Talk:Sunday Times Golden Globe Race

Creation

I will tidy this up when I get a chance. Could probably be better organised and formatted.--CharlieP 12:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe that user Johantheghost did this article slightly better. It may be worth it to consider merging the two articles. User:Johantheghost/Sandbox
--Mystaker1 23:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Following discussion with Charlie, this has been done. — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

References section

The references section is huge, and would look better in two columns. However, I can't figure out a way to do this without screwing up the reference numbering. Ideas? — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

First ever race?

The article currently says that the Golden Globe was the first non-stop, single-handed, round-the-world yacht race. Fine, but were there any prior round-the-world yacht races at all? Or was the Golden Globe actually the first ever round-the-world yacht race of any kind?

• First Volvo Ocean Race (crewed, stopping): 1972
• First BOC Challenge (solo, stopping): 1982
• First Vendée Globe (solo, nonstop): 1989
• First Global Challenge (crewed, stopping): 1989

The great clipper races (and they weren't yachts, of course) were typically over one leg, eg. Sydney-London, and I wouldn't consider them round-the-world races as such; although Lightning made a record circumnavigation in 5 months, 9 days, which included 20 days spent in port, in 1855. What else was there? And if it was the first, how would we provide evidence of this (ie. citing a source)? — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've now stated that this was the first round-the-world yacht race. I'm sure this is true, and all the present-day races started after 1969. However, it would be really good to find a reference of some kind to back this up. The problem is that this essentially involves "researching a negative"; ie. researching for references about the lack of a prior race. — Johan the Ghost _seance 22:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Review

This article looks really good and it's great that it's got some photos and pictures. One thing it could really do with is some photos of the competitors and their boats. Although I'm not in London I will try to get a friend to take a photo of Suhaili.--CharlieP 20:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Charlie, that would be great! The problem is, of course, getting copyright-free pics; but if you can do that, it would be fantastic. If anyone's reading this from Cayman Brac, a pic of Teignmouth Electron would be cool!  ;-) BTW, comments for the peer review are being taken at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sunday Times Golden Globe Race/archive1. — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't go to Greenwich! Suhaili is apparently now back in the water (yay!), and berthed at Falmouth. If anyone can get pics of her sailing in the Round the Island race in June, that would be awesome. — Johan the Ghost _seance 13:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Note on boat lengths

I've put lengths in feet first, because that's how they were (and mostly still are) done. (I think even the French used feet???) Be careful not to cause confusion when referring to boat lengths in metres, because the old "metre" system of boat measurement has very little to do with length — a "12-metre" boat would usually be much longer than 12 metres. — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to Friday

In "The start", there is a sentence which links to Friday:

Knox-Johnston got underway from Falmouth soon after, on June 14; he wasn't disturbed by the fact that it was a Friday.

This would normally be discouraged, except that I've linked to Friday because there is a specific superstition about sailing on a Friday which is relevant to the sentence in which it is used, so this link actually adds relevant information to the article. So, please don't unlink it. I've added a comment in the page source to explain this. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea that there was such a superstition. Interesting. The 'not disturbed about a Friday' phrasing just seems odd unless you know that. Would you consider making it more explicit? It is currently like Catch 22: unless you know it is important, you won't follow the link and you won't follow the link unless you know it is important. The only way out of the cycle is to tell people of the relevance in the text. Hope that explains the problem for a naive reader like me. bobblewik 13:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; done. — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That is much clearer. Cheers. bobblewik 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my rationale for linking Friday (since it's the subject of renewed debate):

• The sentence makes specific reference to the Friday superstition, which impacted the start dates of several racers.
• The Friday article provides specific additional context for this.

Currently Friday isn't great, but I think the solution is to expand and reference that article, not delete the link to it. — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, per MOSLINK, it should be a specific link to the relevant section: Friday#Superstition. Second, since there's only one clause there that is relevant (with a citation), why not forget the link and put it in this article, where it's more cohesive/convenient for the readers? Tony (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (copied by user:Chunky Rice from the Friday article.)

As I said above, let's improve Friday. A detailed discussion of superstitions related to Friday doesn't belong in an article about a specific boat race. This article already says "... it was a Friday, contrary to the common sailors' superstition that it is bad luck to begin a voyage on a Friday", which I think is quite enough for here. And thanks to Chunky for making the link to the correct section. — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for moving it here—I don't know how that happened. I still can't see why the reader should be linked to a wild-goose chase in a linked section to find virtually no more information about the superstition; the citation belongs in this article, doesn't it? Generally, we try to minimise links to articles that provide mostly useless information to the topic at hand. Let's remember that every blue link dilutes the high-value ones. And I don't think WPs are generally aware just how hard it is to get readers to hit a link (that is why I strongly promote selective linking). On the matter of the countries, we got into the habit of linking the name of every single country, sometimes multiple times in an article. Why, in the English-language WP, is a link to "England", the "UK", and for that matter "France" appropriate? The only possible reasons are (1) that such country-names are little-known and likely to be clicked on by some readers to learn what the heck or where the heck they are, which is highly unlikely; or (2) that the information in those country articles is going to add to readers' understanding of the topic (also highly unlikely).

My concern is that clipper route and clipper ships, relatively high-value links, are diluted unnecessarily by useless links (whether "Sydney" should be linked is questionable; and who, please, needs to divert to read the articles on London, India and South Africa right now?). English-speakers, especially in this context, are expected to know what "sponsor" means (twice, no less)—it's not Wiktionary; same for "knighted" (Sir "Francis Chichester" is linked above already—and should IMO be piped to include the "Sir"; that article puts the concept of knighthood in good context; we don't need a trip down history lane in the general article on "knight" here).

As for WP:CONTEXT, yes, our friend Ckatz has been edit-warring over the past days there to change the guidelines concerning geographical names, which he believes should be linked all over the place; this will need to be sorted out soon. In any case, MoS (main) provides perfectly adequate reason to link selectively, not with a scattergun the way we used to. Please have a look at the guideline at the main page.

WP has moved strongly away from providing magic blue flying carpets to for diversionary browsing, since they end up damaging the utility of our unique wikilinking system. Tony (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand the process you're using here. What makes Tahiti a high value link and France a low value link? It seems incredibly arbitrary to me. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• You can quibble with the boundaries between what is well-known among most English speakers and what is not. "France" appears incontrovertibly to be sufficiently well-known to make a link useless (who will click on it?). I might or might not link "Tahiti" in this context—it's not nearly as well-known as France or the US or the UK. We have to draw the line somewhere, or we'll be linking every work in sight for fear that some fifth-grader doesn't know what it means. Remember, links come at a cost: (1) dilution of other links; (2) visual messiness on the page; and (3) consequent slight reduction in ease of reading. I don't want to overstate the case for the second and third aspects, but they do add up when there are lots of links in a text. This is why selective linking is so important on a wiki. This is not rocket science—just common sense when you think it through. Tony (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• See, I have thought it through, yet I seem to disagree with a lot of what you do. I do agree, fudamentally, that overlinking is not good. We seem to disagree, by a significant amount, on what constitutes overlinking. And I happen to think that have a fair amount of common sense. Obviously, you disagree with that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline sidebar

I thought a timeline sidebar in some form might be cool, but it kind of clutters up the article, and doesn't seem to have much support -- so I've removed it. It's archived at Talk:Sunday Times Golden Globe Race/Timeline sidebar. — Johan the Ghost _seance 08:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nationality of competitors

Could you add in the "Competitors" section the nationality of the competitors? CG 09:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea -- done. I've also split the "Boat" field off. — Johan the Ghost _seance 11:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the nationalities by flags. Hope it's better. CG 09:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To do

The recent FAC raised one big comment on this article, which is that it needs some significant diversification of the references. I aim to tackle this as best as I can; all other contributions welcome.

The current main references are:

• A Voyage for Madmen: Nichols' well-researched overview of the race.
• A World of My Own: Knox-Johnston's book of his voyage.
• The Long Way: Moitessier's book of his voyage.

I have the following on order, and will integrate references from them:

• Trimaran Solo: Tetley's book of his voyage. (Pretty dull stuff.)
• The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst: book about Crowhurst's voyage, by Tomalin and Hall, two Sunday Times journalists who were closely connected with the race; contains a lot of background info about the race.

And other than diving into the newspaper archives (which is what Nichols and Tomalin and Hall have done), that's it for major references as far as I know. If anyone has any info on more possible useful references, please post it here. Note that most of the articles I've seen on the net add little or nothing over these books. — Johan the Ghost _seance 03:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomalin and Hall were both working for the Sunday Times at the time that the Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst was written (as you noted above), and had access to the documents relating to the organisation of the race and to Crowhurst's log books and other papers left on board the Teignmouth Electron. Other accounts of Crowhurst's voyage have tended to be based on this reconstruction. Orbitalforam (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Opinion/NPOV

I have a problem with:

The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst[62] is a fascinating and well-researched account of Crowhurst's downfall.

The "fascinating" and "well-researched" are clear examples of editorial opinion in violation of WP:NPOV. What is really needed is to cite a professional review of the book that gives these opinions. TheGrappler 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found three reviews that could be used for this, from the amazon.com listing but both need to be dated.

"Wholly riveting, superbly professional, brilliantly researched, and presented with the sort of critical compassion that is the mark of really fine journalism." — James Cameron (presumably the subject of the article James Cameron (journalist)), Evening Standard

"A meticulous investigation into the seeds of disaster. . . . What is extraordinary is Tomalin and Hall's analysis of the man himself . . . and the result makes fascinating, uncomfortable reading." — Hammond Innes, Sunday Times

"The story of Donald Crowhurst is told with frankness and meticulous attention to the relevant facts, combined with clarity and sensitivity in the portrayal of the delicate balance of courage, foolhardiness, brilliance and romanticism that formed the character of the man, a character which contained the seeds of his own destruction. This great classic sea story . . . is poignant, sobering and utterly fascinating." — Nautical Magazine

These reviews will presumably date to the original 1970 publication, if anybody wants to check and cite the original review (which would look a lot more professional than quoting back-page blurb without a citation!). TheGrappler 00:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Internal consistency error(s) in associated articles

Ok with some of the qualifications here at least the first one (specifying the type of ship may not be a problem but):

From Nigel Tetley

Nigel Tetley (died 2 February 1972) was the first person to circumnavigate the world solo in a trimaran.

From Bernard Moitessier

In 1968, Moitessier participated in the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race, a race to become the first sailor to circumnavigate the earth alone and non-stop.

From Robin Knox-Johnston

Sir William Robert Pat "Robin" Knox-Johnston (born 17 March 1939) was the first man to perform a single-handed (i.e. solo) non-stop circumnavigation

Ok so who was it? I have not finished reading this article yet so maybe it is answered here but we do have at least two bio articles linked in the opening paragraph with conflicting claims, and one that is a qualified claime that shoudl be made mroe clear. Dalf | Talk 09:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

They do not contradict. The first one, as you say, qualifies it with the type of ship. The second refers to the race rather than the sailor. The third refers to the sailor and is consistent with this article. --Cherry blossom tree 09:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The second one perhaps SHOULD refer to the reace but it does not. It says ... well I bolded what it says there is no mention of the race in the claim. Ah yes you are correct. Stillw as a bit confusing and I think the top one should include mention of the others in diffrent ships beefore him or at least that there were some. Dalf | Talk 10:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this reader (separate from the above commentator) is confused as to how Crowhurst would go into business with his Trimaran self-righting system, as it states in the Race Declared section, after he committed suicide at sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.173.216 (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"This reader" is perhaps too easily confused. The section is talking about what Donald Crowhurst intended to do after the race.Orbitalforam (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Chay Bith's rowing experience

While Bith had no sailing experience, he did have remarkable experience at long distance rowing, so currently the table of competitors is a little misleading. Should an additional, bried note, of his transatlantic rowing be included? TheGrappler 09:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair point -- done. — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

Congratulations on making this an FA! I have to confess, I'd never heard of this race until its article popped up on the front page. The story is absolutely fascinating; I kept thinking as I was reading what a neat movie this story would make. Thanks for working so hard and sharing this with the world! --Dmleach 18:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Crowhurst's voyage / Sources

Very interesting article, but when i read it i was quite confused as to where Crowhurst went. I dont think it actually said that he broke off from the route and went elsewhere. Did he just go in circles around the Atlantic until the rest had "caught up", or did he land in South America for a while or something?

I'm also not sure about the way the article is written. The angle it is looked upon just doesnt feel.. right in places somehow. I dont know.. It seems that the article relies too much upon A Voyage for Madmen. Is this the only main source of information? Are there not any newspaper articles, or books by/about the sailors and ship logs that can be used? It almost feels like the article is just reiterating what is said in the book.

Sorry to be objective here when its already an FA; it is a good article, but i think that some different sources could do it some good. -- jeffthejiff 04:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

'A Voyage for Madmen' is the only book, as far as I know, to give an overview of the whole race. All the major competitors either wrote books themselves or (in the case of Crowhurst) had books written about them. The problem was that all the books focus on the individual competitors from what I've seen and the sense of a race is really lost. Because all the competitors set off at very different times the race was very disjointed. Even press reports at the time were very unreliable. (The press honestly thought that Crowhurst was in contention right up until the final stages). For long periods of the race no one knew where Moitessier or Knox-Johnston were (Moitessier because he was deliberately avoiding communication and KJ because of problems with his radio as I recall). All in all I don't think that it's too much of a problem to rely so heavily on AVFM because its the only source to give a real overview of the whole race (as far as I know)--CharlieP 10:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we could find some press reports they'd come in handy so we could say what the press was reporting, which gives another angle to it even if it isnt actually correct (as long as we state that what they were reporting was wrong where it is). Maybe AVFM is the only proper book about the race as a whole, but the competitor's individual books can surely give a few facts about what they did individually, even if we have to use AVFM to piece them together as part of the race? does that make sense? it just seems silly to only be able to write about the event in the constraints of that book, almost to the point of ripping it off. Does the book state any references at all, so we can look up things from the original sources? -- jeffthejiff 13:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the References section, you will see that AVFM is not the only source used -- although it's fair to say that I've leaned on it rather hard. No, it doesn't state its sources. Someday soon, I swear, I'm going to go through the individuals' books and pul out more references from them. The problem is that Trimaran Solo is terribly dull, and every time I pick it up my eyes glaze over...

As for where Crowhurst went, I thought it was fairly clear...

Crowhurst's actual position, meanwhile, was off Brazil, where he was making slow progress south, and carefully monitoring weather reports from around the world to include in his fake log . . . Crowhurst badly wanted to make repairs . . . After some planning, on March 8 he put in to the tiny settlement of Río Salado, in Argentina . . . Once his projected false position approached his actual position, he started heading north at speed . . . Although he had been sailing fast — at one point making over 200 nautical miles (370 km) in a day — as soon as he learned of Tetley's sinking, he slowed down to a wandering crawl . . . Over the following 8 days, he wrote 25,000 words of increasingly tortured prose, drifting farther and farther from reality, as Teignmouth Electron continued sailing slowly north, largely untended.

Do we need more than this? — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, rainy day today, so I finally got my finger out and scraped through Strange Last Voyage and Trimaran Solo for references. I think the refs section looks a lot better now. — Johan the Ghost _seance 22:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading it through again I see your point on Crowhurst -- I've added some clarification of what he decided and when, as near as it can be determined. — Johan the Ghost _seance 01:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lost background section

A big chunk of text has disappeared from the top of the article since 25 June (presumably on 1 July?) - diff. Is this deliberate? I liked the section on the genesis of the race, and it provided context for the rest of the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

@&#^#! Not deliberate. Vandal replaces section with image. vandalism "deleted". I've restored it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Great - I was not sure: it was edited by sensible editors afterwards and they didn't add it back, and it would make sense in a daughter article, but I couldn't see a link. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No more External Links

I've removed the External Links section, because there really are no external links -- there's no official web site or anything. Further Reading is more appropriate for relevant material like Don Holm's book, and an External Links section is kind of a spam magnet. Note that the link added by Oqm4 was to a movie script.... by oqm4. Self-promotion here is discouraged. — Johan the Ghost _seance 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Starting Point?

I'm a bit confused over what is classed as the starting point. The article states that this was England, although despite this, it also states that Ridgeway left from Inishmore. By England, does the article mean the sweeping generalisation of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? I think this article is genuienly brilliant, one of the most fascinating storied I have ever read, so I am just ironing out the kinks. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 15:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath: Nigel Tetley

I have amended the Aftermath section to include the facts surrounding the death of Nigel Tetley. Although the findings of the inquest have been publicly available ever since the tragedy in 1972, subsequent books and articles (including this one - and a FA at that!) have repeated the falsehood that Tetley committed suicide (whatever one's view of the circumstances, the coroner recorded an open verdict). Eakin's A Race Too Far (2008) has since drawn attention to the known facts (and also included a rare interview with Tetley's widow, Eve) and I have used this as the source. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review

This article is one of the oldest featured article promotions and it has not been reviewed since 2006. Since promotion, it has been tagged for citation and weasel words. If anyone familiar with the topic is watching the page, please try to address the specifically-tagged phrases in the hope that a featured article review can be avoided. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion Category talk:Yachting races

You should know about this and comment. One of our editors has systematically depopulated it (perhaps from this article among many others), and thinks that is a good reason to delete it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sunday Times Golden Globe Race. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326045820/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-009.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)