Talk:Graham Hughes

BU Rob13 in violation of three-revert rule

BU Rob13 will be reported for violating the 3 revert rule for performing more than 3 reverts on the same page within a 24 hour period. A warning has been given BU Rob13's Talk page.

See WP:3RRNO. Removing sourced content is obvious vandalism, which is an exemption to the 3RR. ~ Rob^Talk 10:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:3RRNO. The material being removed is unsourced and libelous covered by exceptions point 7. ~ Hobsie

Note, no citations exist in the section removed/reverted that supports claim to a "controversy" nor does it contain citation that any of the flights involved are in violation of the rules set out and agreed and verified by Guiness World Records - suggesting otherwise without citation is libellous. ~ Hobsie

A case could be made that it's not neutral enough, so I've edited it to remove some wording that could be construed as such. The current section sticks entirely to facts sourced from the article subject's own writings, which certainly does not violate WP:BLP. And those 3RR exemptions are things that allow you to revert, not things that prevent you from reverting; not sure what you were citing them to support. ~ Rob^Talk 10:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Those rules allowing reversion protect users from reverting the libellous reverts while making the case under vandalism invalid. I'll review the new wording before submitting this report for 3RR ~Hobsie

I think we have a reasonable compromise now - I will not send the 3RR report. ~Hobsie

I agree with the compromise and edit by Rob. Though it should be noted that the guiness world record is NOT for an unbroken journey, but merely visiting all countries by ground transport the fastest. I think the current text is generally satisfactory, however, it's misleading. I think it clearly implies that the journey was continuous and unbroken, and cites guiness as a source for verifying this. The controversy is whether the journey was continuous and unbroken. Taking a break, multiple times, to FLY, is not an "unbroken journey without flying". I propose we make a slight modification to the text and remove the word "unbroken".

Thus, I think it would be fair to edit the following line: " Graham returned to where he left, and therefore a continuous unbroken land journey to every country was successfully achieved meeting the requirements for the The Odyssey Expedition and has subsequently been awarded several Guinness World Records" and split it up to read: "Graham returned to where he left, and a continuous land journey to every country was successfully achieved meeting the requirements for The Odyssey Expedition. A Guinness World Record was subsequently awarded for the fastest time to visit all countries by public surface transport." And while I still don't 100% agree the journey was continuous, I think this would be a fair compromise. - Criticalb

Controversy

Graham, while I'm sure you don't want anything posted about your controversial claims. These edits are very fair, accurate, and cited with references to your own writings. It's important that you not continue to merely delete them because you don't like them. The first line on your page describing your expedition is that it is one journey without flying. Yet you flew multiple times. This is incompatible, and thus a controversial claim. You either flew during your journey, or you stopped your journey to fly. So either it's not "one journey" or it's not "without flying". It can't be both. The purpose of the update to your page is not to troll you as you commented, but to share the controversial claims with readers who may find these important and to provide a full understanding of the claims. Considering there is another traveler who is actively trying to achieve the goal of visiting all countries without flying in one journey, and appears to believe he will be the first, I think it's fair to say that your claim is controversial, and thus the edits should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.134.211 (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reformatted the section and removed the word "controversy". It's perfectly acceptable to put in sourced info on use of flights and breaks, but calling a controversy with no specific sources that consider it controversial could be construed as WP:OR or even non-neutral. ~ Rob^Talk 10:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The "controversy" stems from another traveler who disputes Mr. Hughes claims of a single unbroken journey without flight. Nobody is doubting or disputing Mr. Hughes incredible accomplishment, merely it being a single journey, thus the controversy. I think the "Odyssey Break" is a reasonable compromise and is unbiased and fair. ~ Criticalb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticalb (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Odyssey Break

I think the Odyssey Break is a fair compromise for the page itself. But I still find it controversial, and thus a comment here on the talk section. I think if you take a break, then your journey, by it's very definition, is not continuous or unbroken. I would also ask if Graham did ANYTHING while on break, in the UK, to further his journey. Such as VISA's.... If Graham did, in fact, help his journey along while in the UK, then this would be part of the journey and Graham would have flown during the journey. ~Criticalb

Protected edit request on 11 July 2015

The section Graham Hughes#Odyssey break includes "a continuous unbroken land journey to every every country" please remove one of the duplicate "every"s Arjayay (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Graham Hughes. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100205034216/http://www.hendicottwriting.com:80/?p=406&cpage=1 to http://www.hendicottwriting.com/?p=406&cpage=1

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 10:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)