of the article was deleted without explanation. In absence of such behavior, guidelines urge us to assume good faith. But are they good edits?

The quality of edits on Wikipedia is established through consensus among editors within a framework of policy, guidelines, generally accepted conventions of good writing, rounded out by a collection of interesting and sometimes contrary essays. 'Consensus' is the key word; unless an edit is 'obviously bad,' editors should not act unilaterally in reverting them.^[1]

My own opinion on the value of these edits are (in the order that they appear in edit diff):

1. Weather conditions: Comes from a Stowe quote in the ESPN reference. Is Wikipedia on solid grounds in writing as if those conditions were actually extant? Probably not. It's Stowe's quoted observation to ESPN, and not an independent observation, that conveys weather conditions to this article.
2. No wind instruments: No backing reference. According to verifiability policy it is the responsibility of the editor introducing a change (here 75.12.148.224) that can be challenged to furnish a backing reference supporting the change. No reference establishing how the expedition was equipped has been provided; a general reader of the encyclopedia cannot check this fact. An excessively polite editor might tag this alteration with {{cite}}, but if Jimmy Wales had his way, it should simply be removed.
3. 'Turned over' v. 'Knocked on its side': The underlying source by Doswell employed the phrase 'All of a sudden, the entire boat turned completely over sideways and slammed into the water within seconds.' The new wording seems to adhere to Doswell's wording more closely than the old article wording did; in no manner can Doswell's language can be construed as a 360° rotation of the hull. I have one small technical issue: this language should be before the Doswell citation tag, not after it; a casual reader would be mislead into thinking that this material is based on the following New York Times source.
4. Reasons for cancellation: Even before the copy changes, the sentence has been unreferenced and open to challenge. See the second point above. Nichol's Daily News piece Epic Trip or Con Cruise does collaborate on pre-voyage financial difficulties, as reported by Stowe. To my mind, attribution to Stowe is valid here.
5. 'Moving from Pier 63' v. 'Moving from Pier 63 according to Stowe' Williams' New York Times piece on the Hudson River Park development does not quote Stowe, so 'according to Stowe' has no support in that particular reference. Williams reports that a company called 'Pier 63 Maritime,' owner of 'an old railroad barge' was vacating the pier without contest. The Williams article does not make a direct connection with Stowe or the Schooner Anne to this railroad barge. To make that connection, one has refer to Stewart's earlier New York Times article (On the Waterfront, at Least for Now) That article connects Pier 63 Maritime to John Krevy, and that Stowe docked his boat there. Technically, citation tags to both references should follow the passage. Taken together, both New York Times articles establish the events that Pier 63 closed; by inference all habitues of the railroad barge had to go elsewhere. Stowe isn't in the loop here; it's not Stowe's utterances but the reporting of the New York Times that establishes the causality of the move. The edit is inaccurate and makes the passage more wordy.
6. Ozone Depletion. The quote is valid, but it is from a primary source (Stowe's web site) from which 75.12.148.224 is synthesizing a conclusion about Stowe's understanding of the depletion of the ozone layer. Because primary sources have such limited contexts, extending plausible conclusions from them is tempting for editors ('It is perfectly obvious that...'). But the enlargement of context that such conclusions engender is synthesis, and to my mind, this sort of synthesis is more properly done by named authors producing secondary sources; it is not the business of Wikipedia editors, who are anonymous and who cannot be held accountable for their editorial work, to be constructing conclusions about article subjects on Wikipedia turf (and at risk to Wikipedia's reputation). Also, on a purely technical ground, the editor should use the {{cite web}} template rather than a bare HTML reference. That is the norm for this article, so that references neatly appear in one place, at the bottom of the page, and so that readers can easily find them and use them.

If I have been condescending in enumerating my opinions of these edits, I apologize; that is not my intention. These are my attempts at illustrating careful editing practices, particularly important in the realm of living persons. I think I've made it clear that these edits are not vandalism, but that [2], [5], [6] are questionable, and subject to modification, while [1], [3], and [4] work for me, though they suffer from minor technical issues. Consensus? Lack of consensus? Take care. Gosgood (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page notes

[edit] Sailing Anarchy external link

There are two sources of information about this topic on the Internet: the mission home page and the Sailing Anarchy discussion forum. One is favorable, the other critical. To my mind, both qualify under guideline 4 of the external link guideline. It's not a matter of truth, balanced point of view, or accuracy. it is simply a matter that when a significant event occurs during the course of this voyage, these two sites fairly quickly reflect something of the nature of what happened. Any reader having only a vague awareness of who Reid Stowe is can get the synopsis here, and then move on to the two most active sites on this topic for further commentary -- much of it, of course, being slanted, disingenuous, and charged with particular points of view. I trust that readers can figure that out on their own and form their own opinions. On the other hand, for this article to offer external links to one but not the other site is to simply do an incomplete job of topic coverage. It is on that basis that I've restored the link to the Sailing Anarchy and contest unilateral edits involving its removal. If you don't like the link, and think that it ought to be removed, bring the discussion here first; do not subject readers of this encyclopedia the instability of edit warring. Thanks, and take care. Gosgood (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to 1000daysofhell

I'm curious as to when the link to the parody website was removed? Rather than just replace it, I thought I'd find if it was taken down for a reason. Aloha27 (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE disregard... while I was posting here, the link was restoredAloha27 (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing 1000daysofhell link. The SailingAnarchy link is the true critical source. It shows the entire dialog between people making critical comments of the project. 1000daysofhell is not timely and it is redundant. Catdreams (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The majority of substantive posts at Sailing Anarchy are critical, however there are quite a few posts in support of 1000 Days at Sea. Many of these supporting posts are quite confrontational in nature. Anyone who supports the voyage is free to post whatever they wish at Sailing Anarchy without censorship. 1000 Days of Hell is timely, and actually reported Soanya's arrival in NY many hours before it was reported on 1000 Days at Sea site. Sailing Anarchy is uncensored and neutral. A link to 1000 Days of Hell should be included to ensure balance with 1000 Days at Sea.

External links for this article states "Commercial or promotional links, or links that are only tangentially related to Reid Stowe will be removed.In the discussion page." While the 1000 Days at Sea site contains valuable information updated on a regular basis, it can also be argued that the site is commercial and promotional. On the site they solicit funds to maintain the site and fund the voyage. Should the link to 1000 Days at Sea be removed based on these rules?

I have restored the link to 1000 Days of Hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regatta Dog March 2nd edits

Regatta Dog left these comments on my talk page, enumerating his motivations for his March 2nd edits. There doesn't seem to be anything about these comments that are personal to me, particularly, and seem more appropriate for the article talk page, so if there are no objections I'm moving them here for general review. I appreciate that Regatta Dog took time to explain why he edited the article the way he did; it is a marked improvement over fly-by-night visits from anonymous editors. I plan to respond to some of these in the fullness of time, just not now: it's a busy weekend for me. Just one remark on the NY Daily news reference. The February 22 printed version of the article does indeed have the title "Seasick, she's bailing: Novice got in too deep with 1,000 day sail" The printed version appeared on page 8 of the Daily News, and that page number was the only indication in the citation that I was sourcing from the newspaper itself, and not the online version. Probably make sense to cite both printed and online versions; they differ somewhat in matters other than the title. Gosgood (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 02 edits

Re - Weather conditions - You state in the Reid Stowe Talk Page - "Weather conditions: Comes from a Stowe quote in the ESPN reference. Is Wikipedia on solid grounds in writing as if those conditions were actually extant? Probably not. It's Stowe's quoted observation to ESPN, and not an independent observation, that conveys weather conditions to this article." Yet, the article still contains the entry. The entry should be removed as it is unverifiable by an uninterested source.

RE - Mission Planning and Execution - The last line reads - "Of these unrealized scientific research plans, entailing personnel trained in data capture, Harrison noted in his 2001 Spacefaring: The Human Dimension, "...when it was all said and done, just as in the case of a real Mars mission, it proved difficult to fund."[18]" The quote from Harrison was written over 5 years before the voyage commenced. Therefore, Harrison could not have been referring to this voyage as the quote implies. Also, the press release that contains the goals of the voyage was an official document of the voyage the day they departed Hoboken and it is still on their website without alteration as of today. The article should not allow any external reasons for not attaining their goals. I have removed the Harrison quote.

RE - "A second, more serious mishap occurred on May 6th 2007 when the schooner ran into a container ship that left the schooner's bowsprit heavily damaged, though the hull and the remainder of the ship was unscathed." Changed "had an encounter with" to "ran into" The Coast Guard incident report that appears on the 1000 days at sea site makes it clear that the Anne hit the freighter. An important distinction, though not sure it warrants a footnote.

RE - Second paragraph of article replaced "captain of expedition" with "head of expedition". Use of title "captain" implies that Reid Stowe has a USCG Captain's License. There is no evidence that he does.

RE - Subsequent Attempts - Removed "Pier 63 Maritime, operator of the railroad barge to which the Anne was moored, was removed in 2007 to make way for the demolition of Pier 63, a part of the development of the Hudson River Park. This required Stowe to move the schooner Anne to Hoboken, giving rise to further delays.[21][28]" Neither article establishes a causal relationship between the removal of the barge and the delays.

RE - - Added "I've given him nearly $7,000 worth of food,". From same NYDaily News article and Relevant to Reid's following statement regarding contributors.

RE - First paragraph of article added - "funded by thousands of donated dollars". From NYDaily News article. Entire voyage is funded by donors/sponsors - critical to the overall story.

RE - Mission Planning and Execution - Replaced "the onboard infrastructure reported from time to time on" with "due to lack of equipment" and "periodic entries in". The text deleted was confusing and difficult to decipher.

RE - Mission Planning and Execution - Moved "A representative for NASA says she doesn't know anyone at the agency who is following Stowe's mission", reported Eliza Strickland in Wired Online." to introduction with other NASA discussion. Important quote, but not related to planning and execution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

RE - Added "Stowe and Ahmad's trip has been criticized by many other sailors who consider it ill-conceived, dangerous and irresponsible.[5]" from NY Daily News. In the reference for theis article, the title of the article is incorrect. The article is titled "One-half of amateur sailing duo gets seasick and jumps ship from voyage" I don't know how to change that. Can someone let me know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

March 22 Edits -- From Regatta Dog Added information gathered from the press about Reid Stowe's legal issues ---

"Shortly after Mr. Stowe dropped off his companion, the press revealed that he is a convicted drug smuggler and owes back child support. Adam Nichols, of the NY Daily News, reported that Mr. Stowe is a “deadbeat dad running from nearly $10,000 owed in child support”. The article states that “New York's Department of State issued a warrant for Stowe in 2005, claiming he owed $11,581" [4]. According to an article at Gothomist.com, Reid Stowe also served some time in a federal penitentiary in the early 1990s after he was caught smuggling 15 tons of marijuana aboard his boat [5]."

As the article's topic is "Reid Stowe", his smuggling conviction and his outstanding child support are important aspects of his life. Adam Nichols has written a number of positive stories for the NY Daily News about Reid's efforts which are referenced a number of times. The same reporter found evidence of Reid's child support problems. He and the editors at the NY Daily News felt it notable enough to publish an article about it. The Gothamist article references Reid's conviction for drug smuggling. As the vast majority of this article is attributable to press releases from Reid's shore team, quotes from Reid and/or his supporters and shore team, and articles in the press which have been favorable to Reid Stowe and his efforts, balance dictates that his child support issues and drug smuggling conviction be included in his article.

I apologize if external links cause a problem. I studied the tech info, but was unable to figure out the footnote thing.

RD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.227.149 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to change the references/footnotes at the bottom of the page, but there's a major error in footnote 40 which reads -

"^ a b Jock Main and Jon Harper of http://FreoDoctor.com.au interviewed Soanya Ahmad shortly after processing by Australian customs officers. They briefly interviewed Jon Sanders as well, who had been part of the pickup crew. Mr. Sanders had conversed with Reid Stowe, found him determined to continue with the voyage and thought the schooner capable of going the distance. Soanya Ahmad, Jock Main, Jon Harper. Interview with Soanya Ahmad, Feb. 22, 2008, Perth [On location video camera]. Royal Perth Yacht Club VIP Jetty, Perth, Western Australia: Freo Doctor."

I think it is inappropriate to editorialize within a footnote. In the interview, Jon Sanders did not say the "schooner was capable of going the distance". To say in a footnote that Jon Sanders "found him determined to continue with the voyage" is an opinion of whoever wrote the footnote and does not accurately reflect Jon Sanders' statements in the interview. I would suggest eliminating all editorial comments. They don't belong in the footnotes section or even the article itself.

Regatta Dog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.227.149 (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)